Authored by Matt McGregor via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Although the reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial craft has remained within the realm of conspiracy theories, a new report shows that the Department of Defense (DOD) had been asked to consider investigating the issue.

A study by the U.S. Department of Defense’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO)—first reported by Politico—examined unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP), commonly referred to as UFOs, from 1945 until the present. The study was released on Friday.

The report found “no evidence that any [U.S. government] investigation, academic-sponsored research, or official review panel has confirmed that any sighting of a UAP represented extraterrestrial technology,” according to The Washington Post.

According to the report, these alleged alien craft could be written off as “ordinary objects and phenomena, and the result of misidentification.”

Although the report largely debunked UAP sightings, it found that a program titled “Kona Blue” was proposed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the 2010s, which would have examined the benefits of reverse-engineering recovered extraterrestrial craft.

According to the report, the proposal was rejected by DHS “for lacking merit” because there was no craft recovered.

“It is critical to note that no extraterrestrial craft or bodies were ever collected, this material was only assumed to exist by Kona Blue advocates and its anticipated contract performers,” the report stated.

Kona Blue was first declassified in AARO’s report.

According to AARO’s acting director, Tim Phillips, the program was never approved because no department “possessed any material or information.”

‘Misrepresentations’

Mr. Phillips later attributed the sightings to misrepresentations of popular culture and classified military programs.

“These are rational people making observations and just relating to what they know,” Mr. Phillips said. “We were able to go back to the program owners in that range and ask, ‘by the way, what were we flying during this week?’ My God, I would have thought it would have been a UAP myself when I actually saw the picture of it.”

The report contradicts much of what David Grusch, a former intelligence officer turned whistleblower, said throughout 2023 when discussing what the U.S. government knew about extraterrestrial technology.

He alleged that covert factions within the U.S. government possessed alien craft and bodies.Mr. Grusch, who has been openly critical of AARO, spoke about the UAP Disclosure Act, legislation that was being considered in Congress that could allow for greater transparency regarding what the government knows about UAPs.

According to Mr. Grusch, the legislation was modeled after the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, which directed the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to establish the Assassination Records Review Board to collect all records related to the assassination of President Kennedy.

Though the board never met the expectations of those questioning the official narrative, Mr. Grusch said this bill had more “teeth” to “force the issue.”

In November 2023, Reps. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.), and Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) held a press conference in which they vehemently criticized the stalling of the legislation. Some pointed out their issues with the legislation itself, which allows for the collection of UAP records to be disclosed to the public 25 years after the date of record creation unless the president deems such disclosure a threat to national security.

Most recently, an unclassified report from the Pentagon’s inspector general claimed that the DOD had no “coordinated approach” to investigate the UAP issue. Due to this lack of coordination, the report stated that it left the United States open to external military threats, which compromises national security.

Reversed-Engineered Technology

There have been multiple testimonies of government officials claiming that recovered UAP craft have been reverse-engineered for technological advancement.

In 1997, Lt. Col. Philip Corso made a striking claim in his memoir “The Day After Roswell.” He alleged that during his tenure as a member of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s National Security Council and as head of the foreign technological desk at the U.S. Army’s Research and Development Department, he led the Army’s reverse-engineering project. This project allegedly utilized recovered technology from the 1947 Roswell crash and disseminated the information to major corporate firms.

Using the provided information, these firms manufactured “lasers, integrated circuitry, fiber-optics networks, accelerated particle-beam devices, and even the Kevlar material in bulletproof vests,” Lt. Col. Corso wrote.

The Roswell incident was initially reported as a confirmed recovered flying saucer by the U.S. Army Air Forces before the story was quickly retracted and reported as a fallen weather balloon.

Caden Pearson contributed to this report.

New York Attorney General Letitia James has been sued by a Nassau County executive who has accused her of unconstitutional discrimination for trying to override the county’s decision to block biologically mmale transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports.

The lawsuit was filed by Nassau County official Bruce Blakeman, who said on X that he filed the lawsuit “to protect women’s sports and ensure a safe environment for women.”

“Bullying of women and girls will not be tolerated!” he added, in response to James’ cease and desist letter and threat to use legal action to force the county to allow trans athletes to compete.

In a March 5 complaint filed in the Eastern District of New York, Blakeman seeks to block James from overriding his executive order imposing the ban at county-run facilities. Blakeman argues that her C&D violates the constitutional rights of girls and women, while accusing her of “unconstitutionally discriminating against individuals on the basis of gender” in regards to sporting events, The Epoch Times reports.

“There is a movement for biological males to bully their way into competing in sports or leagues or teams that identify themselves or advertise themselves as girls’ or female or women’s teams or leagues,” Blakeman said during a Feb. 22 press conference.

