Authored by Lily Zhou via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The outgoing Biden administration is banning imports from an additional 37 China-based companies over forced labor in Xinjiang, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said on Tuesday.

From Wednesday, Huafu Fashion, one of the world’s largest textile manufacturers, 25 of its subsidiaries, and 11 Chinese solar or mining companies, will be included in the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List for producing products or mining critical minerals in Xinjiang, where the Chinese communist regime is accused of human rights abuses against the Uyghur people and other Muslim-majority ethnic minorities.

Under the UFLPA, businesses are banned from importing products from companies on the list and anything mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in Xinjiang, unless they can prove no forced labor is involved.

Tuesday’s addition is the largest expansion to the list since the UFLPA became law in December 2021, bringing the total number of companies on the list to 144.

“In adding 37 companies to the UFLPA Entities List and bringing the total to nearly 150, we again demonstrate our relentless fight against the cruelty of forced labor, our unwavering commitment to basic human rights, and our tireless defense of a free, fair, and competitive market,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a statement.

The DHS said Huafu “maintains a vertically integrated supply chain from cotton planting in [Xinjiang], processing, and yarn spinning through textiles manufacturing.”

Among the 25 Huafu subsidiaries added to the list, 22 are located in Xinjiang.

According to a list published in July 2023, compiled by the Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice at Britain’s Sheffield Hallam University, Huafu had been connected in media or academic reports to state-sponsored labor transfer outside Xinjiang, while one of its subsidiaries, Xinjiang Tianfu Cotton Supply Chain Co., Ltd., had been connected to state-sponsored labor transfer within the region.

Three of the subsidiaries were connected to the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, which is sanctioned by the United States, according to the Sheffield Hallam University list. They include Shihezi Huafu Hongsheng Cotton Industry Co., Ltd., Huyanghe Huafu Hongsheng Cotton Industry Co., Ltd., and Xinjiang Tianfu Cotton Supply Chain Co., Ltd.

Since the early 2000s, the Chinese regime has implemented programs to transfer labor within Xinjiang or from Xinjiang to other provinces, claiming the policy is aimed at alleviating poverty. However, researchers have said the programs are coercive and have more sinister purposes, such as reducing the density of the Uyghur population.

In a report published in 2021 by Washington-based defense policy think tank the Jamestown Foundation, Adrian Zenz, senior fellow and director of China studies at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, and one of the first researchers to expose the mass detention of Uyghur Muslims and other minorities in internment camps in Xinjiang, said evidence provided “strong proof of the systemically coercive nature of Xinjiang’s labor transfer programs and underscores a process-oriented approach towards designating such programs to be forced labor.”

The Chinese regime has previously denied forced labor in Xinjiang, saying the allegations were made up by “anti-China” individuals and organisations in the West.

Other companies being added to the UFLPA Entity List “mine and process Xinjiang’s critical minerals” or “manufacture inputs for solar modules with polysilicon made in Xinjiang,” the DHS said.

The list includes limited companies Jiangsu Meike Solar Technology, Baotou Meike Silicon Energy, Shuangliang Silicon Materials (Batou), Xinjiang Energy (Group), Xinjiang Energy (Group) Real Estate, Xinjiang Zijin Zinc Industry, Xinjiang Jinbao Mining, Zijin Mining Group, Xinjiang Zijin Zinc Industry, Xinjiang Zijin Nonferrous Metals, and Xinjiang Habahe Ashele Copper.

In his final interview as U.S. Ambassador to China, Nicholas Burns told the Wall Street Journal’s Jonathan Cheng that Chinese officials severed communication with the U.S. after President Biden’s order to shoot down China’s spy balloon off the coast of South Carolina, calling it “the most tense moment” of his tenure in Beijing.

JONATHAN CHENG: This is perhaps your last interview here in Beijing, so let me just jump right in and ask: Was there a moment that you thought perhaps we were peering over the edge?

AMB. NICHOLAS BURNS: I have to tell you, after the balloon crisis—that was February, the beginning of February 2023—you remember that strange balloon that floated across the national territory of the United States from Alaska to South Carolina. When the president, quite rightfully, ordered it to be shot down over the territorial waters of South Carolina, in the aftermath of that, the Chinese shut down and refused to talk to us in senior-level channels. I was one of the few channels that we had going.

I was worried about the relationship. I think it was the most tense moment, February, March, April of 2023, and that is not healthy for a relationship between the two strongest military powers in the world because you don’t want a situation where a seemingly minor incident, like a misunderstanding in the Spratly Islands between our militaries, might become a major crisis. You want to be able to handle something like that.

