Authored by Pepe Escobar,

It’s impossible to overstate the importance of the 2024 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) this week in Astana, Kazakhstan. It can certainly be interpreted as the antechamber to the crucial BRICS annual summit, under the Russian presidency, next October in Kazan.

Let’s start with the final declaration. As much as SCO members state “tectonic shifts are underway” in geopolitics and geoeconomics, as “the use of power methods is increasing, with norms of international law being systematically violated”, they are fully engaged to “increase the SCO’s role in the creation of a new democratic, fair, political and economic international order.”

Well, there could not be a sharper contrast with the unilaterally-imposed “rules-based international order”.

The SCO 10 – with new member Belarus – are explicitly in favor of “a fair solution to the Palestinian issue”. They “oppose unilateral sanctions”. They want to create a SCO investment fund (Iran, via acting President Mohammad Mokhber, supports the creation of a SCO common bank, just like the NDB in BRICS).

Additionally, members that “are parties to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty stand for compliance with its provisions”. And crucially, they agree that “interaction within the SCO may become the basis for building a new security architecture in Eurasia.”

The last point is actually the heart of the matter. That’s proof that Putin’s proposal last month in front of key Russian diplomats was fully debated in Astana – following Russia’s strategic deal with the DPRK de facto linking security in Asia as indivisible with security in Europe. That is something that remains – and will continue to remain – incomprehensible for the collective West.

A new Eurasia-wide security architecture is an upgrade of the Russian concept of Greater Eurasia Partnership – involving a series of bilateral and multilateral guarantees and, in Putin’s own words, open to “all Eurasian countries that wish to participate”, including NATO members.

The SCO should become one of the key drivers of this new security arrangement – in total contrast with the “rules-based order” – alongside the CSTO, the CIS and the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU).

The road map ahead of course includes socio-economic integration and the development of international transportation corridors – from the INSTC (Russia-Iran-India) to the China-supported “Middle Corridor”.

But the two crucial points are military and financial: “To gradually phase out the military presence of external powers” in Eurasia; and to establish alternatives to “Western-controlled economic mechanisms, expanding the use of national currencies in settlements, and establishing independent payment systems.”

Translation: the meticulous process conducted by Russia to deliver a fatal blow to Pax Americana is essentially shared by all SCO members.

Welcome to SCO+

President Putin laid down the basic tenets further on down the road when he confirmed the “commitment of all member states to forming a fair world order based on the central role of the UN and commitment of sovereign states to mutually beneficial partnership.”

He added, “the long-term goals for further expansion of cooperation in politics, economy, energy, agriculture, high technologies and innovation are stated in the project of development strategy of SCO till 2035.”

That’s a quite Chinese approach to long-term strategic planning: China’s five-year plans are already mapped out all the way to 2035.

President Xi doubled down when it comes to the leading Russia-China strategic partnership: both should “strengthen comprehensive strategic coordination, oppose external interference and jointly maintain peace and stability” in Eurasia.

Once again, that’s Russia-China as leaders of Eurasia integration and the drive towards a multi-nodal world (italics mine; nodal with an “n”).

The summit in Astana showed how the SCO has really stepped up the game after incorporating India, Pakistan and Iran – and now Belarus – as new members, plus establishing key players such as Turkiye, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar and Azerbaijan as dialogue partners, and strategic Afghanistan and Mongolia as observers.

It’s a long way from the original Shanghai Five – Russia, China, plus three Central Asian “stans” – setting up the organization back in 2001, essentially as an anti-terrorism/separatism body. The SCO has evolved into serious geoeconomic cooperation, discussing in detail, for instance, supply chain security issues.

The SCO now goes way beyond a Heartland-focused economic and security alliance, as it covers 80% of the Eurasian landmass; accounts for more than 40% of the world’s population; boasts a 25% share of global GDP – and rising; and generates global trade value of over $8 trillion in 2022, according to Chinese government numbers. Add to it SCO members hold 20% of global oil reserves and 44% of natural gas.

So it’s no wonder that a key development this year at the Palace of Independence in Astana was the first meeting of the SCO +, under the theme “Strengthening Multilateral Dialogue”.

A real who’s who of SCO partners was there, from President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, Emir of Qatar Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani and President of Turkiye Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to member of the Supreme Council of the Emirates Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi, Chairman of the People’s Council of Turkmenistan Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, and SCO Secretary-General Zhang Ming.

Russia’s bilaterals with many of these SCO+ actors were quite substantial.

India’s PM Modi did not go to Astana, sending FM Jaishankar, who maintains fabulous relations with Foreign Minister Lavrov. Modi was re-elected to his third term last month and is up to his neck working the domestic front, with his BJP now commanding a much narrower majority in Parliament. Next Monday he will be in Moscow – and will meet Putin.