“We find that unacceptable. It’s a form of bullying,” he added.

In response, James demanded that the executive order be revoked – citing a New York law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex or “gender identity or expression.”

More via the Epoch Times;

A spokesperson for Ms. James’ office told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement that it believes Mr. Blakeman’s executive order is “transphobic and discriminatory” and violates New York state law.

“This is not up for debate: the executive order is illegal, and it will not stand in New York,” the spokesperson said.

‘Undeniable’ Biological Differences

The Nassau County executive order mandates that sports organizations applying for permits in Nassau County facilities must designate teams according to one of three categories: males, men, or boys; females, women, or girls; coed or mixed, including males and females. The criterion for designation is a team member’s biological sex.

The new rule expressly prohibits the Nassau County Department of Parks, Recreation and Museums from issuing permits for the use of county facilities for competitions or sports events in which biological males participate in female-designated teams and leagues.

The department may, however, issue permits for events in which women compete in men’s leagues or events.

Samantha Goetz, a deputy county attorney who was recently elected as a District 18 legislator, spoke at the Feb. 22 press conference in support of the executive order.

“This is a matter that concerns the integrity, the fairness, and the safety of women’s sports,” she said. “Our biological differences are undeniable.”

Ms. Goetz, who played varsity basketball, said the executive order is also about access to opportunity like sports scholarships and, ultimately, it’s about “protecting our female athletes.”

Mr. Blakeman argued at the press conference that the problem chiefly concerns female-identifying males taking part in women’s sports. He said allowing this poses a safety risk due to female competitors due to men’s generally superior strength and size, while also depriving women of opportunities.

“What we are saying here today with our executive order is that if a league or team identifies themselves or advertises themselves to be a girls’ or women’s league or team, then biological males should not be competing in those leagues,” he said.

Mr. Blakeman added that he hoped the move would not be seen as discriminatory. He pointedly stated that transgender athletes are welcome to compete in the co-ed or mixed league or in one that corresponds to their sex but not necessarily their preferred gender identity.

However, Ms. James didn’t see it that way.

‘Blatantly Illegal’

Ms. James claimed that the executive order violates the rights of men who identify as women, and forces sports teams and leagues to either discriminate against them or find another place to play.

“The law is perfectly clear: you cannot discriminate against a person because of their gender identity or expression. We have no room for hate or bigotry in New York,” Ms. James said in a statement.

“This executive order is transphobic and blatantly illegal,” she continued, adding that if the county doesn’t revoke the order, she’ll take further legal action.

The issue of men competing in women’s sports has become a highly charged issue, with a number of states adopting laws banning transgender-identifying athletes from participating in school sports.

While some of these transgender sports bans face legal challenges, an overwhelming majority of Americans say that athletes should only be allowed to compete on sports teams that conform with their “birth gender.”

World Athletics, the international governing body for the sport of athletics, recently banned transgender women from competing in women’s events at international competitions.

Authored by Ryan Morgan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

House Democrats are pressing SpaceX and its CEO, Elon Musk, for answers on allegations coming from Ukrainian intelligence officials that Russian forces are using SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet service in their ongoing war with Ukraine.

On Wednesday, March 6, House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) sent a letter to SpaceX Chief Operating Officer Gwynne Shotwell, calling for her to address how Russian forces may have obtained SpaceX terminals.

Starlink terminals connect to SpaceX’s constellation of thousands of satellites operating in low Earth orbit. SpaceX began supplying thousands of Starlink terminals to Ukraine after Russian invasion forces entered the country in February 2022, helping keep Ukraine online even as Russian attacks degraded their existing telecommunications and internet infrastructure.

Ukraine’s Main Directorate of Intelligence (GUR) first raised concerns about Russian forces using the Starlink service on Feb. 11. GUR spokesman Andriy Yusov stated at the time that Ukrainian intelligence officials had intercepted radio transmissions in which Russian soldiers described widespread use of the satellite internet service around the contested Donetsk region in eastern Ukraine.

“This is starting to become systemic,” Mr. Yusov said of Russia’s alleged use of the Starlink service.

Mr. Musk has denied the allegations, stating, “To the best of our knowledge, no Starlinks have been sold directly or indirectly to Russia.”

But Mr. Raskin and Mr. Garcia are continuing to press the question. The two lawmakers noted a report last month by the U.S. Department of Commerce, which said “Russia routinely relies on evasive or deceptive tactics such as the use of third-party intermediaries or transshipment points” to evade U.S. export controls against the country.

The two lawmakers noted Mr. Musk’s denial, but reiterated Mr. Yusov’s characterization of Russia’s Starlink usage as “systemic.”