JONATHAN CHENG: Now, if you’re sitting here in Beijing and you’re seeing the rhetoric about Canada, about Greenland, does it make it more difficult for the U.S. government to go to China and say we need to make sure that we respect sovereignty in the South China Sea or around the periphery of China? Does that make it harder?

AMB. NICHOLAS BURNS: The argument we made back three years ago when Putin invaded Ukraine is that country’s borders are sacred, that sovereignty is sacrosanct, and so that’s a fundamental building block of the stable, successful world that we had a lot of responsibility for building—that every single American president has honored.

JONATHAN CHENG: Part of the concern with China and Putin is the question of sovereignty. I mean, it sounds like it does make it more difficult.

AMB. NICHOLAS BURNS: Our message to Putin and the Chinese will be very strong and credible when we practice that respect for sovereignty, especially of our allies. These are two NATO allies. You know, NATO’s a collective defense organization. We pledge our fortunes to each other. On 9/11, it was the most extraordinary moment of my career when these countries, 18 others, came forward within several hours to say we’re with you. We’ll invoke this clause in the NATO Charter: an attack on one is an attack on all. Remember who led it? Canada.

JONATHAN CHENG: Now as we look ahead, The next administration, it looks like tariffs are going to be part of the mix here. Certainly, tariff threats are part of the mix. I mean, do you worry about that souring the relationship in particular? And do you grant that perhaps an approach that is tougher might actually yield some benefits?

AMB. NICHOLAS BURNS: I wouldn’t want to be unfair to them by trying to project what I think they may or may not do, but I will say this: President Biden has used tariffs. In fact, President Biden elevated the tariffs back in May of 2024. He ordered an increase of 100% tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles coming into the United States, 50% tariffs on Chinese semiconductors, and 25% tariffs on Chinese lithium batteries. So if the Chinese are going to compete unfairly, if they’re not going to meet us halfway, and if we were to avoid a second China shock that would lead to massive losses in manufacturing jobs in the United States, we’ve got to defend American workers.

JONATHAN CHENG: Certainly, the Republican Party would say so—that the Biden team hasn’t made that much progress on industrial overcapacity and that we need a tougher approach. And what would you say to them?

AMB. NICHOLAS BURNS: Well, we’ve certainly rung the village bell on industrial overcapacity. We see China trying to export its excess production of lithium batteries, solar panels, robotics, steel, to the rest of the world, and you’ve seen this extraordinary reaction. Who has raised tariffs on China? South Africa, Turkey, India, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Canada, the European Union, and the United States. So we are not alone in reacting to this, which tells you that the Chinese have miscalculated here, and we’ve reacted in a very strong way. When you raise tariffs in the way that President Biden did—so dramatically, with so much strength—I think that was the right thing for us to do.

JONATHAN CHENG: You’ve been concerned for your two-plus years at the time about the very aggressive Chinese government efforts to denigrate America, to tell a distorted story about American society, American history, American policy, and there’s a high degree of anti-Americanism online. As you walk out the door here, does that continue to concern you?

AMB. NICHOLAS BURNS: I think the efforts of the government to do all of that continue, unfortunately. You know, we call it the Battle of Ideas. The communist government here has an entirely different set of beliefs about the rights of individuals, about human freedom, about religious freedom, and we differ very strongly. We’re making sure that we have every possibility of going around their censors. They censor us every day, and it’s a cat-and-mouse game. We try to get our beliefs, a speech by President Biden, back into the airwaves here, back into the bloodstream of China, and I know we’re right in doing this. I think the American people would expect their embassy here to be waging this battle. It’s a peaceful battle, but it’s a battle for minds and for a true picture of American society. So, we’re just trying to defend an accurate view and project an accurate view of our society, our history, and the great ideals for which we stand.

JONATHAN CHENG: You’re going to get on a plane and return to the US. Do you worry about the future of US-China relations?

AMB. NICHOLAS BURNS: I think we should always be worried about it because here you have the two strongest economic powers and military powers at cross purposes on many of the major issues concerning the future of the world and the future of our relationships. So I think, as a diplomat, I’ve been constantly concerned in the nearly three years I’ve been here. We’ve got to have a combination of real strength and conviction that we’re going to uphold American national interests, and at the same time, we’re going to have to find a way to work with them and connect to them to keep the peace. Those are not contradictory; that’s two halves of a rational policy towards China.

Authored by Mollie Engelhart via RealClearHealth,

As a vegan chef turned regenerative cattle rancher, I’ve traversed the narrow divides between two worlds: the health-conscious, progressive enclaves of Los Angeles and the rugged, often misunderstood landscapes of rural Texas. For years, I lived and breathed the principles of organic farming and plant-based eating, firmly rooted in the belief that our food systems should be safe, resilient, and free from harmful chemicals. My community was predominantly left-leaning, passionate about clean water, food safety, and the dangers of over-medication. It felt like common sense.