Proverbial Divide and Rule hacks seized Modi’s no-show in Astana as proof of a serious India-China rift. Nonsense. Jaishankar, after a bilateral meeting with Wang Yi, stated – in a very Chinese metaphorical way – that “the three mutuals – mutual respect, mutual sensitivity and mutual interest – will guide our bilateral ties.”

That applies to their still unresolved border standoff; to the delicate balance New Delhi has to find to appease the Americans in their Indo-Pacific obsession (no one across Asia uses the term “Indo-Pacific”; it’s Asia-Pacific); and also relates to Indian aspirations when it comes to beinga leader of the Global South compared to China.

China does regard itself as part of the Global South. Wang Yiwei from Renmin University, the author of arguably the best book on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), argues that Beijing welcomes a “sense of identity” provided by the fact it represents the Global South and has been obliged to resist Washington’s hegemony and “deglobalisation” rhetoric.

The New Multi-Nodal Matrix

Astana once again revealed how the main drivers of the SCO are advancing fast on everything from energy cooperation to cross-border transportation corridors. Putin and Xi discussed progress in the construction of the massive Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline as well as Central Asia’s need to have China as a provider of funds and technology to develop their economies.

China is now Kazakhstan’s largest trading partner (two-way trade at $41 billion, and counting). Crucially, when Xi met Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, he backed Astana’s bid to join BRICS+.

Tokayev was beaming: “Deepening friendly and strategic cooperation with China is an unswerving strategic priority for Kazakhstan.” And that means more projects under BRI.

Kazakhstan – which shares a border of more than 1,700 km with Xinjiang – is absolutely central on all these fronts: BRI, SCO, EAEU, soon BRICS and last but not least, the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

That’s the famous Middle Corridor linking China to Europe via Kazakhstan, the Caspian Sea, Georgia, Turkiye and the Black Sea.

Yes, this corridor skips Russia: the key reason is that Chinese and European traders are terrified of American secondary sanctions. Beijing, pragmatically, supports building this corridor as a BRI project since 2022. Xi and Tokayev actually opened what can also be called the China-Europe Trans-Caspian Express via video link; they saw the first Chinese trucks arriving on the road to a Kazakh Caspian Sea port.

Xi and Putin discussed the corridor, of course. Russia understands the Chinese constraints. And after all Russia-China trade uses its own – sanction-proof – corridors.

Once again, Divide and Rule hacks – oblivious to the obvious, not to mention finer points of Eurasia integration – resort to their same old dusty narrative: the Global South is fractured, China and Russia don’t see eye to eye on the role of the SCO, BRI and the EAEU. Nonsense, again.

All fronts are progressing in parallel. The SCO Development Bank was initially proposed by China. The Russian Ministry of Finance – which is a mammoth organization, with 10 vice-Ministers – was not so keen, on the grounds that Chinese capital would flood Central Asia. Now that’s changed, as Iran – which has strategic partnerships with both Russia and China – is quite enthusiastic.

The strategically important China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway – a BRI project – developed slowly, but now will be on overdrive, by a mutual Putin-Xi decision. Moscow knows that Beijing – fearing the sanctions tsunami – cannot use the Trans-Siberian as the main overland trade route to Europe.

So the new Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway is the solution, reducing the journey to Europe by 900km. Putin personally told Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov there’s no Russian opposition; on the contrary, Moscow fully supports interconnected projects launched by BRICS and/or financed by the EAEU.

It’s fascinating to watch the Russia-China dynamic in play at the heart of multilateral organizations such as the SCO. Moscow sees itself as a leader of the coming multipolar order even if it does not consider itself, technically, as a member of the Global South (Lavrov insists on “Global Majority”).

As for Russia’s “pivot to the East”, it actually started in the 2010s, even before Maidan in Kiev, when Moscow started to seriously consolidate relations with, well, the Global South.

It’s no wonder that now Moscow clearly sees the new evolving multi-nodal reality – SCO and SCO+, BRICS 10 and BRICS+, EAEU, ASEAN, INSTC, new trade settlement platforms, the new Eurasian security architecture – as the beating heart in the complex, long-term strategy of meticulously shattering the domination of Pax Americana.

Authored by Lawrence Kadish via The Gatestone Institute,

Democracy and American politics are chaotic, unpredictable, and a mystery to our enemies.

In response to the Biden-Trump presidential faceoff, the Russian media is having a field day, believing that our national conversation over the recent debate reflects democracy’s dry rot. Consider this quote….

