The ink was barely dry on President Biden’s signature transferring another $61 billion to the black hole called Ukraine, when the mainstream media broke the news that this was not the parting shot in a failed US policy. The elites have no intention of shutting down this gravy train, which transports wealth from the middle and working class to the wealthy and connected class.
Reuters wrote right after the aid bill was passed that, “Ukraine’s $61 billion lifeline is not enough.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell went on the Sunday shows after the bill was passed to say that $61 billion is “not a whole lot of money for us…” Well, that’s easy for him to say – after all it’s always easier to spend someone else’s money!
Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, was far from grateful for the $170 billion we have shipped thus far to his country. In an interview with Foreign Policy magazine as the aid package was passed, Kuleba had the nerve to criticize the US for not producing weapons fast enough. “If you cannot produce enough interceptors to help Ukraine win the war against the country that wants to destroy the world order, then how are you going to win in the war against perhaps an enemy who is stronger than Russia?”
How’s that for a “thank you”?
It may be understandable why the Ukrainians are frustrated. Most of this money is not going to help them fight Russia. US military aid to Ukraine has left our own stockpiles of weapons depleted, so the money is going to create new production lines to replace weapons already sent to Ukraine. It’s all about the US weapons industry. President Biden admitted as much when he said, “we are helping Ukraine while at the same time investing in our own industrial base.”
This is why Washington Is desperate to make sure that if Donald Trump returns to the White House, the “Ukraine” gravy train cannot be shut down by his – or future – administrations. Last week news broke that the Ukrainian government was in negotiations with the Biden Administration to sign a ten-year security agreement that would lock in US funding for Ukraine for the next two and a half US Administrations. That would unconstitutionally tie future presidents’ hands when it comes to foreign policy and would leave Americans on the hook for untold billions more dollars taken from them and sent to the weapons industry and to a corrupt foreign government.
The US weapons industry and its cheerleaders in Washington DC are determined to keep Ukraine money flowing…until they can figure out a way to gin up a war with China after losing the current war with Russia. That, of course, depends on whether there is anything left of us when the smoke clears.
When President Biden signed the $95 billion bill to keep wars going in Ukraine and Gaza and to provoke a future war with China, he called it “a good day for world peace.” Yes, and “War is peace.” Debt is good. Freedom is slavery. We are living in a post-truth society where billions spent on pointless wars are “not a whole lot of money.” But the piper will be paid and the debt will be cleared.
China’s Xi In Serbia Says ‘Never Forget’ This Unprecedented US Atrocity
Chinese leader Xi Jinping has been in France since Sunday where he met with French President Emmanuel Macron to talk about range of topics but especially the Ukraine war and trade between China and the European Union.
But on Tuesday he traveled to Serbia, and importantly the trip falls precisely on the 25th anniversary of the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, which came in the midst of NATO’s bombing of the Serbs of Yugoslavia during the 1999 Kosovo war.
Just ahead of arriving in the Serbian capital, Xi wrote a letter which has been published by the Serbian outlet Politika. In it he lambasted NATO and by extension United States for its historic war crime..
“Twenty-five years ago today, NATO flagrantly bombed the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia, killing three Chinese journalists,” Xi’s words introduced.
It happened on May 7, 1999 during US-NATO 78-day bombing campaign over Yugoslavia. That’s when five US Joint Direct Attack Munition guided bombs hit scored a direct hit on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, killing the journalists.
The US was adamant that it was inadvertent and unintentional, and eventually then President Clinton issued a formal apology to the Chinese government. It had marked the first time in all of modern history that a sovereign government’s military attacked another country’s embassy. It had not even happened once during World Wars I and II.
“This we should never forget. The Chinese people cherish peace, but we will never allow such tragic history to repeat itself,” Xi wrote.
“The Chinese-Serbian friendship, forged with the blood of our compatriots, will stay in the shared memory of the Chinese and Serbian peoples,” he continued.
His emphasis on the line “never forget” is interesting given it is a common line used by Americans when it comes to remembering the 9/11 terror attacks, as well as in the West when it comes to Holocaust remembrance days.
To review of what we’ve featured in a previous post called “America’s Benevolent Bombing of Serbia,” President Bill Clinton commenced bombing Belgrade in the name of human rights, justice, and ethnic tolerance. Approximately 1,500 Serb civilians were killed by NATO bombing in one of the biggest sham morality plays of the modern era.