Yet, a seismic shift occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Suddenly, the very people who once railed against chemicals in our food were now clamoring for more. They went from advocating for natural and holistic approaches to a new cult-like devotion to any and every product produced by big pharma, big ag and big food – seemingly forgetting the principles they once held dear. It left me bewildered and questioning the values of a movement I had long identified with.

I am a lifelong liberal. I married someone who is undocumented, and I’ve spent years passionately advocating for organic farming and holistic health. But as the pandemic unfolded, I began to realize that I had more in common with those I once considered my ideological opposites. In seeking a deeper understanding of the debate over the COVID-19 vaccines, I found myself listening to voices I had previously dismissed, including those of the right. It was a disorienting journey, yet it opened my eyes to a broader narrative.

One voice that stood out was Tucker Carlson. Initially, I viewed him through the lens of my biases, assuming he was a racist and a bigot. But as I listened more closely, I realized that he, too, was a father concerned for his children’s health and future. He shared my values around environmentalism, clean water, and the importance of preserving our natural world. This was a turning point for me. I recognized that we were not enemies; we were parents trying to protect our families in a world fraught with uncertainty.

This brings me to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. His candidacy for Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) resonates deeply with my journey. Many in my community dismiss him as a “whack job” with no medical background, but this kind of labeling is all too reminiscent of how I once viewed Carlson. RFK Jr. is not a threat; he is a champion for informed consent and transparency in our food and pharmaceutical systems.

His vision for HHS aligns perfectly with the values I hold dear. He advocates for reducing chemicals in our food supply and ensuring that parents have the right to understand what goes into their children’s bodies. As a mother, I believe it is our right to know the ingredients in the vaccines our children receive, just as it is our right to demand food that nourishes rather than harms. We cannot ignore the fact that cheap, chemically laden food is a privilege that comes at a grave cost to farmworkers’ health. I was reminded of this every time I spoke to Cynthia, a house cleaner in California, who was part of a team that harvested strawberries—each of them diagnosed with cancer before age 40.

The recent leftward shift towards accepting more chemicals in our food and water is disheartening. This is not merely a partisan issue; it’s a human issue. It’s about our children’s future and the environment we leave behind. We should be prioritizing clean air and water, not pushing for more fluoride or pesticides. True environmentalism is about ensuring that our food is safe, our air is breathable, and our water is drinkable. This has long been a cornerstone of progressive ideology, and it feels like we’ve lost our way.

It pains me to see my friends on the left resist RFK Jr.’s candidacy. He is an accomplished environmental advocate with a proven track record of holding powerful corporations accountable for their actions. He cleaned up the Hudson River and has been a steadfast voice for mothers who have often been ignored. His understanding of the intersection between corporate interests and government regulation is precisely what we need in this critical role.

I understand that the political landscape is fraught with emotion and disappointment, especially with the current administration. However, we must recognize that this is an opportunity for real, transformative change in our food systems—an opportunity to reshape the relationship between corporate interests and government oversight in a way that prioritizes public health and environmental responsibility.

As a mother, a farmer, a chef, and a concerned citizen, it would be a grave mistake to overlook the potential for substantial reform that RFK Jr. could bring to the Department of Health and Human Services. We have the chance to make significant strides toward a healthier food system and a more just society.

I urge the members of the United States Senate to move quickly to confirm Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as the next Secretary of Health and Human Services so that we can begin the critical work of making our nation’s food supply and its people healthy again.

Mollie Engelhart is an accomplished restauranteur, organic chef and regenerative farmer.

Emergency room wait times vary significantly across the United States depending on factors such as hospital resources, patient volume, and staffing levels, with some states facing delays that can stretch for more than three hours.

Long stays in the emergency department often point to issues like understaffing or overcrowding, leading to delays in treatment, and often times, worse patient health outcomes.

This map, via Visual Capitalist’s Kayla Zhu, visualizes the average time patients spend in the emergency department before leaving, by U.S. state and territory.

Data comes from the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and is updated as of Oct. 30, 2024.

This data reflects the average time patients spend at the emergency department, from the time they arrive to the time they leave, and excludes those who died in the emergency department, left without the approval of a licensed provider, or lacked documented discharge destinations.

Which State Has the Longest Emergency Room Visit Time?

Below, we show the average time patients spent in the emergency room before leaving, by state.

The median emergency room visit time in 2024 in the U.S. was 2 hours and 42 minutes. Twenty states had average emergency room visit times higher than the national average.

