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

The Biden administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has revealed its ambition: to phase out gas-powered cars in favor of electric vehicles (EVs). Incredibly, this announcement comes as we are flooded with overwhelming evidence that EVs are a market loser.

Indeed, the artificial boom and then meltdown of the EV market is a modern industrial calamity. It was created by government, social media, wild disease frenzy, far-flung thinking, and the irrational chasing of utopia, followed by a rude awakening by facts and reality.

CEO of Hertz Stephen Scherr has been booted out due to a vast purchase of an EV fleet that consumers didn’t even want to rent. The company has now been forced to sell them at a deep discount and in a market where consumers are not particularly interested.

Looking back, however, Scherr’s decision to bet everything on an EV boom was a disaster that was highly praised at the time. Only last year, the company bragged: “This morning, [Hertz] was recognized by The White House for our efforts to expand access to electric vehicles across the country. Demand for EV rentals is growing and we’re here to help our customers electrify their travels.”

Pleasing the Biden administration is not the same as pleasing consumers.

The demand turned south fast in a real-world test of drivers. But that’s not all. Hertz could not make their investment pay no matter what they did.

The key issues with EVs are as follows.

The cost upfront is much higher.

Financing charges are higher.

They depreciate at a higher rate than internal combustion cars.

The insurance is more expensive, by at least 25 percent.

Repairs are much more expensive, if you can get them done at all, and take longer.

Tires are more expensive and don’t last as long because the car is so heavy.

Refueling is not easy and missteps here can have nightmarish consequences.

They are more likely to catch fire.

Any motor vehicle accident that impacts the battery can lead to repairs higher than the value of the car, that is totaled with so much as a scratch.

To top it all over, there is no longer any financial advantage to the driver. It now costs slightly more to charge under many conditions than to refuel with gasoline.

The novelty of driving one for a day wears off after the first day. At first they seem like the greatest thing that ever happened, like an iPhone with wheels. That’s great but then the problems crop up and people start to realize that they are fine for urban commutes with home chargers and not much else.

They make truly terrible rentals. Obviously, under rental conditions, people have to use charging stations rather than a charger in the garage. That means spending part of your vacation figuring out where to find one.

Not all are superchargers, and if it is a regular charger, you are looking at an overnight wait. If you do find a station with fast chargers, you might have to wait in line. They might not work. You waste hours doing this. And you likely have to reroute your trip even to find a station without any certainty that you will get a spot with a functioning charger.

No one wants to do this. When you rent a car, all you want is a car that goes the distance. And typically car rentals are for going some distance else you would just take a taxi or a Lyft from the airport. You might need to drive several hours. And god forbid that this takes place in cold weather because that can reduce your mileage by half. Your whole trip will be ruined.

Why in the world would anyone want to rent one of these things rather than a gas-powered car? You might be better off with a horse and carriage.

Did Hertz think of any of this before they spent $250M on a fleet? Nope. They were just doing the fashionable thing.

Again, I’m not knocking some uses for EVs. If you think of them as enclosed and souped up golf carts, you get the idea. They can be wonderful for certain urban environments so long as you don’t overuse them and have to get them repaired. You also have to be in a financial position to afford the higher costs all around, from financing to insurance to repairs and tires. And you have to be prepared to take a big loss on resale, if you can even manage to find a buyer.

There is money to be made in this market, as there is with any niche good or service. But that is covered with normal market conditions, not massive subsidies, mandates, and frenzies. The Hertz case proves it. It is a perfect clinical trial of these machines. We now know the answer. They cannot work.

And thank goodness because if the United States truly switched over in a big way from gas to electric, we would face other disasters. The wear and tear on roads is much worse due to the sheer weight of the cars, which is 25 percent higher than gas cars on average. Many parking garages would have to be rebuilt with new reinforcements.

Then there is the strain on the grid. There is no way the industry could handle the demand. Brownouts and travel restrictions would be essential. All this would pave the way toward 15-minute cities.

Please remember how this craze began. It was lockdown time and automakers suspended orders for parts and chips. They stopped cranking out cars. When demand intensified, the chip makers had moved on to other things, so delays escalated. By the summer of 2021, there was a general panic about a growing car shortage.

At that point, consumers were willing to buy anything on the lot, among which EVs. The sales records were completely misinterpreted. The manufacturers made huge investments, and the car rental companies did too. But the product had not really been tested. That test is taking place now, and the EVs are completely failing.

We keep hearing that this is still too early, that development has a long way to go, that more charging stations are coming, that manufacturers are going to overcome all these problems in time. All of this sounds very similar to what the producers of mRNA shots say: this was just a trial run and they will get better the next time.

Maybe but doubtful. There is a huge problem in the investment market right now. EVs are massive losers. Consumers, manufacturers, car rental companies, and every other market in which these lemons are made available are running away from them as fast as possible. They had their day in the sun and got fried.

There is another problem: surveillance. The car can be tracked anywhere and shut off at a moment’s notice. This is obviously a great thing if the government desires a social-credit system of citizens control.

At this point, it is doubtful that the industry can recover. And yet, even now, the Biden administration is planning more subsidies, more mandates, more restrictions on gas cars, and digging themselves even deeper into this hole.

“The Biden administration on Wednesday issued one of the most significant climate regulations in the nation’s history, a rule designed to ensure that the majority of new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States are all-electric or hybrids by 2032,” reports the New York Times.

You simply cannot make up nuttier stuff. At some point, we could see manufacturers making the cars just to satisfy the central planners but otherwise preparing to chop them up and throw them out. They would likely be happy to dump them in the ocean but that isn’t allowed either.