“We are concerned that you may not have appropriate guardrails and policies in place to ensure your technology is neither acquired directly or indirectly, nor used illegally by Russia,” their letter to Ms. Shotwell reads.

The Democrats called on SpaceX to reveal how many reports or complaints it has received alleging Russian use of the Starlink service, as well as how many of those complaints the company investigated. The lawmakers also pressed SpaceX to explain its review process for such complaints, detail its safeguards against illicit acquisitions of Starlink terminals, what measures SpaceX advises to take when it determines an actor has illicitly acquired a Starlink terminal, and what work SpaceX has taken on its own and with the U.S. federal government to prevent such illicit acquisition and use of Starlink services. The lawmakers called on Ms. Shotwell to provide SpaceX’s response by March 20.

How Russia May Have Obtained Starlink Terminals

Not cited in the Democrats’ March 6 letter is a Feb. 13 blog post in which Ukraine’s GUR service posits intermediaries in Arab countries may be facilitating the transfers of Starlink terminals to Russian forces. That blog post describes an audio recording in which a Russian “occupier” is quoted as saying “the Arabs bring everything: wires, Wi-Fi, router… .” According to the GUR blog post, this same Russian individual reportedly went on to say the cost to obtain a Starlink device is 200,000 Russian Rubles (about $2,200).

While the GUR shared an audio recording in their Feb. 11 blog post, they did not provide the audio recording described in the Feb. 13 blog post, which might provide further clarity about how Starlink terminals may be ending up in Russian hands.

NTD News reached out to Mr. Raskin and Mr. Garcia’s offices, seeking more details about what evidence is guiding their SpaceX probe. Neither lawmaker’s office responded by press time.

More than two years on, the war between Russia and Ukraine has seen territory repeatedly change hands. Defense materials, from combat vehicles to weapons systems and items like Starlink terminals, may also see changes in ownership throughout the course of the fighting.

Among NTD News’ list of questions for Mr. Garcia was whether he and Mr. Raskin had ruled out the possibility that Russian forces had acquired Starlink terminals from defeated Ukrainian troops.

NTD News also reached out to SpaceX for comment about the possibility of Starlink terminals being captured on the battlefield, as well as evidence it may have of illicit transfers of these terminals through intermediaries. Likewise, SpaceX did not respond by press time.

The Biden campaign has admitted to a “shift” among the electorate which has made it no “surprise” that the president is losing key voters to former President Donald Trump, based on a recent New York Times/Siena poll.

The poll, conducted Feb. 25 – Feb. 28, found that just one out of four registered voters believes “the country is moving in the right direction.” It also showed that Trump has been breaking the Democrat stronghold among women, which are now evenly split.

Speaking with CNN‘s Wolf Blitzer, campaign co-chair Mitch Landrieu first questioned the accuracy of the poll, before seemingly explaining it away as “tectonic shifts.”

“Well, first of all, I‘m not sure that‘s accurate, but assuming that some of those things are occurring, it‘s not really a big surprise. As you know, because you‘re an expert in political science, there are tectonic shifts going on amongst the electorates.“

Robot mode: Engage

He then rattled off a talking point – suggesting that “women in this country understand that Trump has declared war on them by appointing three Supreme Court justices that have reversed Roe versus Wade, that has resulted in Alabama outlawing in vitro fertilization.”

“Or in Ohio, police officers [having] gone into a woman‘s house to look into a toilet because they’ve now criminalized miscarriages. So now you see a huge swing, as should be expected, of women basically saying, ‘Why is the government in the business of my reproductive health,'” he continued.

Watch (via the Daily Caller):

According to Landrieu, Biden will “fight for every vote,” adding “The president’s going to talk about his record, how when he came into office, what he had to deal with, what it is that he put together in a bipartisan way — really, that has been second to none — and then he‘s going to talk about the future. But the bigger point that Joe Biden wants to tell America is that America is worth fighting for, that democracy [is at] risk, and that when we do things together we can do big things.”

Maybe this is why Elizabeth Warren was so quick to protest the Capital One/Discover merger…

In an open letter out days ago Sen. Elizabeth Warren was quick to urge regulators to block the pending Capital One/Discover merger. In her letter, penned alongside other anti-corporate members of congress like AOC and Ro Khanna, she wrote that: “To protect consumers and financial stability, we urge you to block this merger and strengthen your proposed policy statement to prevent harmful deals in the future.” 

“This merger announcement comes less than a week after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a new report revealing the impact of credit card industry consolidation on consumers,” the lawmakers wrote. “According to the report, large banks charge higher interest rates than small credit card issuers, with ‘[n]early half of the largest credit card issuers’ — including Capital One — ‘offering cards with a maximum purchase APR over 30%,” her letter says. 