Washington, D.C. residents had the longest average emergency department visit times at 5 hours and 14 minutes, followed by Puerto Rico at 4 hours and 41 minutes.

These extended wait times in D.C. and Puerto Rico are likely due to a combination of high population density, limited healthcare resources, and potentially higher rates of uninsured patients seeking emergency care.

Rural and less populated states like North Dakota (1 hour 50 minutes), South Dakota (1 hour 53 minutes), and Nebraska (1 hour 54 minutes) had the shortest emergency room times, suggesting that lower patient loads and less crowded facilities contribute to faster processing.

Long emergency department waits worsen patient health, raise healthcare costs, and strain hospital resources, increasing risks of mortality and compromised care.

A University of South Caroline study found that prolonging the wait of a patient who arrives with a serious condition by 10 minutes will increase the hospital’s cost to care for the patient by an average of 6%.

To learn more about the health care landscape in the U.S., check out this graphic that visualizes the largest health insurance company in each U.S. state.

Authored by Megan Brenan via Gallup,

WASHINGTON, D.C. — As President Joe Biden prepares to leave office, Americans offer a largely negative assessment of the progress the U.S. has made during his presidency on 18 economic, national and international issues.

Majorities of Americans think the U.S. has lost ground in six areas over the past four years, including the federal debt (67%), immigration (64%), the gap between the wealthy and less well-off (60%), the economy (59%), the United States’ position in the world (58%) and crime (51%). Pluralities also say the nation has fallen behind in six other areas: education, terrorism, trade relations with other countries, race relations, the nation’s infrastructure and energy.

Meanwhile, U.S. adults are more likely to see progress (39%) than regression (23%) or steadiness (31%) on just one of the issues — the situation for gay, lesbian and transgender people.

More Americans believe the country has stood still on two issues — climate change and the situation for Black people — than think it has made progress or lost ground. U.S. adults are about evenly divided on whether the U.S. has lost ground or stood still on healthcare, national defense and the military, and taxes, with relatively few seeing progress in these areas.

These findings are from a Gallup poll conducted Dec. 2-18, a month into the presidential transition after Biden’s vice president, Kamala Harris, lost the election to Donald Trump.

Democrats Offer Much More Positive Evaluation Than Republicans in All Areas

Democrats, including independents who lean toward the Democratic Party, have net-positive views of the changes that have occurred over the past four years on 14 of the 18 issues. However, these partisans’ positive evaluations are wide-ranging, from +51 for energy to +13 for the situation with Black people. The other issues on which Democrats have seen improvement during Biden’s presidency are the nation’s infrastructure, trade relations with other countries, the economy, the situation for LGBTQ+ people, national defense and the military, the United States’ position in the world, terrorism, crime, climate change, healthcare, education, and race relations.

Under Biden, Democrats think the nation has lost more ground than it has gained on the federal debt and the gap between the wealthy and less well-off. On taxes, Democrats are divided over whether the nation has made progress or lost ground, with a majority (63%) believing it has stood still on the issue. Democrats are also split on whether the U.S. has seen progress (30%) or lost ground (33%) on immigration.

Republicans and Republican-leaning independents perceive the country has lost ground in 17 of the 18 areas over the past four years, with their most negative views on immigration, the federal debt and the economy. The situation for gay, lesbian and transgender people is the only issue on which Republicans think there has been progress under Biden’s stewardship.

Biden Viewed Less Positively Than Predecessors on Many Issues

Gallup also measured Americans’ views of the nation’s progress at the end of Trump’s first presidential term in 2021, as well as Barack Obama’s and George W. Bush’s second terms in 2017 and 2009, respectively. Twelve of the issues measured in the December poll were likewise tracked at the end of these three presidents’ terms in office, another five were asked after Obama’s and Trump’s presidencies, and one (the nation’s infrastructure) was only measured in the latest poll. In general, Americans’ assessments of presidents’ progress on issues at the end of their term have been more negative than positive.

• Biden’s net progress lags his three immediate predecessors’ significantly on national defense and the military, immigration, and taxes, and is also worse than Obama’s and Trump’s on the federal debt, the gap between the wealthy and less well-off, and trade relations with other countries.
• Net progress is better for Biden than for Bush on energy, healthcare, the United States’ position in the world and the economy, but both Obama and Trump were credited with achieving more than Biden has on each of these issues.
• Of the four presidents, Obama was viewed most favorably on climate change, and Trump was viewed least favorably.
• Bush outperformed his three successors on net progress for race relations.
• Americans were more likely to say the two Republican presidents, Bush and Trump, made progress on crime and terrorism in the U.S. compared with Biden and Obama.
• Obama received much more credit than his two successors for advancing the situation for LGBTQ+ people, but Biden is viewed as making more progress than Trump in this domain.
• Biden’s net progress rating for education is similar to Trump’s, but both are lower than those for Bush and Obama.
• Net progress for improving the situation for Black people is similar for Biden, Trump and Obama.