As British professor Philip Hammond has noted, the 78-day bombing campaign “was not a purely military operation: NATO also destroyed what it called ‘dual-use’ targets, such as factories, city bridges, and even the main television building in downtown Belgrade, in an attempt to terrorise the country into surrender.”
Clinton’s unprovoked attack on Serbia, intended to help ethnic Albanians seize control of Kosovo, set a precedent for “humanitarian” warring that was invoked by supporters of George W. Bush’s unprovoked attack on Iraq, Barack Obama’s bombing of Libya, and Donald Trump’s bombing of Syria.
The Verden regional court in Lower Saxony has upheld a verdict against Rotenburg AfD leader Marie-Thérèse Kaiser for incitement to hatred. The 27-year-old was also found guilty in the appeal hearing on Monday of inciting hatred against Afghan local workers.
For this, the politician now has to pay 100 day fines (a type of fine related to daily income of the convicted) plus a fine of €60, a total of €6,000. In Germany, you are considered to have a criminal record if you are sentenced to pay more than 90 day fines.
The charge was based on a post that Kaiser had spread on her social media accounts in August 2021. In it, she wrote: “Afghanistan refugees; Hamburg SPD mayor for ‘unbureaucratic’ acceptance; Welcoming culture for gang rape?”
Among other things, the politician linked to an article showing that Afghans in Germany are particularly heavily involved in gang rape.
The verdict has now also caught the attention of X CEO Elon Musk. He retweeted a post summarizing the punishment and wrote: “Are you saying the penalty was imposed for repeating accurate government statistics? Was there anything wrong with what she said?”
Are you saying the fine was for repeating accurate government statistics?
The reason for Kaiser’s post from 2021 was statements made by Hamburg’s First Mayor, Peter Tschentscher (SPD), who announced that he would take in 200 Afghan local workers in Hamburg. The AfD politician justified her concern about uncontrolled immigration with statistics and warned of rapes by “culturally alien masses.”
Before the district court hearing, Kaiser said: “The mere mention of numbers, data, and facts is to be declared a criminal offense simply because the establishment refuses to accept reality. I won’t let myself be silenced.”
AfD politician: “Trust in the rule of law” shaken
Judge Heiko Halbfas saw things differently on Monday: “Those who attack human dignity cannot invoke freedom of speech.” Kaiser deliberately created an image in the minds of others that led to hatred of a nationally determined group, the district newspaper reported.
After the verdict, Kaiser announced her intention to appeal and expressed dismay over the verdict: She told Junge Freiheit:
The whole world is astonished by this decision by the German courts. After even Elon Musk picked up on my case, I have received numerous messages of support and press inquiries. The demand for a way to donate is also becoming louder and louder.
She described this as “overwhelming.”
Kaiser added: “My trust in the German rule of law was once again severely shaken yesterday, but all the letters give me courage and confidence.”
AstraZeneca Pulls Covid Vaccine After Admitting Rare Side Effect
In yet another damning development for the ‘safe and effective’ crowd, AstraZeneca has announced the worldwide withdrawal of its Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, branded as Vaxzevria, due to a rare but serious side effect. This decision marks the end of the vaccine once hailed as a “triumph for British science” by Boris Johnson and credited with saving over six million lives, The Telegraph reports.
The pharmaceutical giant voluntarily withdrew its “marketing authorization” in the European Union earlier this week, with similar actions expected soon in the UK and other approving countries. The move, described by the company as driven by “commercial reasons,” coincides with the availability of newer vaccines designed to combat emerging variants.
That said, the timing of the withdrawal follows months of intense scrutiny over a rare side effect. In a recent High Court document, the company admitted that Vaxzevria could, in very rare instances, cause Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS), which has been linked to at least 81 deaths in the UK. Despite these admissions, AstraZeneca maintains that the decision to pull the vaccine is unrelated to the ongoing legal challenges or its potential side effects.
“We are incredibly proud of the role Vaxzevria played in ending the global pandemic. According to independent estimates, over 6.5 million lives were saved in the first year of use alone and over three billion doses were supplied globally,” the company said in a statement. “Our efforts have been recognised by governments around the world and are widely regarded as being a critical component of ending the global pandemic.”