It continues: “Additionally, Capital One and Discover have concerning track records of mistreating customers and compliance failures. The lawmakers noted that in 2012, the CFPB ordered Capital One to refund $140 million to 2 million consumers with low credit scores and low credit limits who were misled into paying for costly add-on products. In 2023, Discover was required by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to address ‘violations of, and consumer harm related to’ various consumer financial laws.”

And now, speaking of compliance failures, PYMNTS and FT have reported that JP Morgan was actually the first bank to try and make a deal for Discover. 

J.P. Morgan Chase considered acquiring Discover Financial before Capital One finalized a $35 billion deal for the company, the report says. The bank explored the acquisition for about a year to expand beyond traditional card networks but abandoned the plan due to challenges, including convincing Discover and facing regulatory hurdles.

“This would’ve been a truly company-changing deal,” a source told FT. 

Sources told FT that Dimon’s firm started looking at its bid for the company in the middle of 2021, but a year later has abandoned plans, as it was unable to convince Discover of the plan. 

Capital One’s acquisition of Discover, announced last month, aims to create a global payments network. This move could significantly impact the banking sector, especially in catering to Americans living paycheck to paycheck, a demographic that represents a large portion of the population across various income levels. The deal’s approval by regulators remains uncertain, with concerns about market concentration in the card issuing and payment networks sectors.

And call us curious, but we can’t help but wonder what Sen. Warren’s take would have been if her crypto loathing pal Jamie Dimon had been first to make a play at Discover…

Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

By the time you are done reading this article, you may be tempted to tear your hair out.  A substantial portion of the U.S. population is deeply struggling in our current economic environment, but instead of focusing on helping Americans that are hurting, homeless and hungry, our leaders are going to great lengths to make things better for those that have no legal right to be in this country.  Our priorities are way out of whack, and U.S. voters are fed up.  Immigration has become the hottest political issue during this campaign season, but many of our politicians still don’t seem to understand why so many of us are so frustrated with what has been going on.

Let me give you some examples of what I am talking about.

It is being reported that more than half of all Americans over the age of 65 “are living on incomes of $30,000 or less a year”…

And, for some, the retirement crisis is already here. Just over half of Americans over the age of 65 are living on incomes of $30,000 or less a year, according to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. The largest share — just under 23% — have incomes between $10,000 and $19,999.

Millions of elderly Americans are barely surviving at this point.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration has been flying hundreds of thousands of migrants that have no legal right to be here directly into the country…

It means that while record numbers of migrants were flowing over the southern border last year, the Biden White House was also directly transporting them into the country.

Use of a cell phone app has allowed for the near undetected arrival by air of 320,000 aliens with no legal rights to enter the United States.

It comes after a controversy over a 2022 transportation program in which the administration used taxpayers money to move migrants throughout the country on overnight flights.

You have got to be kidding me.

Let me give you another example.

Since 2020, the income needed “to comfortably afford a home in the US” has gone up by 80 percent…

According to Zillow, the income needed to comfortably afford a home in the US has leapt 80% since 2020, far exceeding what the BLS reports has been a 23% increase in median household income over the same period.

The real estate website found home buyers today need to make more than $106,000 a year, up $47,000 from 2020, a change driven largely by higher prices and borrowing costs.

“Housing costs have soared over the past four years as drastic hikes in home prices, mortgage rates and rent growth far outpaced wage gains,” said Orphe Divounguy, a senior economist at Zillow.

But instead of doing something about that, politicians in California actually want to provide interest-free home loans with no down payment required to newly arrived migrants…

Assembly Bill 1840 would change existing law to allow illegal immigrants to be eligible for the California Dream for All Fund, which provides interest-free loans for a down payment on a home for first-time buyers.

The bill was introduced by California Assemblyman Joaquin Arambula, a Democrat, who last month told GV Wire, a Fresno-based news outlet, that he “wanted to ensure that qualified first-time homebuyers include undocumented applicants.”

You have got to be kidding me.

Don’t stop reading now, because there is more.

On Thursday, we learned that the number of layoffs in the U.S. last month was the highest total that we have seen during February since 2009…

The pace of job cuts by U.S. employers accelerated in February, a sign the labor market is starting to deteriorate in the face of ongoing inflation and high interest rates.

That is according to a new report published Thursday by Challenger, Gray & Christmas, which found that companies planned 84,638 job cuts in February, a 3% increase from the previous month and a 9% jump from the same time last year.

It marked the highest layoff total for the month of February in data going back to 2009.

That is terrible news.

But instead of finding jobs for American workers, New York Governor Kathy Hochul wants to “prioritize” hiring newly arrived migrants for state jobs…

New York Governor Kathy Hochul is pushing a plan to prioritize hiring illegal aliens for state jobs by eliminating certain requirements like the civil service exam and high school diploma.