Democrats’ views of the progress Biden has made are generally muted compared with Republicans’ views of Trump four years ago and Democrats’ perceptions of Obama in 2017 but somewhat similar to Republicans’ perceptions of Bush in 2009.

Bottom Line

Given Biden’s relatively low job approval rating and the expectation that history will judge his presidency negatively, it follows that Americans do not think the U.S. has improved during his time in office. However, Americans’ end-of-term assessments for prior presidents have also been largely negative — even for Obama, who left office with relatively high job approval ratings. Democrats’ generally subdued endorsement of Biden’s handling of a wide range of economic, national and international areas contribute to his unusually low net-positive ratings.

To stay up to date with the latest Gallup News insights and updates, follow us on X @Gallup.

Learn more about how the Gallup Poll Social Series works.

View complete question responses and trends (PDF download).

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Traffic in Manhattan decreased by 7.5 percent in the week after New York City’s congestion pricing plan took effect, according to preliminary traffic data released by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) on Jan. 13.

The congestion pricing program, which took effect on Jan. 5, is a policy that charges a standard $9 fare to drivers of most passenger cars entering Manhattan below 60th Street from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays and from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekends.

Preliminary data showed that on average, about 539,000 cars entered Manhattan’s Central Business District daily between Jan. 6 and Jan. 10, a 7.5 percent decrease from an estimated average weekday baseline of 583,000 for January.

“Just look out the window: there is less traffic, quieter streets, and we think everyone has seen it,” Juliette Michaelson, MTA deputy chief of policy and external relations, told reporters on Monday. “Traffic patterns are already changing and they will continue to change.”

MTA stated that travel times on inbound river crossings into Manhattan, including the Holland and Lincoln tunnels that run under the Hudson River from New Jersey, also decreased by 30 to 40 percent on average.

Travel times on the Franklin D. Roosevelt East River Drive and the West Side Highway also improved during the afternoon traffic, falling between 20 percent and 46 percent, according to the data.

Cars traveling on the East-West streets in the CBD also experienced time improvements, especially in the afternoon hours, with trips becoming 4 percent to 36 percent faster. Travel times on some South-North avenues also improved, with trips becoming 21 percent faster, the data showed.

Despite anecdotal reports of more crowded train cars, Michaelson said the agency had not clocked a noticeable increase in subway users, largely because the baseline number of riders—more than 3 million daily—is so high. A handful of bus routes originating in Brooklyn and Staten Island had seen an increase in ridership the previous week.

Speaking to reporters on Monday, New York City Mayor Eric Adams emphasized the need to analyze the traffic data to identify any necessary improvements, noting that the newly implemented congestion pricing marked “a major shift” for New Yorkers.

“I just did not want to throw more hysteria into this whole thing. This is a major change,” the mayor said during a press briefing. “I want the data to come forward, I want us to analyze the data, see what we need to tweak. What do we need to do better? Are there changes that we can make? And I just wanted to give it a fair opportunity to do so. It’s the law of the land right now.”

The congestion pricing program was initially set to take effect last year with a $15 charge, but New York Gov. Kathy Hochul later decided to put it on hold. Hochul eventually revived the program with a lower $9 charge.

The governor estimated that the new lower toll would save daily commuters around $1,500 per year when taking into account what they were originally on track to pay, and she promised discounts for commuters at the lower end of the income scale. For example, car owners earning less than $50,000 per year get a 50 percent discount on every toll after their 10th toll in a given month.

President-elect Donald Trump has previously expressed intent to end the program when he takes office, but it’s unclear whether he will follow through. The plan stalled during his first term while undergoing a federal environmental review.

Trump said in November 2024 that congestion pricing “will put New York City at a disadvantage over competing cities and states, and businesses will flee.”

Michael Washburn and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Three doctors are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent a California agency from investigating them over their opposition to state-approved COVID-19 policies.

The California Medical Board considers the expression of the doctors’ dissenting views on the disease as potentially dangerous misinformation that should be suppressed. The board argues it has legal authority to discipline the doctors for speech it deems to be medical misconduct. The physicians counter that the fact that they have medical licenses doesn’t mean they forfeit their free speech rights under the First Amendment.