The European Medicines Agency has begun the process to formally withdraw the vaccine, reflecting an expected move away from monovalent vaccines, which target only the original COVID-19 strain. Marco Cavaleri, head of vaccines at the agency, emphasized that this is a standard procedure for vaccines that are no longer in use.
Legal experts and victims, however, see the withdrawal as a vindication of their long-held concerns over the vaccine’s safety. “To those who we represent, all of whom have suffered bereavement or serious injury as a result of the AstraZeneca vaccine, this decision to withdraw marketing authorisation, ending the usage of the AstraZeneca vaccine in the EU, will be welcomed,” said Sarah Moore, a partner at Leigh Day, the law firm representing many of the claimants.
“It will be seen as a decision linked with AstraZeneca’s recent admission that the vaccine can cause TTS, and the fact that regulators across the world suspended or stopped usage of the vaccine following concerns regarding TTS.”
Victims and their families have reported a range of severe reactions, from fatal thrombosis to lasting disabilities, sparking a debate over the adequacy of vaccine safety monitoring and compensation for vaccine injuries.
Kate Scott, whose husband suffered a permanent brain injury after receiving the vaccine, expressed mixed feelings: “AstraZeneca’s Covid vaccine no longer being used in the UK or Europe, and soon the rest of the world, means no one else will suffer from this awful adverse reaction,” she said. “They say it is for commercial reasons, but maybe it’s because it can no longer be seen as being within the acceptable safety parameters, with 445 confirmed cases of VITT, 81 of these fatal in the UK alone.“
The government’s vaccine damage payment scheme has been criticized for not providing sufficient compensation, prompting calls for reform. “This is an important regulatory step, but still our clients remain without fair compensation. We will continue to fight for the compensation our clients need and campaign for reform of the vaccine damage payment scheme.,” Moore added.
EU Leaders Confronts China’s Xi Over Trade At Paris Summit
By Dorothy Li of The Epoch Times
The European Union pressed China over its unfair trade practices as communist regime leader Xi Jinping began his official visit aimed at bolstering relationships with European leaders.
China’s subsidized products—such as electric vehicles and steel—“are flooding the European market,” but Beijing “continues to massively support its manufacturing sector” at a time of weak domestic demand, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters following a trilateral meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron and Xi on Monday. “The world cannot absorb China’s surplus production.”
Xi landed in Paris on Sunday afternoon, kicking off his first European visit in five years. Outside observers suggested that Xi’s six-day trip was designed by Beijing to create divisions between Brussels and Washington, as the two sides are currently united in their approach to addressing threats posed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Monday’s trilateral meeting took place at a time of rising tensions between the 27-member bloc and China on multiple fronts, from the war in Ukraine and Beijing’s support of Russia to its burgeoning production in green-energy sectors, such as electric vehicles (EVs) and their batteries.
Last November, Ms. von der Leyen, in a clear demonstration of the EU’s commitment to fair trade, announced that the European Commission—the EU’s executive branch—had formally initiated a probe to determine whether EVs made in China were benefiting from state subsidies. In December 2023, Brussels launched an anti-dumping investigation into biodiesel imported from China after producers in the bloc voiced concerns about the serious harm caused by low-price Chinese imports to the industry.
In the months leading up to Xi’s visit, the EU has been looking into certain sectors in China, such as wind turbine and solar panel production, and most recently, China’s procurement of medical devices.
In Monday’s briefing, Ms. von der Leyen said the EU is ready to act to protect its businesses from Beijing’s unequal market access.
“For trade to be fair, access to each other’s market also needs to be reciprocal,” she told the briefing in Paris. “We stand ready to make full use of our trade defense instruments if this is necessary.”
“Europe cannot accept market-distorting practices that could lead to deindustrialization here at home.”
Ms. von der Leyen described Brusells’s relationship with Beijing as complex, emphasizing that European leaders approach it “clear-eyed, constructively, and responsibly.”
“At the same time, Europe will not waver from making tough decisions needed to protect its economy and its security,” she added.
Speaking later alongside Xi after the two met several times during the day, reviewed troops together, and repeatedly shook hands for the cameras, Mr. Macron told reporters: “The EU today has the world’s most open market … but we want to be able to protect it.”