The result “is good for us,” stated Dmitri Novikov, a Russian legislator, when being interviewed on state television.

“Destabilization inside an adversary is always a good thing.”

To paraphrase a line from a Warner Brothers character, “He doesn’t know us very well… do he…”

He certainly doesn’t know his history.

The Japanese looked at a raucous Congress in 1940 and discerned a democracy in disarray.

And then the vote to institute the draft was by a razor-thin majority, and the Japanese knew for sure this was a weak, indecisive nation incapable of responding to the might of their fierce Imperial military.

They would be forced to rethink that position as their delegation made its way to the USS Missouri to sign the instruments of surrender in Tokyo Harbor.

Hitler also viewed the United States as incapable of excelling at anything other than automobiles.

In declaring war on America in the wake of the Pearl Harbor attack, he viewed our nation as morally corrupt, riven by racial unrest, and fielding an army smaller than 17 other nations.

Contempt would be the least of his views about a nation that would ultimately accept the Third Reich’s unconditional surrender.

So now the Russians – and likely the Chinese – are looking at our chaotic presidential politics and the vociferous remarks made by political partisans on both sides, and making the same historic mistake committed by our earlier enemies.

They believe we are a nation that is slowly unraveling, making room for their despotic regimes to dominate the globe.

Not a chance.

This is democracy and this is what it looks like.

Raucous, gruff, and even divisive, something unimaginable in countries where freedom is punished with prison.

Or worse. And then, as we celebrate the Fourth of July, our nation comes together as Americans to celebrate not just our independence, but the role freedom has played in celebrating the spirit of mankind.

Enjoy the Fourth, my fellow Americans, for it will confound our enemies and give comfort to all those around the world currently enslaved and who cherish our nation as a beacon of hope.

Nothing says ‘Merica like supermarkets with automated vending machines stocked with ammunition. A select number of supermarkets across Alabama and Oklahoma have these new machines. This means you can leave the store with milk, eggs, and boxes of 9mm and .223 rounds. 

American Rounds installed AI-powered ammunition vending machines in several Alabama and Oklahoma supermarket stores. These vending machines are said to feature built-in AI technology, card scanning capability, and facial recognition software to verify that buyers are 21 or older and match the identity on the license. 

“Our automated ammo dispensers are accessible 24/7, ensuring that you can buy ammunition on your own schedule, free from the constraints of store hours and long lines,” American Rounds notes on its website. 

American Rounds shows six supermarkets, including two Fresh Value stores in Alabama and four Super C Mart stores in Oklahoma, have these new retail automated ammo dispensers. 

In an interview with Newsweek, Grants Magers, CEO of American Rounds, said that the company’s AI-powered ammunition vending machines have recently been expanded to eight across four states. 

“We have over 200 store requests for AARM [Automated Ammo Retail Machine] units covering approximately nine states currently and that number is growing daily,” Magers said. 

He continued by suggesting these vending machines support “law-abiding, responsible gun ownership, adding, “Currently ammunition is sold off the shelf or online. These environments lead to inadvertent sales to underaged purchasers and or, in the case of retail stores, a high theft rate.” 

Magers told local media outlet Oklahoma KOCO-TV that machines will have no ammo restrictions and are restocked weekly. 

Authored by Yuhong Dong M.D., Ph.D. via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

We’re not afraid of the tigers in the zoo because we trust they cannot attack. But what if someone opens the cage?

Many viruses are highly lethal in nature but cannot infect humans. Fear arises when these viruses break the species barrier.

This can happen naturally or through risky research practices, particularly gain-of-function (GOF) research.

What Is GOF?

Just as all substances have functions, specific genes enable viruses to spread rapidly or cause severe diseases. GOF research involves introducing new functioning genes into a virus, enhancing its ability to infect hosts or increasing its virulence.

There are at least three main types of new functions a virus can gain:

• Expanded Host Range GOF research can enable viruses to infect new species that they previously could not. This includes crossing the species barrier to infect humans, which poses significant risks for zoonotic outbreaks and potential pandemics. A 2015 Nature Medicine article provides a pertinent example. A bat-derived SARS-like coronavirus, initially noninfectious to humans, became capable of human infection after GOF studies at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

• Enhanced Transmission GOF research can result in viruses gaining the ability to spread more efficiently between hosts. This includes changes that allow a virus to be transmitted through new routes or, more effectively, through existing ones. In 2012, GOF research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison significantly transformed the H5N1 bird flu virus. Initially non-airborne, the virus acquired the ability to transmit through the air, demonstrating the profound impact of GOF studies on viral capabilities.
• Increased Virulence Viruses can gain mutations that make them more virulent, meaning they can cause more severe diseases in infected hosts. This can involve an enhanced ability to evade the host’s immune system or increased replication rates within the host. A 2022 preprint paper shows researchers at Boston University created a lethal version of the Omicron variant.