The emergency application in Kory v. Bonta was docketed by the high court on Jan. 8, one of the applicants’ attorneys, Richard Jaffe of Sacramento, California, told The Epoch Times.

The application for an injunction was submitted to Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees urgent appeals from California.

It is unclear when the Supreme Court will act on the application.

The justices could grant an injunction against the state, deny the injunction, or schedule the case for oral argument.

The application was brought by medical doctors Pierre Kory and Brian Tyson, osteopathic physician Le Trinh Hoag, Physicians for Informed Consent, and Children’s Health Defense, a nonprofit founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

President-elect Donald Trump, who will be inaugurated on Jan. 20, has nominated Kennedy to be secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Kennedy, an attorney, is also listed as co-counsel on the application.

California’s executive and legislative branches are “threatening California physicians with professional discipline for their viewpoint speech contrary to the mainstream COVID narrative,” according to the application.

After the Federation of State Medical Boards in July 2021 encouraged its member medical boards in the United States to punish physicians for advancing perceived “COVID misinformation” and “disinformation” among patients and the public, California Medical Board President Kristina Lawson announced in February 2022 that the board planned to sanction physicians for what it called “COVID misinformation.”

The California Legislature passed AB 2098, which took effect in January 2023, making the dissemination of “misinformation” about the disease an offense for which doctors could be disciplined, the application said.

After a federal district judge blocked the law in January 2023, the Legislature repealed the misinformation provision effective January 2024. The application said the board continued to probe physicians for violating its COVID-19 policy after the repeal.

The applicants are challenging “the practice and policy of threatening and targeting physicians with discipline for providing information and recommendations contrary to the mainstream COVID narrative,” according to the application.

On April 23, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California turned down a request to preliminarily block the state’s enforcement program, finding that the applicants lacked legal standing.

The ruling was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 27, 2024.

The California Business and Professions Code, under which the California Medical Board claims its disciplinary authority, “regulates conduct, not speech,” the circuit court said.

“It provides for enforcement of the standard of care, which is the standard for physicians’ treatment of patients,” it stated.

To demonstrate standing, the applicants had to demonstrate that there was “a credible threat that the [board] will prosecute them under the statute” but they did not do so, the appeals court said.

The Ninth Circuit said the court record showed that the only disciplinary action taken against a doctor “involved a physician encouraging her patient to use veterinary ivermectin and resulted in the stipulated surrender of her license.”

The applicants are asking the Supreme Court for an injunction stopping the state from “continuing their enforcement program targeting the information, opinions, and recommendations on COVID-19 which California licensed physicians may provide to patients.”

Jaffe and Kennedy previously filed a related challenge with the Supreme Court that remains pending. In Stockton v. Ferguson, they asked the justices to block the Washington Medical Commission from investigating licensed physicians in the state over their criticism of COVID-19 policies.

The application was scheduled to be considered by the justices at the court’s private judicial conference on Jan. 10. The court may announce a decision on the case on Jan. 13.

The Epoch Times reached out to the California Medical Board and to California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who represents the board, for comment but received no response by publication time.

The Biden administration stole some of the spotlight from Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Donald Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services nominee, with just five days remaining in President Joe Biden’s first term.

Through the Food and Drug Administration, the Biden-Harris team took the initiative to ban the cancer-causing artificial food coloring Red No. 3, commonly found in highly processed toxic foods, including candy, chips, soda, and even cold medicine. 

“The FDA is amending its color additive regulations to no longer allow for the use of FD&C Red No. 3 in food and ingested drugs in response to a 2022 color additive petition,” the FDA wrote in a press release on Wednesday morning. 

The agency that RFK Jr. has said to have been captured by the industrial processed foods complex continued, “The petition requested the agency review whether the Delaney Clause applied and cited, among other data and information, two studies that showed cancer in laboratory male rats exposed to high levels of FD&C Red No. 3 due to a rat specific hormonal mechanism.” 

“Manufacturers who use FD&C Red No. 3 in food and ingested drugs will have until January 15, 2027 or January 18, 2028, respectively, to reformulate their products,” the agency noted, adding, “However, foods imported to the U.S. must comply with U.S. requirements.” 

We are witnessing the early chapters of a food revolution set to sweep the nation under Trump 2.0. Dubbed the “Make America Healthy Again” initiative, the ‘RFK Jr. Effect’ will likely result in dismantling the processed foods industrial complex that has poisoned Americans for decades. 

BREAKING: The FDA is banning Red Dye 3, citing cancer concerns. RFK effect. pic.twitter.com/GvaY8KVIRx

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) January 15, 2025

Sigh. 

6. Red 3 and Red 40

Red 40 is the most used dye in America.