The EU’s more robust stance on trade with China dovetails with Washington’s approach. U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has warned China that Washington will not accept new industries being “decimated” by Chinese imports.
According to a summary of the meeting released by China’s foreign ministry, Xi told Ms. von der Leyen and Mr. Macron that dialogues are necessary to “address economic and trade frictions.”
However, the CCP boss pushed back criticism of its industrial overcapacity, saying the issue “does not exist either from the perspective of comparative advantage or in light of global demand.”
Spreading Propaganda
Xi’s visit to Europe came as the regime grapples with a slowing economy burdened by a prolonged property crisis, weak business confidence, and mounting local government debts.
Amidst the CCP’s sluggish economy and escalating political infighting, Xi is eager to reassure the Chinese public. Outside observers say Xi’s Europe trip, which also included stops in Hungary and Serbia, provides a perfect opportunity to spread propaganda at home.
“Hungary is the most CCP-friendly nation in the European Union, while Serbia is the most friendly non-EU country in Europe,” Cheng Chin-mo, an expert on European security and international relationships at Taiwan’s Tamkang University, told The Epoch Times ahead of Xi’s trip.
“It’s easy for Xi to receive a high-level reception in the two countries, which will be used for domestic propaganda operations and showcase what they call a ’major achievement’ of Xi’s foreign visit,” Mr. Cheng added.
As the EU’s relationship with China continues to strain over the regime’s human rights record, unfair trade policies, and other issues, Hungary has maintained a close political and economic relationship with the CCP. Budapest is a member state of Beijing’s 16+1 platform, an initiative the CCP used to bolster ties with central and eastern European countries in wide-ranging areas, including infrastructure, economy, and technology.
After Xi launched his signature Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2013, Hungary was among the first EU members to join the multi-billion infrastructure project. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban was the only EU leader to attend a forum in Beijing last November celebrating the 10th anniversary of the BRI.
In a sign of the CCP’s deepened influence in Budapest, Chinese police officers are allowed to perform joint patrols in several locations across Hungary as part of the security deals that the Orban government signed with the CCP, raising security concerns in Brussels.
As for Serbia, a European Union candidate, China has invested billions of dollars in the Balkan country, mostly in the form of soft loans for infrastructure and energy projects, as part of its BRI initiative to open foreign trade links. Xi has described Serbia as an “ironclad friend” of the regime.
Even the date of his Europe tour is carefully selected. Mr. Cheng noted that Xi is likely to stop off in Serbia around the 25th anniversary of the deadly U.S. bombing of a Chinese embassy in Belgrade. The incident, which took place on May 7, 1999, and resulted in the death of three Chinese journalists, was portrayed by China’s state media as a deliberate strike by the U.S. military at the time and sparked significant outrage in China. Thousands of demonstrators also mobbed the U.S. embassy and consulates in Beijing and other Chinese cities.
The United States described the attack as a “mistake“ and blamed out-of-date maps, while then-President Bill Clinton issued a formal apology. But China’s state media often uses the event to take a veiled swipe at Washington to fuel anti-American sentiments.
Most of my columns for this newspaper relate to the Constitution. A common reaction among some readers—both in the online “comments” section and in direct correspondence—is that I’m wasting my time because the Constitution doesn’t matter any more. It’s irrelevant.
I have spent most of the past 30 years working in constitutional law. I think I know something about the subject. And I can report to you that the Constitution, while wounded in a few places, is mostly alive and well. This column will explain why the Constitution still matters—and matters very much.
Over time, the price of a publicly traded company tends to follow (among other factors) the company’s earnings and projected earnings. Similarly, the valuation of the market as a whole tends to follow corporate earnings and projected earnings.
If earnings and projected earnings drop in a way unlikely to be remedied soon, then the price of stock generally falls. If they rise in a way that does not appear to be a fluke, the price of stock generally rises.
But this is not always so; sometimes there are exceptions. In other words, sometimes stock prices rise or fall without regard to earnings or projected earnings.
When deviations persist for any amount of time, self-promoting pundits claim that “the rules have changed” and “earnings don’t matter any more.” People who believe them irrationally buy stock (causing a bubble) or irrationally dump it (panic selling). And when the market corrects—as it always does—those people get nailed.