GOF can also be used to generate positive traits in germs. For example, by adding a human insulin gene, a germ gains the new function of producing insulin.

GOF Research of Concern

Because viral genes are relatively easy to edit, GOF studies frequently involve viruses. However, some of these studies carry significant risks and can lead to dire consequences.

The U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) defines GOF research of concern as “research that can be reasonably anticipated to generate a pathogen with pandemic potential,” characterized by two attributes:

1. Highly transmissible, with the potential to spread widely and uncontrollably among human populations
2. Highly virulent and likely to cause significant morbidity and/or loss of human life

If accidentally released from a lab into the general population, such pathogens could cause uncontrollable hazards. Additionally, the military application of GOF falls within the scope of bioweapon threats.

Methods of GOF research generally include genetic editing, which involves directly modifying a virus’ genes, and reassortment, which involves combining genetic material from different viral strains to create new variants.

In reality, the scope of GOF research can be much broader. Due to viral genes’ highly variable and adaptable nature, even routine culturing of viruses in cells or animals can lead to unexpected genetic alterations.

Double-Edged Sword

Scientists often conduct GOF research to understand the viruses and develop drugs or vaccines.

While these reasons may sound scientifically justified, the main debate centers on the risks versus the assumed benefits. GOF research can theoretically aid in studying viral mechanisms and provide insights for developing drugs or vaccines. However, the associated risks are significant, particularly the potential to generate dangerous pathogens.

A decade ago, two published studies on bird flu viruses were conducted by a U.S. lab and a Dutch lab, sparking significant discussion.

Both studies were designed to better understand how the viruses’ genes could be modified to make them more transmissible in mammals. The goal was to help people better prepare for a potential future pandemic.

Unexpectedly, after both groups of researchers separately edited the genes of a deadly H5N1 bird flu virus, they produced new strains capable of easily spreading via air droplets between mammals.

The edited virus could spread more easily among mammals and became easier to transmit to humans.

“Why would scientists deliberately create a form of the H5N1 avian influenza virus that is probably highly transmissible in humans?” This critical question was raised in a 2012 Nature article.

Subsequently, in October 2014, U.S. authorities announced a “pause” on funding for 18 GOF studies involving influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses.

The pause was short-lived. In 2018, the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Dutch Healthcare Authority approved funding for further GOF research, sparking another wave of objections. Harvard University epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch expressed concerns in a Science article, stating that scientists are being asked to “trust a completely opaque process where the outcome is to permit the continuation of dangerous experiments.”

Finally, after yielding to public pressure, investigators for the two research studies declined to renew the grants originally submitted for their GOF research. Consequently, such bird flu GOF studies were officially halted in the United States in 2020.

In the United States and most European countries, where scientists can express their opposing opinions, the development of GOF experiments faces multiple regulatory hurdles and ethical reviews.

However, in countries without these safeguards, the pursuit of GOF research could proceed unchecked, potentially putting the world at significant risk.

China’s Bird Flu GOF Research

Risky GOF studies on bird flu viruses in China have been underway since the 2010s.

In a study published in Science in May 2013, a group of scientists at Harbin Veterinary Research Institute in Harbin, China, conducted GOF research by combining the highly lethal but not easily transmissible H5N1 avian influenza virus, with the highly contagious H1N1 swine flu strain, which infected millions of people in 2009.

The resulting hybrid viruses were then tested for their ability to infect mammals, revealing the potential risks associated with such genetic manipulation of pathogens. This research underscored the dual-use nature of gain-of-function studies, highlighting both their potential to inform pandemic preparedness and the significant biosafety and biosecurity concerns they raise.

As a result, the researchers created a new, more virulent virus. An H5N1 hybrid strain, which integrated genes responsible for transmissibility from the H1N1 virus, acquired the capability to easily spread among guinea pigs through respiratory droplets.

In 2021, a collaborative project involving researchers from the United States, the United Kingdom, and China sought to enhance surveillance and vaccine development. While not explicitly labeled as a GOF study, these experiments conducted in a Chinese laboratory involved genetic modifications typical of GOF research.

The experiments used a routine viral laboratory research approach known as “serial passage,” which involves growing the virus from one cell or animal model to another. Viral mutations with greater transmissibility or pathogenicity can often be selected during this process. The animal models were also carefully chosen to reproduce the virus for specific research purposes. We’ve explained this in detail in a previous article.