Linked “inextricably” to thyroid tumors in rats, a ban was proposed on Red 3 but was never implemented in America despite being banned entirely in the UK and Switzerland pic.twitter.com/OqA9nTvGpQ

— Coach Kev – Belly Fat Pro (@AskCoachKev) September 17, 2022

This recent NYT “fact check” is absurd and proves RFK JR’s point.

This is beyond parody.

The New York Times says RFK Jr. is “WRONG” about US foods containing artificial ingredients and dyes …

And then says US Froot Loops contain “red dye 40, yellow 5 and blue 1 as well as Butylated hydroxytoluene” while the Canadian version doesn’t. So …… pic.twitter.com/JKMc1V0ZfF

— Holden Culotta (@Holden_Culotta) November 17, 2024

Trump 2.0, with RFK Jr. set to lead HHS, also needs to revive small farms and place the nation’s food supply chain back into the hands of the people from majority control of globalist corporations.

Authored by Chris Fenton via RealClearPolitics,

This past November, I cast a ballot that I never would have expected: I voted for Donald Trump.

As a lifelong Democrat, this decision was not rooted in ideology, but instead born of personal frustration with America’s broken systems – financial, judicial, and political.

My story is not just my own but a reflection of the shared struggles of countless Americans, in almost every economic class, who feel left behind and betrayed by a corrupted system now designed to serve the few at the expense of the many.

The initial catalyst for my frustration came during the 2008 financial crisis, a crucible that revealed the staggering flaws of America’s financial infrastructure. Lehman Brothers’ collapse wasn’t just a headline for me – it struck home. My family’s savings were tied to complex and opaque financial instruments I didn’t fully understand, sold to me by institutions that prioritized profit over transparency. When Lehman declared bankruptcy, my portfolio was wiped out. Overnight, our family’s financial security evaporated, and I was forced to confront the harsh realities of a system rigged against most Americans.

But the financial system wasn’t the only institution that failed me. My trust in the judicial system was similarly shattered. First, the law of the land failed to punish any of those responsible for the great financial crisis. This was followed by a high-stakes legal battle of my own with my former employer. That fight revealed a labyrinthine system that seemed more designed to exhaust and entrap honest litigants than to deliver justice. Despite having a strong case and compelling evidence as the plaintiff, I found myself mired in five years of procedural delays, a strategic bankruptcy by the opposing side, and exorbitant legal costs. The experience was as emotionally scarring as it was financially ruinous and came close to destroying my marriage.

My disillusionment didn’t stop there. America’s current political system, too, exposed itself. As someone who worked extensively in the U.S.-China relationship, I tried to share my firsthand experiences and insights to all audiences through a book I authored and the media appearances that followed. I hoped to encourage constructive dialogue on America’s position in an increasingly competitive world. Instead, I faced a harsh backlash that highlighted the destructive tribalism entrenched in today’s politics.

As a lifelong Democrat, it was distressing to be told “Lose my f-ing number” by longtime progressive friends, simply because I appeared with hosts like Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, Steve Bannon, Charlie Kirk, Clay Travis, or Maria Bartiromo. Similar vitriolic responses will certainly result again when this piece publishes.

I had no intention of switching political sides; I was trying to share a balanced perspective with a broader audience. Yet, this willingness to engage with what was perceived as “the other side” became a black-balling event. First, a CNN producer bluntly told me they wouldn’t have me on as a guest because I had appeared on Fox News. Then, investors avoided a fund I raised, coldly stating, “We won’t invest with someone who talks to those people.” Topping it all off, challenging the current U.S.-China dynamic was portrayed as anti-Asian, a disillusioning smear that I found deeply offensive. “I’m a Democrat, and many of my friends are Chinese!” I’d protest, only to be met with silence or accusations that I was “enabling” the opposition.

I was labeled an outcast by the very community I had supported my entire life – not because of a shift in my values, but because of my choice to engage in discussions outside the approved echo chamber. The experience underscored how deeply broken our political discourse has become – where dialogue is punished and dissenting voices are cast out, even when the goal is constructive progress to protect American interests.

This year, my frustration finally reached a boiling point. I was tired of politicians who promised change but delivered more of the same. Worse, my own party’s presidential candidate famously promised on “The View” not to change a damn thing.

Donald Trump, for all his flaws, represented a rejection of the status quo. His message resonated with millions of Americans who felt unseen and unheard. He wasn’t a polished politician, and that was the point. He spoke to our anger, our disillusionment, and our desperation for something different.