Their mistake is in thinking that an exception to the rule (a one-time bump or slump) is the rule itself.
Most of us get our image of constitutional law from mainstream media reports of rare and controversial cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
But as in the stock market analogy, reliance on these reports leads people to mistake (purported) exceptions for the rule.
The media reports about the highly publicized cases are often wrong or distorted.
More importantly, the highly publicized cases represent only a small fraction of the controversies the Supreme Court resolves (often unanimously) upon accepted constitutional principles … and all of the Supreme Court’s cases together are only a small fraction of the disputes resolved by lower appeals courts—also upon accepted constitutional principles … and the cases resolved by lower appeals courts represent only a small fraction of those decided by the trial courts … and the cases decided by the trial courts are only a small fraction of those settled by the parties out of court … and the settled disputes are only a small fraction of the questions answered daily by constitutional lawyers in the normal course of business.
So the public’s perception of the Constitution and constitutional law is being formed by (1) often-erroneous media reports on (2) a small fraction of (3) a small fraction of (4) a small fraction of (5) a small fraction of (6) a small fraction of constitutional decisions!
You simply cannot reach conclusions about the Constitution’s viability based on such a tiny and mis-reported sample.
Another Reason Some Think the Constitution Doesn’t Matter
Another common mistake is expecting the Constitution to do too much. People angry that the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, for example, seem to believe that because they favor legal abortion, the Constitution must require it. There is an opposing group who believe that because abortion is evil, the Constitution must prohibit it. In fact, as the late great Justice Antonin Scalia remarked, the Constitution says nothing at all about abortion. It is an issue left to be resolved by other means.
The Constitution was not designed to solve all human problems, nor could any man-made document ever do so. Even if every clause in the instrument were enforced quickly and perfectly, life still would be marred by foolish laws, unfair conditions, political and economic mistakes, and other human failings.
Mistakes in Interpretation
Sometimes an official mistake in applying the Constitution leads people to think the document doesn’t matter. But this also is wrong.
For one thing, misinterpretations can be corrected over time. During the mid-20th century, the Supreme Court misinterpreted the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment by giving insufficient protection to freedom of religion. Since the 1980s, however, the court has been correcting its mistakes, and its freedom-of-religion law is now much closer to that envisioned by the Founders.
Additionally, some mistakes result in the Constitution mattering even more than originally intended. One of my recent columns discussed the Supreme Court’s latest case on the Fifth Amendment “Takings Clause.” I wrote that the justices probably erred in applying the Takings Clause against a local government.
But does that mean the Constitution is irrelevant? Of course not. Without the Constitution, there would be no Takings Clause at all. It is far better that the clause be too broad than non-existent.
Here’s a more controversial illustration: When Sen. Barack Obama campaigned for the presidency, many people claimed he was not constitutionally qualified because he is not a natural born citizen.
My own view, after examining the factual and legal evidence, is that President Obama is natural born. But whether or not that is true, think of why we had that discussion. We had that discussion because the Constitution requires the president to be natural born. If the Constitution didn’t matter, there would be no reason to debate the issue.
And there would have been no reason for President Obama to produce a birth certificate (however disputed) showing that he was born in Hawaii.
What If the Constitution Really Didn’t Matter?
Let’s look at it another way. Suppose it were true that the Constitution didn’t matter—that the only important thing was what our masters in the “woke” establishment decided. In that event:
The Supreme Court would not be enforcing the First Amendment, so religious people would be under severe constraints and this newspaper would not exist.
If the government took your land, you would be paid nothing.
You could not own a gun.
The presidential term could be any length set by whoever was in power. Same for congressional terms.
President Obama could have run for a third term in 2016. And a fourth in 2020. And a fifth in 2024. (Assuming he remains influential in the Biden administration, that’s not the same as being president.)
Donald Trump would not have been elected president in 2016. But because the Constitution features an institution known as the Electoral College—and because the Constitution matters—he became president.
In fact, he probably would be in jail. But because the Constitution requires due process and because the Constitution matters, he is free and running for president again.
Greta Thunberg, environmental enfant terrible, could be president even though (1) she is not a native-born American (she is Swedish), and (2) she is only 21 years old.