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

A partial US government shutdown was averted in the wee hours of Saturday morning as the Senate approved a $1.2 trillion spending package. The measure will now go to President Biden’s desk later today.

The passage of the 1,012-page bill (did any lawmakers actually read the whole thing?) in a 74 to 24 vote concludes several months of drama on Capitol Hill centered around Republicans demanding deeper spending cuts as the federal government spends like drunken sailors, with the national debt recently skyrocketing to over $34.578 trillion.

The legislation provides 75% of the federal government funding for the coming six months. It includes measures to increase military salaries, eliminate funding to the United Nations agency supporting Palestinian refugees, and enhance security along the southern border. 

The bill passed shortly after the 12:01 a.m. deadline, indicating that some federal funding expired, but the White House budget office said it would not declare a shutdown.

On Friday, the House passed the pork-filled bill by a vote of 286-134, with 112 Republicans and 22 Democrats against. The bipartisan deal was the result of an agreement between the president, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), and Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-NY). 

“It’s been a long day, a long week, a very long few months, but tonight we have funded the government,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., NY). 

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, wrote in a statement, “We have finally passed all twelve bills to fund the government—and I’m proud to be sending a $1 billion increase in funding for child care and early learning programs to President Biden’s desk.” 

The Senate Appropriations Committee highlighted what it believes are the top things in the $1.2 trillion funding package: 

• Lowers child care costs for families and strengthens Head Start with a new $1 billion investment to help families in every zip code afford child care and help ensure Head Start can continue serving hundreds of thousands of kids each year.

• Protects workers’ rights and helps ensure they get the paychecks they have earned by protecting funding for essential worker protection agencies and the National Labor Relations Board.

• Invests in students at every stage of their education and sustains essential investments in our nation’s public schools by delivering resources for our public K-12 schools, Pell Grants, and more—and rejecting devastating cuts that would have forced teachers out of our nation’s K-12 classrooms.

• Keeps our country safe and supports our servicemembers and military families with essential investments in our national defense and important additional support for those who serve our country in uniform.

• Builds on our historic economic recovery and supports small businesses.

• Supports people’s health, strengthens the health care workforce, and guards against public health threats, rejecting dangerous cuts and sustaining all manner of investments in patients’ health.

• Propels cutting-edge biomedical research to discover and create new treatments and cures that save lives and give people more time with their loved ones.

• Invests in mental health care and research and strengthens the 988 lifeline—sustaining and building upon key investments made in recent years.

• Protects consumers and holds fraudsters and rich tax cheats accountable to help even the playing field and keep growing our economy from the middle out.

• Combats the flow of fentanyl, strengthens our detection and enforcement capabilities, and invests in substance use disorder treatment and prevention to address the opioid crisis that continues to devastate communities.

• Delivers critical resources to help meet operational needs at our southern border.

• Maintains America’s global leadership and upholds our commitments to our allies and partners to promote our own national security and strengthen our competitiveness.

• Supports our Afghan allies by authorizing an additional 12,000 Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) for Afghans who assisted the US government during the war in Afghanistan.

• Increases base funding for humanitarian assistance to support the United States’ efforts to provide emergency food, shelter, water, and basic services to populations caught in conflict and crises across the globe.

Meanwhile, Rep. Chip Roy (R., TX). said the swamp wins again: “We have a thousand-page bill of $1.2 trillion dollars—a bill filled with all manners of spending priorities that are at odds with the American people. That’s what we have in front of us.”

“It’s a sad, disappointing day. Republicans promised to spend less and secure the border,” said Rep. Warren Davidson (R., OH), adding, “This bill does neither.”

Reckless swamp spending is raising the national debt by $1 trillion every 100 days and pushing America even closer to financial ruin.

Authored by Justin Bis via RealClear Wire,

The Securities and Exchange Commission is at it again. Straying from its core mission of “protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitating capital formation,” the SEC is now taking the mantle of climate activist. Chairman Gary Gensler’s signature policy, the Climate Disclosure Rule, was just approved in a partisan 3-2 vote. Companies will now have to disclose direct and indirect emissions that they produce to investors. This rule, in the guise of informing investors of material risks in companies, will overwhelm investors with information that is unrelated to actual risks to a company’s performance.

For example, how do the emissions coming from a company’s truck make an investment in that company riskier to investors? In this example at least, the answer is it doesn’t.

But even if you could find an example, the SEC already requires companies to disclose material risks, and insurers – whose entire business depends on analyzing and assigning material risk – do not factor in emissions. 

So, what is the point of Climate Disclosure Rule? The SEC contends that the Rule is meant to inform investors on the climate risks of their investments. The trouble: investors don’t seem to care about climate risks.  Letting the cat out of the bag, the SEC posted a study on their website which seems to demystify their motives, stating “investors only care about climate change risks when policymakers intervene, not about physical climate risks.” The SEC seems to be looking for a problem to their solution. Nonetheless, the agency continues to claim that investors are clamoring for climate risk information. But, as SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce noted in her dissenting comments, this creates a “hodgepodge standard” that could lead to the SEC creating disclosures for every type of social value. What’s next, will the SEC create antiwar disclosures, religious disclosures, or political ideology disclosures?

There is a point where over-disclosure is a threat to transparency, creating an obfuscation that hides real risks from investors. Spamming investors with non-material information will reduce the quality of the normal reporting process.  Furthermore, the costs of disclosing every direct or indirect emission will be a significant burden borne by investors and eventually passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. For small companies, the compliance cost alone will be another job killing barrier to competing. For companies thinking of going public, this will be just another reason not to. This rule betrays the core mission of the SEC by making investments less transparent, markets less efficient, and preventing capital formulation.