Nonetheless, the most widely known GOF studies conducted in China involve research on coronaviruses.

Breaking the Barrier

Bats are known carriers or natural reservoirs of many viruses. Bat-hosting coronaviruses typically only infect bats or wild animals, not humans. However, this situation has changed with the advent of GOF research.

In 2015, a team of Chinese scientists conducted GOF studies on a bat coronavirus at the WIV, which is affiliated with the Chinese Academy of Sciences and under the administration and control of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

In this study, the researchers took the gene for spike protein—the spike-shaped structure on the surface of a virus—from a bat SARS-like virus and inserted it into the backbone of a SARS virus, the virus that caused the first pandemic of this century.

The newly created SARS-like virus, coded as SCH-014-MA15, could infect human airway cells and achieve a transmission similar to the SARS virus. It also gained the ability to infect mammals like mice and successfully cause lung diseases.

The WIV has also conducted other GOF research on bat SARS-like viruses with effective results.

According to a leaked 2014 NIH report, WIV researchers experimented on a natural bat coronavirus capable of binding with human ACE2 receptors, significantly increasing its potency. They used this bat virus to engineer three new chimeric coronaviruses.

The results showed that in the lungs of mice, these newly created coronaviruses produced far more virus particles—up to 10,000 times higher than the original virus.

Read more here…

Hurricanes are a fact of life for people living along America’s Atlantic Coast. Of course, the risk of a hurricane making landfall varies depending where people live along that expansive coastline.

This infographic, via Visual Capitalist’s Nick Routley, uses data from the Tropical Cyclone Impact Probabilities database at Colorado State University to show county-level risk (the red parts) of a hurricane impact, along with population centers along the coast (the spikes).

Potential Hurricane Hotspots

While a hurricane can make landfall anywhere along the coast, there are places where the probability of that happening is higher in 2024.

Below is the full list of counties and states, which includes other countries in North America as well, including Mexico (which, at the time of publishing, is being battered by Hurricane Beryl).

The counties that make up the southern tip of Florida have the highest risk of a major hurricane impact. Monroe County, which includes Key West, has a 46% chance of a hurricane impact, and a 27% chance of a major hurricane impact.

Another potential hurricane hotspot is the Outer Banks region of North Carolina. Three counties that include the Outer Banks find themselves in the top five ranking for hurricane impact risk. Unlike Florida though, the risk of a major hurricane impact is much lower.

The three counties along the coast near Houston, Texas, have between 25–30% risk of a hurricane impact. Galveston is no stranger to hurricane activity. The constant threat of storms making impact was one reason Houston—which is further inland—grew to be the much bigger city.

Authored by Sophie Li via The Epoch Times,

California voters will decide on 10 ballot measures in November, addressing a wide range of issues including the minimum wage, rent control, public safety, taxes, education, and health care.

Each of the initiatives – including three state constitutional amendments and two multibillion-dollar bonds – will need approval from at least 50 percent of voters to pass.

State Constitutional Amendments

Prop. 3: Marriage Equality (ACA 5)

The California Constitution currently states that only marriage between a man and a woman is recognized in the state, but federal law prevents the enforcement of this provision.

A yes vote on this ballot measure means removing this state constitutional rule and establishing marriage as a fundamental right for all individuals.

Prop. 5: Local Taxes to Fund Housing (ACA 1)

This state constitutional amendment, if approved, will make it easier for local governments to approve bonds and special taxes for affordable housing and public infrastructure projects.

A yes vote means the threshold to pass such bonds and taxes would reduce from a two-thirds supermajority to 55 percent.

Prop. 6: Ban Slavery (ACA 8)

A yes vote on this state constitutional amendment would ban forced prison labor by abolishing slavery in any form.

It specifically targets various labor practices involving prison inmates, citing that many are compelled to work in roles such as firefighting and road paving.

The measure would additionally prevent the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from punishing inmates who refuse to work. It also clarifies the department can still give credits—which can help advance the release date or parole hearing date, depending on the sentence—to inmates who choose to work voluntarily.

Bonds

Prop. 2: Education Bond

Voters will weigh in on a $10 billion education bond designed to allocate state funds for the renovation of school buildings that are 75 years old or older. Additionally, the bond will finance testing and remediation efforts for lead contamination in school water systems.

Should this measure be approved, it would be the first voter-sanctioned education construction bond since Proposition 51 in 2016, which authorized $7 billion for the construction and repair of public school facilities in California.

Prop. 4: Climate Bond

Voters will decide on a $10 billion bond aimed at prioritizing safe and affordable drinking water, wildfire prevention, extreme heat mitigation, sustainable agriculture, and clean, renewable energy.