And if the Constitution didn’t matter, we probably would not have elections at all—even imperfect ones. Yet we continue to do so, year after year, because the Constitution requires it. And in the overwhelming majority of cases, the certified results reflect the election’s actual results.
I could go on. Suffice to say that without the Constitution, America would be an entirely different place.
Why the Inaccuracy Is Dangerous
The inaccurate view that the Constitution doesn’t matter can have dangerous consequences. If we accept that view, then no one is bound to anything in the document. We have no legal basis for protest when an election has been corrupted or even canceled.
If we believe “the Constitution doesn’t matter,” then we have no positive law basis for complaining about loss of rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, keeping and bearing arms, property—or any of the other hundreds of rights and rules we take for granted in daily life.
Ideally, we should not take those rights and rules for granted. But on a day-to-day basis we are able to do so precisely because the Constitution matters so much.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
These Are The Countries With The Most Students Studying Abroad
The world’s two most populous nations, China and India, have the highest numbers of students studying overseas.
Statista’s Anna Fleck reports that, according to data published by UNESCO, more than one million Chinese students were studying abroad in 2021. India’s total was close to half of this, with around 508,000 students living in other countries.
Following some way behind come Vietnam, Germany and Uzbekistan.
The United States was the largest destination country for students studying abroad with over 833,000 there in 2021. It was followed by the United Kingdom (nearly 601,000), Australia (around 378,000), Germany (over 376,000) and Canada (nearly 318,000).
This data was published as part of the International Organization for Migration’s (IOM) 2024 World Migration Report, which provides an overview of the global state of migration using the latest available data, published Tuesday. This ranges from data on asylum seekers fleeing war to economic migrants seeking labor opportunities, and as this chart shows, to students living abroad.
According to the report, the total number of internationally mobile students has been on the rise over the last two decades. UNESCO data reveals that where 2.2 million students were studying abroad in 2001, that figure had climbed to 6.39 million students in 2021.
Public access to Wisconsin’s state voter roll is too restricted and too expensive, according to the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), a national election integrity watchdog organization.
To remedy the situation, PILF is suing the Badger State’s chief election official, Meagan Wolfe, to reduce the $12,500 price for a digital copy of the state voter roll and to force her to provide the year of birth of the registrants on purchased data.
Wisconsinite Peter Bernegger, a computer analyst from the election integrity organization Election Watch, told The Epoch Times that the $12,500 fee is a hardship and a deterrent for every grassroots watchdog group trying to keep regular tabs on Wisconsin’s “bloated and often inaccurate state voter roll.”
A Federal Election Assistance Commission report found that, of the 622,370 address confirmation notices mailed to Wisconsin registrants between Jan. 1, 2021, and Dec. 31, 2022, 299,490 were returned as undeliverable.
Like Election Watch, PILF uses state election roll data to analyze the activities and programs of state and local election officials to ensure the rolls are kept current and accurate according to law.
In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court Western District of Wisconsin on April 30, 2024, PILF attorneys produced evidence in which the Wisconsin Election Commission (WEC) acknowledged on its website that effective and accurate public evaluation of its voter list maintenance activities is impossible because the public does not have access to date of birth information.
Year of birth information is a key tool in confirming duplicate names on the voter list and eliminating ineligible registrations.
Despite its acknowledgment, WEC is still refusing to provide PILF with the requested year of birth information in alleged violation of the National Voting Rights Act of 1993 (NVRA).
The act requires states to “make available for public inspection and, where available photocopying at a reasonable cost, all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters.”
WEC has repeatedly claimed that Wisconsin has been exempt from NVRA since it became law in 1993 because, before the statutory cut-off date of Aug. 1, 1994, the state had a same-day voter registration program in place that allowed all voters to register on Election Day.
At the time, Wisconsin and six other states received NVRA exemptions for either having no voter registration at all or having same-day registration.
North Dakota still has no voter registration for state and federal elections.
According to the complaint, the year of birth data on the roll is a record subject to the NVRA’s public disclosure provision because, as noted above, the act says “all” election records must be made available for public inspection.
PILF contends that, even though the privacy of the year of birth information is protected by Wisconsin statute, state law must give way to federal law because of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Prohibitive Fee An Obstacle
Ms. Wolfe’s refusal to turn over the year of birth data and a digital copy of the state voter roll at a reasonable price is seen by PILF as an obstacle to Congress’ objectives outlined in the NVRA.