The aim is to expedite the process for illegal immigrants to secure state jobs once they have work permits.

You have got to be kidding me.

Last but not least, let’s talk about what is going on in Washington right now.

In preparation for the State of the Union address, a “large steel fence” was being put up around the U.S. Capitol…

Ahead of President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address this evening – what concerns do the political elites on Capitol Hill have that require security crews to erect a large steel fence around the immediate perimeter of the Capitol Complex?

In several posts on X, FOX News Senior Congressional Correspondent Chad Pergram said the steel, grated 12-foot fence around the Capitol Complex was erected on Wednesday night on the orders of the Secret Service.

Apparently our leaders in Washington have no problem with being protected by walls.

Unfortunately, our southern border has been left wide open and it is being estimated that approximately 10 million migrants have come pouring into this nation since Joe Biden entered the White House…

The number of illegal immigrants in the country has roughly doubled under President Biden. The United States had some 10.2 million illegal immigrants in 2020, and another 10 million have entered during Biden’s presidency. If the 20 million illegal immigrants were all in one state, it would be tied with New York for the fourth most populated state.

And here’s even worse news. If Biden wins a second term in office and there is no serious reform of U.S. immigration and asylum laws — both of which are very real possibilities — we can expect a continuing increase in the rate of immigrants crossing the border illegally.

You have got to be kidding me.

We already have tens of millions of people that are deeply suffering in this country.

To allow millions more to come marching in doesn’t make any sense at all.

We can’t even afford to take care of the people that we already have.  We are completely broke, and we have been adding another trillion dollars to the national debt about every 100 days.

We are literally committing national suicide, but most of our politicians don’t seem alarmed by this at all.

*  *  *

Michael’s new book entitled “Chaos” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can check out his new Substack newsletter right here.

Last night, Joe Biden gave an extremely dark, threatening, angry State of the Union address – in which he insisted that the American economy is doing better than ever, blamed inflation on ‘corporate greed,’ and warned that Donald Trump poses an existential threat to the republic.

But in between the angry rhetoric, he also laid out his 2024 election platform – for which additional details will be released on March 11, when the White House sends its proposed budget to Congress.

To that end, Goldman Sachs’ Alec Phillips and Tim Krupa have summarized the key points:

Taxes

While railing against billionaires (nothing new there), Biden repeated the claim that anyone making under $400,000 per year won’t see an increase in their taxes.  He also proposed a 21% corporate minimum tax, up from 15% on book income outlined in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), as well as raising the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28% (which would promptly be passed along to consumers in the form of more inflation). Goldman notes that “Congress is unlikely to consider any of these proposals this year, they would only come into play in a second Biden term, if Democrats also won House and Senate majorities.”

Biden once again tells the complete lie that “nobody earning less than $400,000/year will pay additional penny in federal taxes.”

FACT: Biden has *already* raised the tax burden on Americans making as little as $20,000 per year. pic.twitter.com/VrZ1m0rzG3

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) March 8, 2024

Biden also called on Congress to restore the pandemic-era child tax credit.

Immigration

Instead of simply passing a slew of border security Executive Orders like the Trump ones he shredded on day one, Biden repeated the lie that Congress ‘needs to act’ before he can (translation: send money to Ukraine or the US border will continue to be a sieve).

As immigration comes into even greater focus heading into the election, we continue to expect the Administration to tighten policy (e.g., immigration has surged 20pp the last 7 months to first place with 28% in Gallup’s “most important problem” survey). As such, we estimate the foreign-born contribution to monthly labor force growth will moderate from 110k/month in 2023 to around 70-90k/month in 2024. -GS

SEE IT: Biden gets boo-ed while talking about his immigration bill. WATCH pic.twitter.com/O5FmkYx3xM

— Simon Ateba (@simonateba) March 8, 2024

Ukraine

Biden, with House Speaker Mike Johnson doing his best impression of a bobble-head, urged Congress to pass additional assistance for Ukraine based entirely on the premise that Russia ‘won’t stop’ there (and would what, trigger article 5 and WW3 no matter what?), despite the fact that Putin explicitly told Tucker Carlson he has no further ambitions, and in fact seeks a settlement.

‼️ Breaking: Putin wants a negotiated settlement to what’s happening in Ukraine.

In a surprising turn of events, Tucker Carlson could be the key to peace, potentially playing a crucial role in ending the current conflict🕊️ pic.twitter.com/IKN8ajlEUX

— Ed (@EdMagari) February 9, 2024

As Goldman estimates, “While there is still a clear chance that such a deal could come together, for now there is no clear path forward for Ukraine aid in Congress.”