The real reason the SEC is venturing into this murky terrain is that the current administration is beholden to the environmental social governance (ESG) movement, which seeks to starve disfavored industries and companies of capital. Climate disclosures are intended to shame U.S. businesses into divesting from such critical sectors as mining, logging, and power generation. Widespread adoption of the disclosures is essential for the creating an ESG economy that enriches the politically connected but leaves everyday Americans footing the bill with fewer jobs and higher prices. Unable to pass these unpopular policies through the ballot box or through the Congress, administrative agencies such as the SEC are the new battleground. The Rule is a big step in replacing the free market with an ESG-inspired state capitalism.

The Rule’s legality is highly questionable, which is why, despite being SEC Gensler’s main objective since taking office, it’s suffered delay after delay. After more than twenty-thousand public comments and intense public outcry, the SEC surrendered some important ground. Perhaps cowed by recent court decisions that require agencies to point to “clear Congressional authorization” for their authority, the SEC did a massive, last-minute rewrite, eliminating some major reporting requirements. But, even watered down, the final climate disclosure Rule clearly represents an overstep of the agency’s authority. The rule is clearly vulnerable to courts striking it down or to Congress reclaiming its authority through the Congressional Review Act to restrict the SEC to its actual mission.

My organization, the Financial Fairness Alliance, strives to uncover what the SEC and other U.S. regulators are up to. We believe that the public needs to be informed about what their government is doing because the government works for us, not the other way around. It is time for rogue agencies, like the SEC, to return to their core missions of protecting people and making our markets fair and transparent.

Justin Bis is the Director of the Financial Fairness Alliance. He has held senior government roles, including at the White House and the U.S. Department of Energy, where he assisted with recruiting top-level governmental leaders responsible for regulating the U.S. financial and energy markets. 

Authored by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“If the state could use [criminal] laws not for their intended purposes but to silence those who voice unpopular ideas, little would be left of our First Amendment liberties, and little would separate us from the tyrannies of the past or the malignant fiefdoms of our own age. The freedom to speak without risking arrest is ‘one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation.’”

– Justice Neil Gorsuch, dissenting, Nieves v. Bartlett (2019)

Tyrants don’t like people who speak truth to power.

Cue the rise of protest laws, which take the government’s intolerance for free speech to a whole new level and send the resounding message that resistance is futile.

In fact, ever since the Capitol protests on Jan. 6, 2021, state legislatures have introduced a broad array of these laws aimed at criminalizing protest activities.

There have been at least 205 proposed laws in 45 states aimed at curtailing the right to peacefully assemble and protest by expanding the definition of rioting, heightening penalties for existing offenses, or creating new crimes associated with assembly.

Weaponized by police, prosecutors, courts and legislatures, these protest laws, along with free speech zones, bubble zones, trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero tolerance policies, hate crime laws, and a host of other legalistic maladies have become a convenient means by which to punish individuals who refuse to be muzzled.

In Florida, for instance, legislators passed a “no-go” zone law making it punishable by up to 60 days in jail to remain within 25 feet of working police and other first responders after a warning.

Yet while the growing numbers of protest laws cropping up across the country are sold to the public as necessary to protect private property, public roads or national security, they are a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a thinly disguised plot to discourage anyone from challenging government authority at the expense of our First Amendment rights.

It doesn’t matter what the source of that discontent might be (police brutality, election outcomes, COVID-19 mandates, the environment, etc.): protest laws, free speech zones, no-go zones, bubble zones, trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero tolerance policies, hate crime laws, etc., aim to muzzle every last one of us.

To be very clear, these legislative attempts to redefine and criminalize speech are a backdoor attempt to rewrite the Constitution and render the First Amendment’s robust safeguards null and void.

No matter how you package these laws, no matter how well-meaning they may sound, no matter how much you may disagree with the protesters or sympathize with the objects of the protest, these proposed laws are aimed at one thing only: discouraging dissent.

This is the painful lesson being imparted with every incident in which someone gets arrested and charged with any of the growing number of contempt charges (ranging from resisting arrest and interference to disorderly conduct, obstruction, and failure to obey a police order) that get trotted out anytime a citizen voices discontent with the government or challenges or even questions the authority of the powers-that-be.

These assaults on free speech are nothing new.

As Human Rights Watch points out, “Various states have long-tried to curtail the right to protest. They do so by legislating wide definitions of what constitutes an ‘unlawful assembly’ or a ‘riot’ as well as increasing punishments. They also allow police to use catch-all public offenses, such as trespassing, obstructing traffic, or disrupting the peace, as a pretext for ordering dispersals, using force, and making arrests. Finally, they make it easier for corporations and others to bring lawsuits against protest organizers.”

Journalists have come under particular fire for exercising their right to freedom of the press.

According to U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, the criminalization of routine journalism has become a means by which the government chills lawful First Amendment activity.

Journalists have been arrested or faced dubious charges for “publishing,” asking too many questions of public officials, being “rude” for reporting during a press conference, and being in the vicinity of public protests and demonstrations.

For instance, Steve Baker, a reporter for Blaze News, was charged with four misdemeanors, including trespassing and disorderly conduct charges, related to his sympathetic coverage of the Jan. 6 riots. Dan Heyman, a reporter for the Public News Service, was arrested for “aggressively” questioning Tom Price, then secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services during an encounter in the West Virginia State Capitol.

It’s gotten so bad that merely daring to question, challenge or hesitate when a cop issues an order can get you charged with resisting arrest or disorderly conduct.