Congress declared that one of the purposes of NVRA is to protect the integrity of the electoral process and to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.
Because it is purportedly exempted from the NVRA, Wisconsin is not required to make all voter list maintenance records public, nor is it required to limit records production fees to the cost of photocopying.
PILF attorneys assert that Wisconsin’s NVRA exemption “is invalid with respect to the law’s public disclosure provision.”
They cite the principle of equal state sovereignty, as affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), as a precedent to support their argument.
“Because the NVRA’s Public Disclosure Provision exists to further the NVRA’s purposes and aid in its enforcement” it is as equally relevant to Wisconsin as it is to other states.
“Congress designed the NVRA to protect the fundamental right to vote, remove unfair registration laws, protect the integrity of the electoral process, and maintain accurate voter rolls,” the complaint said.
Wisconsin Should Not Be Exempt
PILF argued that the injuries Congress sought to remedy by passing the NVRA are “equally prevalent” in Wisconsin as in other states.
According to PILF, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Shelby County decision reaffirmed that all states enjoy equal sovereignty and that if Congress treats states differently, the differential treatment must be “sufficiently related to the problem [the statute] targets” and must “make sense in light of current conditions.”
PILF is asking the Federal District Court to order, the defendant, Meagan Wolfe, to produce the Official Registration List to the foundation in electronic format without the payment of “unlawful costs.”
In a written statement, PILF President J. Christian Adams said: “No state should be exempt from transparency. All states should be treated equally under the law and no exemption should allow certain election officials to hide documents relating to voter list maintenance activities.
“This lawsuit is the first step to bringing the National Voter Registration Act’s transparency requirements to all 50 states.”
Ms. Wolfe did not respond to a request for comment, but WEC spokesman Riley Vetterkind referred The Epoch Times to Wisconsin statutes that Ms. Wolfe is relying on as justification for her denial.
India received by far the highest international remittances of any country worldwide in 2022, according to World Bank data published in the International Organization for Migration’s (IOM) 2024 World Migration Report on Tuesday. International remittances are defined as money sent from workers living abroad to their home countries.
Additionally, as Statista’s Anna Fleck reports, it is also the first country ever to have passed the $100 billion mark for inbound remittances. India was trailed some way behind by Mexico ($61.1 billion), which had toppled China ($51 billion) from the second position in 2021.
The majority of the inflows for France and Germany, which appear in rank 5 and 10, respectively, are not household transfers but “relate to salaries of cross-border workers who work in Switzerland while residing in France or Germany”, according to the report.
In terms of the top sources of international remittances, the United States ($79.15 billion in 2022), Saudi Arabia ($39.35 billion), Switzerland ($31.91 billion), Germany ($25.60 billion) and China ($18.26 billion) are the biggest senders.
The UAE’s data was not published this year by the World Bank but would usually also appear in the top 10 list.
According to the IOM, 2022 marks the first year that remittances have overtaken foreign direct investment in low- and middle-earning countries. International remittances have risen by 650 percent from $128 billion in 2000 to $831 billion in 2022. As with previous years, much of this ($647 billion) was received by low- and middle-income countries. Since the mid-1990s, remittance has also greatly surpassed Official Development Assistance, i.e. government aid designed to “promote the economic development and welfare of developing countries” .
The writers of the report highlight that the World Bank’s global data on international remittances does not take into account unrecorded flows through formal or informal channels. This means the data provided is likely below the actual figures.
As May 3 marked World Press Freedom Day, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) released its 2024 World Press Freedom Index.
China ranked near the bottom—172nd among 180 countries and regions—while maintaining its title from the previous year as the world’s biggest jailer of journalists.
RSF, the Paris-based international non-governmental organization dedicated to safeguarding freedom of information, said in the report that “in addition to detaining more journalists than any other country in the world,” the Chinese communist regime “continues to exercise strict control over information channels, implementing censorship and surveillance policies to regulate online content and restrict the spread of information deemed to be sensitive or contrary to the party line.”
RSF also pointed out in the report that “China is the world’s largest jailer of journalists, with more than 100 currently detained.”