China

Biden, forgetting about all the aggressive tariffs, suggested that Trump had been soft on China, and that he will stand up “against China’s unfair economic practices” and “for peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.”

SOTU FACT CHECK:

Biden claims we’re in a strong position to take on China.

No president in our lifetime has been WEAKER on China than Biden. pic.twitter.com/Y73JsIzmM3

— Wesley Hunt (@WesleyHuntTX) March 8, 2024

Healthcare

Lastly, Biden proposed to expand drug price negotiations to 50 additional drugs each year (an increase from 20 outlined in the IRA), which Goldman said would likely require bipartisan support “even if Democrats controlled Congress and the White House,” as such policies would likely be ineligible for the budget “reconciliation” process which has been used in previous years to pass the IRA and other major fiscal party when Congressional margins are just too thin.

So there you have it. With no actual accomplishments to speak of, Biden can only attack Trump, lie, and make empty promises.

Authored by Catherine Yang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Special counsel Jack Smith has argued the case he is prosecuting against former President Donald Trump for allegedly mishandling classified information is “starkly different” from the case the Department of Justice declined to bring against President Joe Biden over retention of classified documents.

Prosecutors, in responding to a motion President Trump filed to dismiss the case based on selective and vindictive prosecution, said on Thursday this is not the case of “two men ‘commit[ting] the same basic crime in substantially the same manner.”

They argue the similarities are only “superficial,” and that there are two main differences: that President Trump allegedly “engaged in extensive and repeated efforts to obstruct justice and thwart the return of documents” and the “evidence concerning the two men’s intent.”

Special counsel Robert Hur’s report found that there was evidence that President Biden “willfully” retained classified Afghanistan documents, but that evidence “fell short” of concluding guilt of willful retention beyond reasonable doubt.

Prosecutors argue the “strength of the evidence” is a crucial element showing these cases are not “similarly situated.”

“Trump may dispute the Hur Report’s conclusions but he should not be allowed to misrepresent them,” prosecutors wrote, arguing that the defense’s argument to dismiss the case fell short of legal standards.

They point to volume as another distinction: President Biden had 88 classified documents and President Trump had 337. Prosecutors also argued that while President Biden’s Delaware garage “was plainly an unsecured location … whatever risks are posed by storing documents in a private garage” were “dwarfed” by President Trump storing documents at an “active social club” with 150 staff members and hundreds of visitors.

Defense attorneys had also cited a New York Times report where President Biden was reported to have held the view that President Trump should be prosecuted, expressing concern about his retention of documents at Mar-a-lago.

Prosecutors argued that this case was not “foisted” upon the special counsel, who had not been appointed at the time of these comments.

“Trump appears to contend that it was President Biden who actually made the decision to seek the charges in this case; that Biden did so solely for unconstitutional reasons,” the filing reads. “He presents no evidence whatsoever to show that Biden’s comments about him had any bearing on the Special Counsel’s decision to seek charges, much less that the Special Counsel is a ’stalking horse.’”

8 Other Cases

President Trump has argued he is being subjected to selective and vindictive prosecution, warranting dismissal of the case, but prosecutors argue that the defense has not “identified anyone who has engaged in a remotely similar battery of criminal conduct and not been prosecuted as a result.”

In addition to President Biden, defense attorneys offered eight other examples.

Former Vice President Mike Pence had, after 2023 reports about President Biden retaining classified documents surfaced, retained legal counsel to search his home for classified documents. Some documents were found, and he sent them to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

Prosecutors say this was different from President Trump’s situation, as Vice President Pence returned the documents out of his own initiative and had fewer than 15 classified documents.

Former President Bill Clinton had retained a historian to put together “The Clinton Tapes” project, and it was later reported that NARA did not have those tapes years after his presidency. A court had ruled it could not compel NARA to try to recover the records, and NARA had defined the tapes as personal records.

Prosecutors argue those were tape diaries and the situation was “far different” from President Trump’s.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had “used private email servers … to conduct official State Department business,” the DOJ found, and the FBI opened a criminal investigation.

Prosecutors argued this was a different situation where the secretary’s emails showed no “classified” markings and the deletion of more than 31,000 emails was done by an employee and not the secretary.

Former FBI Director James Comey had retained four memos “believing that they contained no classified information.” These memos were part of seven he authored addressing interactions he had with President Trump.

Prosecutors argued there was no obstructive behavior here.

Former CIA Director David Petraeus kept bound notebooks that contained classified and unclassified notes, which he allowed a biographer to review. The FBI later seized the notebooks and Mr. Petraeus took a guilty plea.

Prosecutors argued there was prosecution in Mr. Petraeus’s case, and so President Trump’s case is not selective.