For example, Deyshia Hargrave, a language arts teacher in Louisiana, was thrown to the ground, handcuffed and arrested for speaking out during a public comment period at a school board meeting.

Fane Lozman was arrested for alluding to government corruption during open comment time at a City Council meeting in Palm Beach County, Fla.

College professor Ersula Ore was slammed to the ground and arrested after she objected to the “disrespectful manner” shown by a campus cop who stopped her in the middle of the street and demanded that she show her ID.

Philadelphia lawyer Rebecca Musarra was arrested for exercising her right to remain silent and refusing to answer questions posed by a police officer during a routine traffic stop. (Note: she cooperated in every other way by providing license and registration, etc.)

Making matters worse, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in Nieves v. Bartlett that protects police from lawsuits by persons arrested on bogus “contempt of cop” charges (ranging from resisting arrest and interference to disorderly conduct, obstruction, and failure to obey a police order) that result from lawful First Amendment activities (filming police, asking a question of police, refusing to speak with police).

These incidents reflect a growing awareness about the state of free speech in America: you may have distinct, protected rights on paper, but dare to exercise those rights, and you risk fines, arrests, injuries and even death.

Unfortunately, we have been circling this particular drain hole for some time now.

More than 50 years ago, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas took issue with the idea that merely speaking to a government representative (a right enshrined in the First Amendment) could be perceived as unlawfully inconveniencing and annoying the police.

In a passionate defense of free speech, Douglas declared: 

Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet. The situation might have indicated that Colten’s techniques were ill-suited to the mission he was on, that diplomacy would have been more effective. But at the constitutional level speech need not be a sedative; it can be disruptive.

It’s a power-packed paragraph full of important truths that the powers-that-be would prefer we quickly forget: We the people are the sovereigns. We have the final word. We can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy. We need not stay docile and quiet. Our speech can be disruptive. It can invite dispute. It can be provocative and challenging. We do not have to bow submissively to authority or speak with reverence to government officials.

In theory, Douglas was right: “we the people” do have a constitutional right to talk back to the government.

In practice, however, we live in an age in which “we the people” are at the mercy of militarized, weaponized, immunized cops who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.”

As such, those who seek to exercise their First Amendment rights during encounters with the police are increasingly finding that there is no such thing as freedom of speech.

Case in point: Tony Rupp, a lawyer in Buffalo, NY, found himself arrested and charged with violating the city’s noise ordinance after cursing at an SUV bearing down on pedestrians on a busy street at night with its lights off. Because that unmarked car was driven by a police officer, that’s all it took for Rupp to find himself subjected to malicious prosecution, First Amendment retaliation and wrongful arrest.

The case, as Jesse McKinley writes in The New York Times, is part of a growing debate over “how citizens can criticize public officials at a time of widespread reevaluation of the lengths and limits of free speech. That debate has raged everywhere from online forums and college campuses to protests over racial bias in law enforcement and the Israel-Hamas war. Book bans and other acts of government censorship have troubled some First Amendment experts. Last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments about a pair of laws — in Florida and Texas — limiting the ability of social media companies such as Facebook to ban certain content from their platforms.”

Bottom line: what the architects of the police state want are submissive, compliant, cooperative, obedient, meek citizens who don’t talk back, don’t challenge government authority, don’t speak out against government misconduct, and don’t resist.

What the First Amendment protects—and a healthy constitutional republic requires—are citizens who routinely exercise their right to speak truth to power.

Yet there can be no free speech for the citizenry when the government speaks in a language of force.

What is this language of force?

Militarized police. Riot squads. Camouflage gear. Black uniforms. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Surveillance cameras. Kevlar vests. Drones. Lethal weapons. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Stun grenades. Arrests of journalists. Crowd control tactics. Intimidation tactics. Brutality. Contempt of cop charges.

This is not the language of freedom. This is not even the language of law and order.

Unfortunately, this is how the government at all levels—federal, state and local—now responds to those who choose to exercise their First Amendment right to speak freely.

If we no longer have the right to tell a Census Worker to get off our property, if we no longer have the right to tell a police officer to get a search warrant before they dare to walk through our door, if we no longer have the right to stand in front of the Supreme Court wearing a protest sign or approach an elected representative to share our views, if we no longer have the right to protest unjust laws by voicing our opinions in public or on our clothing or before a legislative body, then we do not have free speech.

What we have instead is regulated, controlled, censored speech, and that’s a whole other ballgame.

Remember, the unspoken freedom enshrined in the First Amendment is the right to challenge government agents, think freely and openly debate issues without being muzzled or treated like a criminal.

Americans are being brainwashed into believing that anyone who wears a government uniform—soldier, police officer, prison guard—must be obeyed without question.

Of course, the Constitution takes a far different position, but does anyone in the government even read, let alone abide by, the Constitution anymore?

The government does not want us to remember that we have rights, let alone attempting to exercise those rights peaceably and lawfully. And it definitely does not want us to engage in First Amendment activities that challenge the government’s power, reveal the government’s corruption, expose the government’s lies, and encourage the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.

Yet by muzzling the citizenry, by removing the constitutional steam valves that allow people to speak their minds, air their grievances and contribute to a larger dialogue that hopefully results in a more just world, the government is creating a climate in which violence becomes inevitable.

When there is no First Amendment steam valve, then frustration builds, anger grows and people become more volatile and desperate to force a conversation.

As John F. Kennedy warned, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the government is making violent revolution inevitable.