The proposed bond would allocate at least 40 percent of the $10 billion to disadvantaged communities.

If approved, it will mark the largest climate investment ever made by California and the most substantial climate measure approved by voters in the United States.

Other Ballot Initiatives

Prop. 32: Minimum Wage

Under the Living Wage Act, the state’s minimum wage increased to $16 earlier this year and will rise to $17 in January for businesses with more than 25 employees.

A yes vote on the proposed ballot measure means the minimum wage will continue increasing to $18 in January 2025. Employers with fewer than 25 workers would increase from $16 to $17 in 2025 and then $18 in 2026.

If passed, California’s minimum wage will be the highest in the nation, surpassing the $17 minimum wage of the District of Columbia.

Prop. 33: Rent Control

The proposed measure, titled Justice for Renters Act, seeks to repeal the nearly three-decades-old Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which prevents local governments from setting rent caps on housing built after 1995 and single-family homes.

A yes vote means the local governments will have more authority to regulate rental rates and to expand rent control to properties that were previously exempt.

This marks the third attempt to implement rent limits in California since the state’s Rental Housing Act’s passage in 1995. Similar initiatives in 2018 and 2020 both failed to pass.

Prop. 34: Direct Patient Care

A yes vote on this initiative means certain healthcare providers must spend 98 percent of revenue from a 2000 federal prescription drug discount program on direct patient care. The law, if passed, will apply to providers that spent over $100 million in any 10-year period on anything other than direct patient care, and operated multifamily housing with more than 500 severe violations, according to the ballot summary.

It also permanently authorizes the state to negotiate Medi-Cal drug prices for the whole state, the summary says.

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that enforcing the measure could increase state government costs by millions annually, due to compliance and enforcement.

Prop. 35: Tax on Medi-Cal Insurance Providers

A yes vote means a current tax on health care insurance providers, originally set to expire in 2026, will be extended indefinitely to fund health care for those covered by the Medi-Cal program.

It also mandates that the tax revenues—collected on monthly enrollments—must only be used for specific Medi-Cal services like primary and specialty care, emergency services, family planning, mental health care, and prescription drugs.

Prop. 36: Reform Prop. 47

Initially passed by voters in 2014, Proposition 47 aimed to lower prison populations by downgrading some felony theft and drug crimes to misdemeanors. Ten years later, Prop. 47 returns to the ballot for voters to decide whether to reform the law amid heightened concerns about public safety across the state.

A yes vote on the reform proposal means strengthening penalties for repeat offenders and allowing prosecutors to charge felonies for certain drug and theft crimes.

The initiative also encourages offenders to join drug rehabilitation programs to avoid prison sentences.

On July 1, Gov. Gavin Newsom and state lawmakers introduced a competing ballot measure that also aims to reform Prop. 47, more moderately. However, he backed out at the last minute and withdrew the effort.

Removed From Ballot

Five initiatives were recently pulled from the ballot due to repetitive bills, moot bills, or compromises in the Legislature, and one because of concern about the costliness of advertising the initiative due to the crowded list of measures now qualified for the ballot.

The initiatives covered such topics as low-income housing projects, tax increases, personal finance courses for high schoolers, workplace justice, and child health care.

A voting threshold initiative, ACA 13, was moved to November 2026.

A new report warns that “the world entered an age of overlapping emergencies” and indicates the need for a new stabilization approach involving a buffer system to mitigate price volatility in essential commodities to promote economic stability and growth. 

“The neoliberal stabilization paradigm of interest rate hikes and austerity left economies around the world unprepared for the shocks to essentials experienced in the overlapping emergencies of war, conflict, climate change, and pandemic,” the lead author, Isabella Weber, of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, wrote in the report. 

Weber said, “More regular supply shocks are likely for food. Extreme weather events are predicted to be frequent and have already affected regional agricultural yields.” 

“We argue that in an age of overlapping emergencies, such a new paradigm requires a refocusing on stabilization policies for essential sectors that have the potential to unleash systemic instabilities when hit by shocks,” she wrote, adding, “We revisit the classic case for public buffer stock systems.”

She noted, “Price volatility in essential commodities can lead to sellers’ inflation because of the interaction with administered prices in the industrial sector and can hamper growth and development prospects.” 

Separately, Bloomberg reported that Norway has initiated a plan to increase its domestic grain stockpiles.

“This is about being prepared for the unthinkable,” Finance Minister Trygve Slagsvold Vedum said last week. 

Norway plans to shield its citizens from commodity price spikes by storing up to 82,500 tons of state-owned grains at private companies. This buffer system will protect citizens for about three months and will be fully operational in 2029. 