Former national security adviser Sandy Berger removed five copies of a classified document and kept them at his personal office, later shredding three of the copies. When confronted by NARA, he returned the remaining two copies and took a guilty plea.

Former CIA director John Deutch kept a journal with classified information on an unclassified computer, and also took a guilty plea.

Prosecutors argued both Mr. Berger and Mr. Deutch’s behavior was “vastly less egregious than Trump’s” and they had been prosecuted.

Former White House coronavirus response coordinator Deborah Birx had possession of classified materials according to documents retrieved by NARA.

Prosecutors argued that there was no indication she knew she had classified information or “attempted to obstruct justice.”

In the latest indication that rank-and-file Republicans are ready to move on from an era of senseless and unconstitutional militarism, a whopping 84% of Texas GOP voters on Tuesday backed a resolution demanding that the Lone Star State reject any deployment of National Guard troops to a combat zone without a congressional declaration of war.    

The proposition, one of 13 non-binding questions put to Republican voters in Tuesday’s primary election, said, “The Texas Legislature should prohibit the deployment of the Texas National Guard to a foreign conflict unless Congress first formally declares war.“

The proposition’s presence on the Texas ballot is a testament to the growing momentum of the nationwide “Defend the Guard” movement, which is led by Bring Our Troops Home, a group of Global War on Terror veterans and like-minded civilians seeking an end to “endless wars.”

“To paraphrase that great frontiersman, Davy Crockett, the military-industrial complex can go to hell, and I’ll go to Texas,” said Dan McKnight, founder and chairman of Bring Our Troops Home and a veteran of an 18-month deployment to Afghanistan.  

With the help of allies like the libertarian 10th Amendment Center, Bring Our Troops Home is pushing state legislators to advance model legislation that would prevent governors from releasing National Guard soldiers into active federal duty in combat zones without proper congressional authorization.   

“‘Defend the Guard’ legislation does not nullify federal law. It only obligates the federal government to follow what is already federal law — Congress’ duty to declare war — as outlined in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.” — Defend The Guard

While no state has yet enacted such a law, the concept is gaining traction. Last week, the Idaho Senate passed the Defend the Guard Act in a lopsided 27-8 vote. The measure now advances to the Idaho House of Representatives for consideration.

“This is the third legislative body to pass Defend the Guard this year, following New Hampshire and Arizona,” wrote Bring Our Troops Home on the social media platform previously called Twitter. Our bill sponsor, [Ben Adams], a U.S. Marine who served two tours in Afghanistan, was present at our organization’s founding in 2019. It’s taken four years of labor to reach this point.” 

HUGE wins in Texas & Idaho for the Defend The Guard Act—a state level bill that will restore the Constitution and common sense to our foreign policy

Congrats to the @TroopsHomeUS Team! @DanMcKnight30

Florida needs to pass this NOW! https://t.co/s90UItbWI6 pic.twitter.com/tffAqM1FY9

— Anthony Sabatini (@AnthonySabatini) March 6, 2024

The Texas proposition’s overwhelming victory and the Idaho Senate’s passage of a Defend the Guard bill come weeks after three members of the Georgia National Guard were killed in a drone strike on their base in Jordan. According to a US Air Force airman the facility is a base for American drones used to conduct reconnaissance and targeting operations in Syria and Iraq. 

Aside from the steep toll that unconstitutional deployments take on service-members and their families, they also deprive states of National Guard resources during crises at home. As noted in a Defend the Guard deep-dive at Stark Realities:

“When Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans and the Gulf Coast of Louisiana and Mississippi in 2005, thousands of the states’ National Guard soldiers were deployed to Iraq. Mississippi’s 223rd Engineer Battalion returned to repair hurricane damage—but was ordered to leave its equipment in Iraq for use by other units.

In 2020, as Oregon endured some of its worst wildfires ever, half the state’s National Guard helicopters were in Afghanistan, including all its CH-47 Chinooks—dual-rotor choppers capable of carrying 26,000-pound payloads and ideal for use in firefighting. The Oregon Guard did what it could with Blackhawk helicopters that have one tenth the lifting power.”

The Defend the Guard movement is led by conservative and libertarian vets. “Every one of us raised our hands and swore an oath to the Constitution…and when it says Congress shall be the only body to declare war, we take that to heart,” said McKnight.  “And when Congress doesn’t do it, we understand bad things can happen: long, endless foreign misadventures.”

Authored by Sam Bourgi via CrediTnews.com,

Most Americans intuitively know that higher education has become disproportionately expensive for younger generations—thanks to millions of graduates trapped in student debt.

But are education costs really so out of reach for younger generations, considering new career opportunities and wage inflation?

Creditnews Research put that theory to the test by comparing the college tuition costs of Baby Boomers and Millennials against what both generations earned after graduation.