Authored by Caden Pearson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit challenging a District of Columbia law allowing “noncitizen residents” to vote in local elections.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an appointee of President Barack Obama, found that a group of seven citizen plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the legislation.

Their lawsuit against the D.C. Board of Elections, filed on March 14, aimed to block the 2022 law passed by the Council of the District of Columbia.

They argued that “noncitizens” do not have a fundamental right to vote in the United States and that allowing them to cast ballots and hold office in the District of Columbia dilutes the votes of U.S. citizens.

“It follows from our national independence that United States citizens have a right to govern, and be governed by, themselves. The constitutional right to citizen self-government, moreover, has been recognized in repeated holdings of the Supreme Court of the United States,” their complaint reads.

“Nor does any noncitizen have a constitutional right to govern the United States,” the complaint adds.

The group argued that the Supreme Court has recognized and protected these rights against infringement in “multiple precedents.”

The group, in their complaint, argued that vote dilution caused by expanding the franchise to illegal immigrants has been analyzed under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment “on the ground that they discriminate against an identifiable group by harming that group while benefitting another.”

And while the complaint noted that the 14th Amendment only applies to the states, they contended that the 5th Amendment due process clause grants residents of the District of Columbia the same equal protection right.

No Standing

However, in an opinion issued Thursday, Judge Jackson determined that the seven plaintiffs failed to demonstrate “that they have personally been subjected to any sort of disadvantage as individual voters by virtue of the fact that noncitizens are permitted to vote, too.”

“They may object as a matter of policy to the fact that immigrants get to vote at all, but their votes will not receive less weight or be treated differently than noncitizens’ votes,” the judge wrote.

“They are not losing representation in any legislative body; nor have citizens as a group been discriminatorily gerrymandered, ‘packed,’ or ‘cracked’ to divide, concentrate, or devalue their votes,” she continued.

The judge concluded: “At bottom, they are simply raising a generalized grievance which is insufficient to confer standing.”

The Epoch Times contacted the D.C. Board of Elections for comment.

‘A Direct Attack on American Self-Government’

The Epoch Times contacted the D.C.-based Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), which represented the plaintiffs, for comment.

In a statement announcing the lawsuit, Christopher Hajec, IRLI’s director of litigation, said the law “is a direct attack on American self-government.”

“This law doesn’t just give foreign citizens a voice in our country’s affairs, it gives them voting power that politicians inevitably will have to respond to. That transfer of power flies in the face of the clear right of the American people to govern themselves,” he said.

The IRLI’s executive director, Dale Wilcox, said in a statement on March 14 that when the voting power of citizens is eroded, “our nation begins to lose its independence.”

“If laws like this are not struck down, next there will be calls in many states to allow aliens to vote in statewide and even federal elections,” he added.

Noncitizen Voting Act

The law in question, known as the Noncitizen Voting Act, removed the prior citizenship requirement for voting in municipal elections, allowing all residents over 18 who have lived in the district for 30 days, regardless of immigration status, to vote in local elections only.

Those who qualify can vote in district races for mayor, council, attorney general, and advisory neighborhood commissioners. They can also vote on local initiatives, referenda, recalls, or charter amendment measures.

Additionally, in combination with other laws, the Noncitizen Voting Act permits illegal immigrants to serve as D.C. mayor, to serve on the D.C. Council, and to serve on the D.C. Board of Elections.

According to a court filing, at a meeting of the D.C. Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety on Sept. 27, 2022, Council Member Charles Allen, speaking in support of the legislation, said, “Our noncitizen neighbors, many of whom have lived, worked, and raised a family in the District for decades deserve the opportunity to have a stake in their government and determine their own leaders just as we all do.”

The Epoch Times contacted Mr. Allen for further comment.

Congress must review legislation passed by the D.C. Council; however, efforts to overturn the law through legislative means ultimately stalled in the U.S. Senate.

After the U.S. House passed a resolution disapproving of the act on Feb. 9, 2023, the Senate failed to pass a resolution against the act within the prescribed time frame.

This prompted the group of seven citizens to bring their lawsuit.

The lawsuit argued that it violates the 5th Amendment guarantees of due process and equal protection for citizens. The lawsuit also alleged that the law violates “the constitutional right of citizen self-government” by allowing “noncitizens to hold public office,” according to a court filing.

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said Thursday that Russia’s production of artillery shells has increased by nearly 2.5 times over the past year as Moscow is significantly out-producing the West.

Shoigu also said that Russia was producing components for artillery at a rate of 22 times what it could make last year. “Speaking about manufacturing of artillery munitions, the volume of production of components to such ammunition was increased by almost 22 times,” he said.

Shoigu’s comments came after CNN reported that Russia was producing nearly three times as many artillery shells than the US and Europe combined.

The report, based on a NATO assessment, said Russia has the capacity to produce 3 million shells per year while the US and Europe can make 1.2 million.

It’s been clear for a while that NATO could not keep up with the production needed to fuel the proxy war in Ukraine. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said last year that Ukraine was using artillery ammunition at a much faster rate than what the entire alliance could produce.

“The current rate of Ukraine’s ammunition expenditure is many times higher than our current rate of production, and this puts our defense industries under strain,” Stoltenberg said in February 2023.

At that time Stoltenberg urged that NATO needs to “ramp up production” and that European leaders should focus on “ways to increase our defense industrial capacity and replenish stockpiles.”

Due to its shortage of conventional 155mm artillery ammunition, the US has been arming Ukraine with artillery shells packed with cluster bombs, which are notorious for killing and maiming civilians and are banned by over 100 countries.