The latest data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) shows global food prices increased for the third consecutive month in May.

The FAO Food Price Index on a year-over-year change shows that price acceleration could resume in the near future. 

“Countries are getting more and more nervous,” Chris Hegadorn, adjunct professor of global food politics at Sciences Po in Paris, told Bloomberg. 

Hegadorn said, “Price volatility continues to be a major problem that countries are looking for extra security.”

It’s not just countries that are nervous about another food price spike…

Let’s not forget that elevated food inflation crushes the working poor, leaving governments more suitable to food riots.

Food inflation will by stick this decade. Get use to high supermarket prices. 

Authored by Mike McDaniel via American Thinker,

Until 1996, one of the primary tactics of anti-liberty/gun cracktivists was to treat criminal misuse of guns, as well as accidents and suicides as public health matters. There was, of course, no disease vector, no virus, bacteria or parasite. There could be no vaccine, no medication, no treatment. None of that was the point. If they couldn’t disarm law-abiding Americans any other way, they’d try to do it under the “public health” banner.

Fortunately for free Americans, in 1996 this language was inserted into a budget bill:

“None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

That simple sentence, that law, drove supposed medical scientists obsessed with gun control underground. They still did anti-gun advocacy and “research” with public funds, they were just quiet about it, funneling money and “research” through NGOs and anti-gun groups.

Take the link to see an NPR article about how, for more than a quarter century, they’ve done all they can to circumvent the law. And now, the Surgeon General, in what may be the dying days of the Mummified Meat Puppet Administration, is saying the quiet part out loud. Dr. Vivek Murthy, on June 25, released a report titled “U.S. Surgeon General Issues Advisory on the Public Health Crisis of Firearm Violence in the United States.”  

Today, United States Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy released a landmark Surgeon General’s Advisory on Firearm Violence, declaring firearm violence in America a public health crisis. Firearm violence is pervasive, with more than half (54 percent) of U.S. adults or their family members having experienced a firearm-related incident in their lives. Over the last decade, the number of people who have died from firearm-related injuries, including suicides, homicides, and accidental deaths, has been rising, and firearm violence is now the leading cause of death among children and adolescents.  

That 54% figure was derived from a telephone poll of 1271 English speakers and 73 Spanish speakers. Those doing the polling claim it is a “nationally representative sample,” but they publish nothing on the geographical distribution of the poll. Obviously, any poll that focused on blue state urban areas would produce different results than more broadly based polling. Oddly, the document is labeled “KFF Health Tracking Poll/ KFF Covid-19 Vaccine Monitor.” What that might have to do with gun issues is anyone’s guess.

The assertion “firearm violence is now the leading cause of death among children and adolescents” is likewise misleading. This is an old trick of anti-liberty/gun cracktivists. That assertion is only potentially accurate if one includes people 18+, suicides, accidents and gangs shooting each other. One would think, considering how the federal public health bureaucracy threw away its credibility over fraudulent Covid huckstering, they’d go overboard to be accurate and truthful, but they’ve obviously learned nothing.

Murthy’s report notes the “Black community endured the highest firearm homicide rates in every age group,” but doesn’t mention this is because Black criminals commit all manner of violent crimes in numbers far outstripping their numbers in the population. Nor does Murthy mention Democrats have done all they can to help those criminals, releasing them without bail, refusing to prosecute, decriminalizing crime in general, and in the rare cases where violent felons are prosecuted, imposing ridiculously light sentences.

As one might imagine, Murthy’s recommendations conform exactly to Joe Biden’s handler’s anti-liberty, unconstitutional, demands:

3. Firearm risk reduction strategies, such as:

a. Requiring safe and secure firearm storage, including child access prevention laws;

b. Implementing universal background checks and expanding purchaser licensing laws;

c. Banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines for civilian use;

d. Treating firearms like other consumer products, including requiring safety testing or safety features;

e. Implementing effective firearm removal policies when individuals are a danger to themselves or others; and

f. Creating safer conditions in public places related to firearm use and carry.

Every one of these anti-gun wish list fever dreams would violate the Bruen decision.  For example “d” is an attempt to violate The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. And “f” is a stealth for establishing “gun free” zones that would encompass entire cities, even entire states. All are an attempt to directly infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. Criminals—surprise!—don’t obey  gun laws.

It should be no surprise the Surgeon General of a lawless administration should himself violate federal law. It reminds us of this quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson: “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

We thought we had to keep a close eye on the health establishment over Covid and actual diseases. Now we have to keep an eye on them as they try to treat an unalienable, fundament right as a disease, and Americans exercising it, as a disease vector to be eradicated.

Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer and high school and college English teacher. He is a published author and blogger. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor. 

The United States has experienced severe heat waves this summer, breaking daily temperature records and causing dangerous consequences like wildfires nationwide.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti, shows the hottest and coldest temperatures ever recorded in the United States.

Data was sourced from the National Centers for Environmental Information.

California and Alaska Hold Records for Extreme Temperatures

Extreme heat is a deadly phenomenon, responsible for approximately 1,220 fatalities each year in the United States.

The hottest temperature ever recorded in the country was an astonishing 134.4°F (56.7°C) in Death Valley, California, on July 10, 1913. This stands as the highest ambient air temperature ever recorded on the surface of the Earth. However, this reading, along with several others from that period, is disputed by some modern experts.

Death Valley has a subtropical, hot desert climate characterized by long, extremely hot summers, short, warm winters, and minimal rainfall. Its extreme dryness is due to its location in the rain shadow of four major mountain ranges.

Conversely, the coldest temperature ever recorded was -80°F (-62.2°C) at Prospect Creek Camp, Alaska, on January 23, 1971. Prospect Creek is a very small settlement approximately 180 miles (290 km) north of Fairbanks. In the past, it was home to numerous mining expeditions and served as a camp for the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System.

Currently, and perhaps understandably, no permanent residents live in this area.

Authored by Matt Margolis via PJMedia.com,

Back in May, House Speaker Mike Johnson unveiled legislation designed to ensure that only American citizens vote.

The unfortunate reality is that Joe Biden has let in millions of illegal immigrants, and the risk that these immigrants could influence our elections is extremely high. Legislation like this is absolutely necessary.

Johnson was pushing for the bill before the Independence Day recess with a thread explaining what the legislation does to ensure that only U.S. citizens vote. 

🧵The SAVE Act will safeguard our elections by ensuring only American citizens vote in federal elections.

Here’s what the legislation does:

— Speaker Mike Johnson (@SpeakerJohnson) July 5, 2024

Many on the left oppose this legislation, claiming that it’s unnecessary because it is already illegal to vote if you’re not a U.S. citizen. However, Johnson addressed this when he introduced the bill earlier this year.

“Some have noted that it’s already a crime for noncitizens to vote in a federal election, and that is true. But here are four things that are also true,” Speaker Johnson said back in May.

“(1) It is true that there is no mechanism to ensure only those registering or voting are actually citizens…

(2) It is true that Biden has welcomed millions and millions of illegal aliens, including sophisticated criminal syndicates and agents of adversarial governments, into our borders and even on humanitarian parole…

(3) It is true that a growing number of localities are blurring the lines for noncitizens by allowing them to vote in municipal elections…

(4) It is true that Democrats have expressed a desire to turn non-citizens into voters.”

So, what does the bill do?

Johnson explained in a thread on X/Twitter that the legislation requires state election officials to verify citizenship before providing voter registration forms, mandates proof of citizenship to register for federal elections, and accepts various documents to ease the registration process for citizens. It also gives states access to federal databases to remove noncitizens from voter rolls and confirms citizenship for those lacking proof.

Additionally, it directs DHS to consider removal proceedings for noncitizens registered to vote and ensures naturalized citizens are notified of their voting rights.

Who could oppose such commonsense legislation to protect our elections?

The Democrats, of course. 

[ZH: House Democratic leadership is bringing out the big guns against a Republican bill set to be voted on next week that would require proof of U.S. citizenship to vote in federal elections, Axios has learned.

In a whip question – a roundup of the coming week’s votes with instructions for how leadership wants rank-and-file members to vote – House Minority Whip Katherine Clark’s (D-Mass.) office told House Democrats they are “urged to VOTE NO” on the bill.

That means that Democratic leadership will send its whip team to cajole colleagues into not supporting the legislation.

The bill, Clark’s office said, would create an “extreme burden for countless Americans” and “further intimidate election officials and overburden states’ abilities to enroll new voters.”]

Elon Musk weighed in on the proposed legislation by reposting Johnson’s thread on X.

He dubbed those who oppose it “TRAITORS,” and then rhetorically asked what the punishment for treason is.

Those who oppose this are traitors.

All Caps: TRAITORS

What is the penalty for traitors again? https://t.co/lyREyskPv4

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 5, 2024

The punishment for treason in the United States, as laid out in 18 U.S. Code § 2381, is the death penalty, or a minimum of five years in prison.

Also, they are to be fined no less than $10,000 and rendered constitutionally ineligible to hold office in the United States.

I’m perfectly okay with Democrats who oppose election integrity being barred from holding office. How about you?