Compared with last year’s ranking of 179th—second last place—China’s ranking this year has increased. However, the report indicated that the only reason for this slight upward movement in the rankings is the deterioration of situations in other countries and regions, such as in the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, rather than any improvement in China.
The press freedom ranking of Hong Kong—which is controlled by the Chinese regime—this year has also increased slightly, to 135th place, which is higher than its 140th position in 2023. However, its freedom score dropped 1.8 points from last year’s 44.86 “due to an increase in the persecution of journalists under the national security law imposed by Beijing in 2020,” says the report. RSF explained, “Some countries’ rises in the Index are misleading inasmuch as their scores fell and the Index rises were the result of falls by countries previously above them.”
Over 100 Chinese Writers Jailed
Meanwhile, New York’s PEN America released its Freedom to Write Index 2023.
The report, released on May 1, pointed out that China also remains the world’s leading jailer of writers and public intellectuals. “In 2023, China jumped above 100 cases, jailing 6 writers during the year for a total of 107. Of the total number of writers, 9 are female.”
Among the 107 writers imprisoned, 50 were online commentators who post their opinions on a range of social, political, and economic topics on social media platforms. The report said that the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) uses the vague charge of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” to arrest and imprison them.
Canada-based journalist and writer Sheng Xue told The Epoch Times on May 4 that the numbers published by these international organizations are just the few leaked out to the outside world under the CCP’s tight control of information.
“No one knows how many journalists in China have been persecuted to death, how many have been secretly arrested, sentenced, persecuted, and tortured,“ Ms. Sheng said. ”The entire system of the CCP is a state-terrorist regime, which means not only the central committee of the CCP is an autocratic and authoritarian system, [but] all levels of its power operate the same as a dictatorial and tyrannical regime. Therefore, it is impossible for the outside world to know many incidents. It is difficult to collect statistics. To be honest, even [CCP leader] Xi Jinping does not know.”
“I believe China is definitely the country where press freedom and freedom of speech are most severely persecuted in the world,” Ms. Sheng added. “Its political system enables it to reach such an extent.”
Lai Jianping, a Chinese human rights lawyer who currently resides in the United States, told The Epoch Times on May 4 that press freedom and freedom of speech in China, including Hong Kong, are actually declining and deteriorating.
“The reason why the CCP continues to tighten its control over speech is mainly because it is facing increasingly profound and unprecedented political, social, and economic crises. Its ruling status is threatened, and it wants to maintain one-party dictatorship and one-man dictatorship. Therefore, it continues to strengthen its control over all aspects of social life. So [suppressing] freedom of speech and freedom of the press are top priorities for the CCP and are the most important aspects of social life that it needs to control.”
Chinese Citizen Journalists
Chinese citizen journalists have also been targets of the Chinese regime’s suppression and persecution.
Chinese citizen journalist Zhang Zhan was sentenced to four years in prison for reporting the truth about the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan in 2020. Her sentence will be completed on May 13. RSF urges the international community to pay attention and put pressure on Beijing so that she can fully regain her freedom in a press release last month. Ms. Zhang was the winner of the RSF’s 2021 Prize for Courage.
Wuhan citizen journalist Fang Bin has been released from prison for a year but continues to face harassment by CCP authorities. Currently, he faces eviction while his electricity and water have been cut off at his residence, as Wuhan police pressure his landlord. He may soon be forced to live on the streets.
During the outbreak of COVID-19 in Wuhan in February 2020, Mr. Fang posted his video reports on social media revealing the massive number of deaths at that time, which attracted widespread international attention. Later, he was arrested by the local police and sentenced to three years’ prison for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.”
Mr. Lai said, “Citizen journalists are a basic link in the entire freedom of press [ecosystem]. Not only the [Chinese] official media and official journalists’ freedom of speech and press freedom are suppressed, but private citizen journalists are also suppressed, and even more seriously.”
He added, “There are fewer and fewer areas in which they can report and intervene, and there is almost no space for them. Because the CCP wants to monopolize the entire discourse system and right to discourse, there is basically no room for citizen journalists to survive.”
Ms. Sheng said that at this point, “there are no citizen journalists in China any more. When we talk about freedom of press, freedom of speech, media freedom, etc. in China, the Communist Party has given us the best answer—it has already declared that the media is the CCP’s mouthpiece.”