My vote for Trump wasn’t about embracing his ideology or ignoring his shortcomings. It was a pro-America protest vote, a way to signal my dissatisfaction with a current ailing system that had failed me and so many others. I wasn’t alone in this sentiment. The 2024 election was a referendum on today’s establishment, a wake-up call for a nation divided by economic and judicial inequality, institutional corruption, and cultural alienation.

Voting for Trump was not an act of blind faith. It was a calculated risk, a bet on the idea that disrupting the system might force it to reckon with its failures. I recognize the complexities and contradictions of that decision. Trump’s presidency will bring its own set of challenges, and not all his policies will align with my values. Yet, his election has and will continue to force a national conversation about the direction of our country and the need for a systemic reset.

Today, as I reflect on my vote, I am struck by the parallels between my personal journey and the broader story of America. Just as I had to rebuild my life after financial ruin, judicial betrayal, and political ostracism, our nation must confront its flaws and work toward a more impartial future. This requires not just identifying the problems but having the courage to take bold and sometimes uncomfortable actions to address them.

For me, the answer lies in reclaiming the principles that made America great: fairness, accountability, civil discourse, and opportunity for all. This means holding powerful institutions to account, from Wall Street and Washington to the judicial system. It means rebuilding trust in our political system by prioritizing the needs of most citizens over the interests of the elite. And it means fostering a culture of resilience and innovation that empowers individuals to succeed in the face of adversity.

The challenges we face as a nation are immense, but they are not insurmountable. My own experiences have taught me that even in the darkest moments, there is a path forward. It requires resilience, self-reflection, and a commitment to rebuilding – not just for us, but also for future generations.

Voting for Trump was not the end of my political journey; it was the beginning of a deeper exploration of what it means to be an American in a time of upheaval. It was a recognition that change is messy, imperfect, and often uncomfortable. But it is also necessary.

As we look to the future, I hope my story serves as a reminder that our choices are shaped by the systems we inhabit. When those systems fail us, it is our responsibility to demand change, hoping for better. Whether you agree with my decision or not, I hope we can all agree on the need for a government, judiciary, and economy that work for everyone – not just the privileged few.

The journey to a more perfect union will not be easy, but it is a journey worth taking. Let’s rebuild together, with hope, determination, and a shared commitment to the ideals that unite us as Americans.

Chris Fenton is a longtime media executive, producer, and author of “Feeding the Dragon: Inside the Trillion Dollar Dilemma Facing Hollywood, the NBA, and American Business.”

Yemen’s Houthis have once again announced that military forces have targeted American warships in the Red Sea. The Pentagon has not offered confirmation, however, and rarely admits to coming under such direct attacks.

The Wednesday statement said missiles and drones were launched against the USS Harry Truman aircraft carrier and other US warships patrolling the Red Sea. It’s unknown whether direct hits resulted, or if all projectiles were intercepted.

“The missile force and the drone air force of the Yemeni Armed Forces … carried out a joint military operation targeting the American aircraft carrier USS Harry Truman and a number of its warships in the northern Red Sea with a number of winged missiles and drones, during their attempt to carry out operations to target Yemen,” the statement reads.

“This targeting of the carrier is the sixth since its arrival in the Red Sea,” it added. The Iran-backed group has clearly remained committed and defiant as it blocks Red Sea shipping, despite several rounds of US-UK-Israeli bombing campaigns.

The timing of this attack is interesting given that widespread reports of Hamas and Israeli having achieved a peace deal have persisted over the last 12 hours. President Biden as well as Donald Trump are hailing the deal, which still has to be voted on by Israeli lawmakers, which is set for Thursday morning.

The Houthis have consistently demanded that for it to halt its Red Sea attacks there must be full Israeli military withdrawal from the Strip. 

The Houthi statement said it remains “ready for any American or Israeli escalation and will continue to perform its duties towards the oppressed Palestinian people,” and that “operations will not stop until the aggression stops and the siege on the Gaza Strip is lifted.”

If the promised hostage exchange happens by week’s end, the Houthis might halt these attacks or at least dial them back. Recently several ballistic missiles have been launched on central Israel.

If the Yemeni operations do persist, it could complicate or damage efforts to keep the peace in the Gaza Strip, as it’s already sure to be an extremely delicate and fragile truce. 

The Houthis are claiming that they attacked the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group again. This is the sixth such claim. Here’s what I find interesting: First, this is the first time I’ve seen a consistent campaign about targeting an American CSG. https://t.co/l3AVnd8SEW

— Heather Mongilio (@HMongilio) January 15, 2025

Still, many hurdles remain, and the details of phase 2 are still to be hammered out in phase 1. This leaves the potential for Hamas-Israel fighting to be sparked once again. So far a fragile truce in Lebanon with Hezbollah has held.