The US announced a new $300 million arms package that included more cluster bombs. The US supplied Ukraine with the package despite the lack of new funding for the war and claimed it was paid for with money saved in the US Army budget.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has agreed to remove social media posts and webpages that urged people to stop taking ivermectin to treat COVID-19, according to a settlement dated March 21.

The FDA has already removed a page that said: “Should I take ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19? No.”

Within 21 days, the FDA will remove another page titled, “why you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19,” according to the settlement announcement, which was filed with federal court in southern Texas.

“The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals,” the page currently states. It also says that data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19, despite how some studies it cites show ivermectin is effective against the illness.

The FDA in the settlement is also agreeing to delete multiple social media posts that came out strongly against ivermectin, including one that stated: “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”

In exchange, doctors who sued the agency are dismissing their claims, the filing states.

“FDA loses its war on ivermectin and agrees to remove all social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and COVID, including its most popular tweet in FDA history,” Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, one of the doctors, said in a statement. “This landmark case sets an important precedent in limiting FDA overreach into the doctor-patient relationship.”

“We are extremely pleased with the outcome of the settlement as it is a victory for every doctor and patient in the United States,” added Dr. Paul Marik, chief scientific officer of the FLCCC Alliance and another plaintiff. “The FDA interfered in the practice of medicine with their irresponsible language and posts about ivermectin. We will never know how many lives were affected because patients were denied access to a lifesaving treatment because their doctor was ‘just following the FDA.’”

An FDA spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email that the agency “has chosen to resolve this lawsuit rather than continuing to litigate over statements that are between two and nearly four years old.”

“FDA has not admitted any violation of law or any wrongdoing, disagrees with the plaintiffs’ allegation that the agency exceeded its authority in issuing the statements challenged in the lawsuit, and stands by its authority to communicate with the public regarding the products it regulates,” the spokesperson said. “FDA has not changed its position that currently available clinical trial data do not demonstrate that ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. The agency has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19.”

Ivermectin was approved by the FDA in 1996 to treat several conditions, including onchocerciasis, a tropical disease caused by a parasitic worm.

In the United States, it’s common for doctors to prescribe medicine off-label, or for a different purpose than the one for which the medicine is approved.

After some doctors began prescribing ivermectin for COVID-19, the FDA ramped up its campaign, including the Aug. 21, 2021, post on Twitter, now known as X.

Dr. Bowden and two other doctors sued the FDA, arguing the agency’s actions went beyond its authority, as conferred on it by Congress.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown dismissed the case in 2022, ruling that the FDA did not act outside the authority. But an appeals court in 2023 ruled in favor of the doctors, finding that the agency “has identified no authority allowing it to recommend consumers ‘stop’ taking medicine.”

Between the time of the ruling and the settlement, the FDA refused to change any of its statements on ivermectin, and asked for a fresh dismissal of the suit.

The Case

Drs. Robert Apter, Bowden, and Marik brought the case in 2022. They said they suffered repercussions after prescribing ivermectin to patients with COVID-19, and that the FDA was to blame.

Dr. Apter, for instance, said that pharmacists refused to fill the prescriptions, citing the FDA.

“This refusal delays his patients in obtaining their prescribed treatment—when early intervention is paramount—while they look for a pharmacy to fill their prescription, if they can find one at all,” the suit states.

He also said that insurance companies were refusing to pay for ivermectin to treat COVID-19.

The suit said the FDA illegally interfered with the relationships between the doctors and patients. The doctors said with regard to ivermectin, the FDA overstepped the authority conferred on it in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Government lawyers argued that the FDA was acting within the confines of the law, and succeeded in getting the dismissal.

Judge Brown, appointed under President Donald Trump, said the FDA’s powers were only limited with regard to medical devices.

“As there is no statute limiting the FDA’s actions here, it cannot have acted outside of any statutory limitations,” he wrote in his ruling. “Further, it cannot be said that the FDA had no colorable basis of authority. The FDA is charged by Congress with protecting public health and ensuring that regulated medical products are safe and effective, among other things.”

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit disagreed, finding that the law did not authorize the FDA to give medical advice.

“FDA can inform, but it has identified no authority allowing it to recommend consumers ‘stop’ taking medicine,” U.S. Circuit Judge Don Willett, appointed under President Trump, wrote for the court. The appeals court remanded the case back to the district court.

Authored by Michael Clements via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Horses taught Christine Searle the importance of being fair. Intelligent and innately honest creatures, horses know deceit when they see it. She wishes they could teach that principle to the state of Arizona.

The 70-year-old horse trainer and Arizona native is on the verge of losing her life’s savings over an unpaid $1,607.68 property tax bill.

“I owed them the money. And that’s what they should get—the money I owe them,” Ms. Searle told The Epoch Times.

“I don’t think that they should have the right to take all of it.”

Arizona is one of almost a dozen states that allow creditors to keep all the proceeds from sales of homes foreclosed due to unpaid taxes—known as tax lien sales, according to the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF).

A 2022 U.S. Supreme Court case out of Minnesota offers some hope to property owners in these situations, but only if a similar case is brought in their state. In the 2022 case, the justices ruled that Minnesota’s practice of keeping all the proceeds of a tax sale constitutes an illegal seizure of property.

“The taxpayer must render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the unanimous decision.

But, under their current laws, 10 states and the District of Columbia have no means of returning the excess proceeds of a home sale; what Mountain States Legal Foundation lawyers representing Ms. Searle call “home equity theft.” The states include Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and South Dakota.

Ms. Searle hopes her case will be the one to set things right in Arizona.