Our analysis revealed a stark difference in the “purchasing power” of a college degree in the 1980s and today, driven by the growing disparity between tuition costs and wages.

Even though Baby Boomers had it much easier back in the day, student debt is catching up with them, too.

In an ironic twist, Boomers’ student debt balances have recently exploded as many Boomers take out loans to put their kids through college.

Key Findings

• Between the mid-1980s and 2010, the cost of a Bachelor’s degree in public and private colleges increased by 421% and 303%, respectively;

• Over the same period, the average post-graduation salary saw a 165% increase, while the federal minimum wage jumped by a mere 116%;

• Baby Boomers earning minimum wage could pay back their public college tuition by working just 1,410 hours—a figure that dropped to 481 hours for those earning the average post-graduation salary;

• In comparison, Millennials earning minimum wage need 3,398 working hours to pay back their public college tuition and 1,004 hours if they earn the average post-graduation salary;

• When attending private colleges, Millennials need to work five times as many hours as Baby Boomers to pay down their tuition if they earn minimum wage;

• Despite enjoying more affordable college, Baby Boomers have racked up $78.2 billion in federal student loans to put their kids through school.

How quickly each generation could have paid off their college tuition

According to our analysis, the cost of an undergraduate degree in public and private colleges soared by 421% and 303%, respectively, between the Boomer and Millennial graduation years.

What’s more striking is that Millennials didn’t just pay more in absolute dollar terms; their higher education degree came at a multi-fold higher cost relative to what they earned post-graduation.

Here’s a breakdown of public and private college costs.

Public College

Baby Boomers who attended a public college between 1982 and 1986 paid a total of $4,725 for a Bachelor’s degree.

Even if they had earned the minimum wage ($3.35 per hour), it would have taken them 1,410 hours to pay back their tuition in full. That’s equivalent to about nine months of work, assuming a typical 40-hour work week.

However, had they earned the average post-graduation salary ($20,400), they could have paid off their full tuition in 481 work hours or three months.

On the flip side, Millennials who attended a public college between 2006 and 2010 paid $24,638 in tuition costs and related fees.

Although Millennials faced a 421% increase in tuition costs compared to Baby Boomers, their post-graduation wages hardly caught up—with the federal minimum wage and median post-graduate salaries increasing by only 116% and 165%, respectively.

By the time they graduated, Millennials could earn the federal minimum wage of $7.25. At that rate, it would have taken 3,398 working hours for Millennials to pay back their tuition in full.

Even those Millennials who earned the average post-graduation salary in 2011 ($51,000) needed 1,004 hours’ worth of work— or more than six months—to pay off their tuition costs.

That’s twice as much as Boomers, even with wage inflation factored in.

Private college

Private colleges often provide smaller class sizes, specialized studies, more abundant resources, and higher rankings that may give students better career and networking opportunities after graduation.

However, this comes at a much steeper cost that is carried through both generations.

Between 1982 and 1986, Baby Boomers paid $21,409 to earn a Bachelor’s degree at a private college—more than five times higher than the cost of public tuition. But even then, private college was relatively affordable.

Earning the minimum wage, Boomers could have paid back their tuition in 6,391 hours, or roughly three years. For Boomers earning the average post-graduation salary, it would have taken 2,182 hours, or a little more than a year, to pay back the tuition.

For Millennials, the repayment timeline for private colleges is vastly different.

Attending a private college between 2006 and 2010 cost $86,253, requiring 11,897 hours, or roughly six years of minimum wage hours to pay off. For those earning median post-graduate salaries, the repayment would take 3,518 hours.

Baby Boomers are racking up student debt on behalf of their kids

It’s only natural to assume that Baby Boomers enjoyed an affordable college education, paid their tuition, and sailed off into the sunset.

Unfortunately, things didn’t quite turn out that way.

Decades after graduating college, Boomers now hold some of the highest student loan debt in the country—thanks in large part to Parents PLUS Loans, a federal program that allows parents to take on student loans on behalf of their kids.

According to our analysis, Baby Boomers have amassed $78.1 billion in direct federal student loans—a 155% increase in just six years.

The number of Boomers taking on loans, presumably for their kids, doubled from 800,000 to 1.6 million over the same period.

That’s more than $48,800 per borrower or an increase of more than $10,000 compared to 2017.

Unlike all other federal student loan programs, Parents PLUS Loans don’t have a stated borrowing limit, which means parents could be racking up even more debt to cover their kids’ education.

PLUS Loans also have much higher interest rates compared to other federal loan programs. For the 2023-24 academic year, PLUS Loans carried an interest rate of 8.05%, compared to 5.5% for direct undergraduate loans.