In Arizona, a county treasurer can place a lien on a property for taxes owed. These financial claims are then sold at an online auction. In the auction, buyers bid the lowest interest rate they intend to charge property owners to redeem their lien. The bidding begins at 16 percent and the lowest bid wins.

Purchasing a tax lien doesn’t transfer ownership of the property. In Arizona, the property owner has three years to pay the back taxes, which includes fees and interest. If it is not redeemed within that time, the lienholder may foreclose and sell the property.

Unsold tax liens are turned over to the state. The state has the same right to foreclose, but must return any excess proceeds to the former property owner.

In 2005, Ms. Searle bought a three-bedroom, two-bath house as a rental property for $255,000. The house is in Gilbert, Arizona, 22 miles southeast of Phoenix. Its 2024 property tax appraisal came to $376,800, but she stands to lose much more than the taxable value.

Various real estate websites estimate the current market value to sit somewhere between $420,000 and $510,000.

The investment firm Arapaho LLC Tesco purchased the tax lien on Ms. Searle’s property when it bought all of Maricopa County’s 2015 and 2016 tax liens. Arapaho stands to gain a significant profit if it sells the property under current law.

Arapaho’s contact information was not available. An internet search showed that the Phoenix-based company —which is involved in a number of legal actions in Arizona—lists Hamilton Municipal Financing of Altamonte Springs, Florida, as a principal. Hamilton is incorporated in Delaware.

According to PLF, tax liens are popular with banks, investment firms, and other financial institutions because they are seen as relatively secure investments.

Public data gathered by PLF shows that Maricopa County sold 567 tax liens between July 2012 and March 2021. A review of those records by The Epoch Times found that at least 424, or approximately three-quarters of those purchasers, were businesses.

“I have all my money invested in that home as my retirement instead of putting it in a CD [Certificate of Deposit] or some kind of a bank account. I can make a little money on the side to pay the mortgage and keep, and sell it when I need the money,” she said.

She’s shocked at how close she is to losing her life savings to an investment firm.

For 18 years, she lived in Chandler, Arizona, with her husband and son, Randy Searle. According to Ms. Searle, she led a typically comfortable, suburban middle-class American life. Her then-husband worked for a jewelry and memorabilia company serving high schools and colleges, and she trained horses.

She knew it was possible to lose property over unpaid taxes. But that happened to other people. It wasn’t part of her life or something she really knew very much about.

“I didn’t think about it,” she said.

Then came the divorce, and she had to consider many things she had never given much thought.

She had to find a way to support herself. Her son was grown, so she could afford a simpler lifestyle. Ms. Searle took her divorce settlement and purchased the house in Gilbert to use as a rental to supplement her income.

Her work goes beyond teaching horses to respond to commands. Many horse owners live and work far from the stables in Tucson, so Ms. Searle is their horse’s primary caregiver. She is responsible for arranging veterinary care, farrier services, feeding, and exercising the animals.

“I don’t have a nine-to-five job; I have a 24-hour job. Whenever there’s something wrong, I come down here and work on it, take care of it,” Ms. Searle said. “I’m doing it just because I enjoy it … it’s not like anyone’s making a lot of money here.”

Her son blames himself for his mother’s predicament.

Mr. Randy Searle, as the tenant at the Gilbert house, said it was his job to manage the property. At the same time, he was trying to get a solar energy company in Rhode Island off the ground.

“I had been responsible for paying [the property taxes], and when our company went out of business in Rhode Island, I didn’t have the money to pay them,” Mr. Searle told The Epoch Times.

Mr. Searle said he had worked out a plan with Arapaho to redeem the 2016 lien. However, due to a miscommunication, he didn’t realize foreclosure proceedings had been initiated over the 2015 taxes.

Read more here…

Nancy Pelosi’s son has dodged the hammer of justice for a seventh time, after being excluded from a case in which two fraudsters linked to Paul Jr. are set to be sentenced in a money laundering and mail fraud scheme involving “shady dealings over a San Francisco flop house that Pelosi Jr. claimed to own,” the Daily Mail reports.

Bill Garlock and Gina Rodriguez scammed investors into fronting over $1 million for supposed real estate ventures, and instead used the cash to pay for their lifestyle – including rent, loan repayments, credit card bills, and ‘horse-related expenses,’ according to San Francisco federal prosecutors.

The two obtained money from investors “by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and by means of concealment of material facts, including through the use of half-truths,” according to a 2022 indictment.

One project which the pair presented to duped investors was the renovation of a dilapidated mixed-use building at the corner of Utah and 24th Street, which Paul Pelosi Jr. claimed to own 20% of – and was involved in a 2017 bribery scheme to obtain permits for the property, a move which led to the imprisonment of a city official and an engineering consultant following an FBI sting.

The property, located in the Mission District of San Francisco, has a troubled past of code violations and squalid conditions. In other words, a flop house.

Pelosi Jr. was not charged in the bribery scheme, and was only listed as “Client 9” in the complaint.

In 2017, he was listed as the selling realtor on transaction documents as part of a sale to Feng 24th, LLC – a company controlled by Garlock and Rodriguez. As the Mail further reports, “according to the property manager and permit applications, Pelosi Jr. continued to be intimately involved with the flop house after its sale to the two fraudsters.”

“But he is nowhere to be seen in the July 2022 indictment leveled against Garlock, 74, and Rodriguez, 57, in a Northern California federal court,” according to the report.

Garlock and Rodriguez were indicted on 15 counts of money laundering and mail fraud, including a scheme to bilk $400,000 from investors in the 24th Street property.

According to prosecutors, Garlock failed to list himself on Feng 24th LLC’s filings despite having “substantial control” over the firm which owned the Pelosi-linked property.

Pelosi Jr.’s ties to the building, and the shady dealings around it, appear to be both financial and personal.

DailyMail.com previously revealed that Pelosi Jr. had a romantic relationship with the building’s former owner, Karena Feng – and that she sued him in 2019 claiming that he conspired with Garlock and Rodriguez to scam her out of the property.

In one email obtained by DailyMail.com, Pelosi Jr. wrote to Feng: ‘I am list [sic] as the real estate agent for the transaction and have been working hard for you for over two years. In January 2016, you and your family made me an officer of Feng RE with a 20 percent ownership. As an officer and owner of Feng RE, I want the best outcome for your and your family.’  -Daily Mail

Nicole Bulick, Pelosi’s ex-girlfriend, says that the FBI interviewed Paul Jr. three times about the 24th Street property, while business associate Naveen Singha also said agents interviewed him about Pelosi Jr.’s links to the building.

“Paul’s been under FBI [questioning] like three times over this,” the 48-year-old Bulick told the Mail. “Maybe in the summer of 2017… The FBI looked at this for almost two years. They called me too… He went and spoke with the FBI three times.“

And according to the Mail, this is the seventh federal case linked to Pelosi Jr. for which he hasn’t been charged.

DailyMail.com has previously revealed:

• The 52-year-old joined the board of a biofuel company after it defrauded investors according to an SEC ruling, and whose CEO was convicted after bribing Georgia officials
• Pelosi Jr. was president of an environmental investment firm that turned out to be a front for two convicted fraudsters 
• He joined a lithium mining company and received millions of shares, allegedly issued as part of a massive $164million fraud 
• He was vice president of a company previously embroiled in an investigation of scam calls that targeted senior citizens 
• He has close business ties with a man accused by the Department of Justice of running a fake UN charity that stole investors’ money 
• A medical company Pelosi Jr. worked for tested drugs on people without FDA authorization, according to an FDA investigation
• A permit expeditor and a city official were imprisoned over a bribery scheme of cash for permits, with Pelosi Jr. as one of their clients

Maybe Hunter Biden should speak with Paul Jr.’s attorney?

Authored by Caden Pearson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a warning on Thursday about potential disruptions in air travel surrounding the upcoming total solar eclipse on April 8.

The celestial event, set to cast a path of totality across 13 states, is anticipated to impact air travel operations before, during, and after the eclipse, according to the aviation agency.

The FAA indicated that the eclipse’s effects on U.S. airspace are anticipated between approximately 2:30 p.m. and 3:40 p.m. ET. At this time, some 32 million people in North America are expected to witness the rare event, which is anticipated to be the most-watched solar eclipse in history.

A total solar eclipse occurs when the new moon passes directly in front of the sun, completely blocking out sunlight and casting the moon’s shadow on the surface of Earth. The most recent total solar eclipse to happen on American soil was the Great American Eclipse in 2017.

A notice issued by the FAA to airmen emphasized potential impacts on air traffic and airports along the eclipse path from April 7 to April 10. Pilots and aviation personnel are advised to stay informed and prepared for possible disruptions.

In a statement, the FAA suggested that aircraft should ready themselves for potential airborne holding, reroutes, and departure clearance times that might be issued for all domestic IFR arrivals and departures during the eclipse.

Departing aircraft from airports along the eclipse path are “strongly encouraged” to coordinate their departure times as early as possible to assist fixed base operators with staging aircraft and alleviating ramp congestion.

“There may be a higher traffic volume than normal anticipated at airports along the path of the eclipse. Traffic should anticipate delays during peak traffic periods,” the FAA stated.

The agency cautioned that parking may be limited, particularly at small, uncontrolled airports. Delays with issuing IFR departure clearances might also happen.

“VFR departures may also expect delays for airborne pickup of IFR clearance within 50 NM either side of the path of the eclipse,” the FAA stated.

The eclipse will also impact or possibly prohibit aircraft from conducting practice approaches, touch-and-go operations, flight following services, and pilot training at airports during the event.

“Airmen should check NOTAMs carefully for special procedures/restrictions that may be in place at affected airports. Specific NOTAM procedures may be revised, and arrivals to some airports possibly restricted so please review NOTAMs frequently to verify you have the current information,” the agency advised.

‘Great North American Eclipse’

Dubbed the “Great North American Eclipse,” the celestial event is expected to be more impressive than the one in 2017, lasting longer, being wider, and traversing more highly populated parts of North America.

On April 8, it will begin over the South Pacific Ocean and move across North America, spanning across Mexico, the United States, and Canada. The 2024 event will move in a different direction than the 2017 event, marking a cross on the United States.

The moon’s shadow will create a relatively narrow ribbon—the path of totality—of about 100 miles over Earth’s surface. To experience a 100 percent total solar eclipse, viewers should be located in this narrow band. This will reveal “the star’s outer atmosphere, called the corona,” according to NASA.

Totality will last for longer than four minutes in some parts of the United States.

According to NASA, the path of the eclipse will traverse Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. Small parts of Tennessee and Michigan will also experience the total solar eclipse.

The eclipse will enter Canada in southern Ontario, journey through Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Cape Breton before exiting continental North America on the Atlantic coast of Newfoundland at 5:16 p.m. NDT, according to NASA.

Special security provisions may be enforced for this event, the FAA said, including temporary flight restrictions, two-way radio communications, and discrete transponder requirements.

“Specific NOTAM procedures may be revised, and arrivals to some airports possibly restricted so please review NOTAMs frequently to verify you have the current information,” the FAA reiterated.