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

The homeless crisis in America is set to come to a head with a Supreme Court ruling as early as this spring, in the case of Johnson v. City of Grants Pass, Oregon.

The Supreme Court could—depending on what it decides—force changes in city ordinances and homeless policies across the country.

The decision is one of the most anticipated in years for San Francisco and other cities facing legal challenges from homeless people and advocacy groups.

At the heart of the case is the challenge by three homeless people to ordinances in the Oregon town of Grants Pass that prohibit homeless people “from using a blanket, pillow, or cardboard box for protection from the elements.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, drawing on logic applied in the 2018 decision in Martin v. City of Boise, sided with the plaintiffs and blocked Grants Pass from enforcing its ordinance in the absence of shelters or other accommodations for the homeless.

The decision applies across nine western states, Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.

Officials are left with two unappealing choices: let the sprawling encampments stand, or provide immediate emergency housing far beyond what their strained budgets allow for.

The Supreme Court, which announced on Jan. 11 that it will review the case, must either uphold or throw out the 9th Circuit’s ruling.

With close to 600,000 homeless people in America, according to recent Department of Housing and Urban Development figures, many cities that are bickering about what to do are paying attention to the case.

In Los Angeles, some 75,000 people live on the street, and the current mayor’s first action on taking office was to declare a homeless state of emergency.

In San Francisco, the crisis is so severe that residents are fleeing a city they have long cherished as one of the world’s most beautiful and livable locales, not to mention a dynamic tech hub. Nearly 8,000 people now live on the streets there.

Rampant public drug use, panhandling, urination, defecation, and other unruly conduct have taken over some areas of the City by the Bay and the city’s administration’s inability to enforce its own laws and clear out homeless encampments makes the crisis much worse.

“San Francisco is a mess, and even if it were to reduce its homeless population modestly, by a third, the streets would still look worse than most American cities,” Stephen Eide, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute who studies homelessness and public policy, told The Epoch Times.

The city is a battleground for myriad legal, social, economic, and political forces amid rising public alarm about homelessness. Lawyers there want to press pause on their own court battle over an injunction forbidding the police from cracking down on homeless camps. In their view, the looming Supreme Court case will render other legal struggles moot.

Homelessness advocates insist that longstanding legal precedent guarantees rights to people living on the street, and the city is not free to disregard those rights and take away homeless people’s property without due process, just because some of the homeless commit more serious violations and spark a public outcry.

But others who have studied the issue find providing housing for ever-growing numbers of homeless to be an unsustainable burden.

A Protracted Battle

San Francisco’s impasse has its roots in a lawsuit that a local advocacy group, the Coalition on Homelessness, launched in September 2022 with the aid of the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, and the global law firm Latham & Watkins. Also named as plaintiffs in the suit were seven people who were, or had recently been, homeless.

One goal of the lawsuit was to stop the city from arresting and ticketing people who lived on the street, and clearing out their encampments—in short, to put an end to sweeps of homeless settlements and to put pressure on the administration to ramp up temporary housing for the undomiciled.

In a Dec. 23, 2022, ruling, Judge Donna Ryu of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California slapped the city with a preliminary injunction, denying it the power to enforce or threaten to enforce laws and ordinances that barred “involuntarily homeless individuals” from lying, sleeping, or sitting on public property.

Judge Ryu sided with the plaintiffs who believed that San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) actions had violated their Fourth Amendment right to be secure in their persons and possessions against unreasonable searches and seizures.

“Plaintiffs have presented significant evidence of a practice of seizing and destroying of homeless individuals’ unabandoned personal property in violation of the Fourth Amendment … and San Francisco’s own bag and tag policy, which clearly requires the City to store personal property so that homeless individuals may retrieve,” the judge wrote.

Lawyers for San Francisco unsuccessfully challenged Judge Ryu’s decision in federal court. In September 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit shot down the city’s claim that Judge Ryu had overstepped legal bounds set in Martin v. Boise and Johnson v. Grants Pass.

On Jan. 11, another Ninth Circuit Court ruling clarified the definition of “involuntarily homeless” while substantially upholding the injunction.

Instead of appealing. San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu on Jan. 17 has filed a motion to essentially pause proceedings to wait for the Supreme Court decision on Grants Pass.

“It makes no sense to spend months litigating this case and expend enormous resources collecting evidence and expert testimony when the entire legal landscape may soon change,” Mr. Chiu said in a statement.

Read more here…

Self-defense is the top reason Americans have been panic-buying firearms in the last several years. The deterioration of cities under Democratic leadership, plagued by violent crime and an influx of undocumented immigrants bussed from the wide open southern border, has compelled law-abiding citizens to purchase handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Also, Biden’s ATF war on the Second Amendment is another driver in firearms demand. 

A new study by 24/7 Wall St. identified the most popular shotgun brands purchased by Americans based on an analysis of data from the ATF’s Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Export Report.

The findings show that Maverick Arms (Mossberg) is America’s most popular shotgun brand. Second is Legacy Sports International, then Kel Tec CNC Industries coming in at number three, Remarms (Remington) at four, and Beretta USA at five. 

Here’s the full list: 

1. Maverick Arms (Mossberg)

• Domestic shotgun production in 2021: 293,089 (43.4% of all U.S.-made shotguns)
• Total domestic firearm production in 2021: 388,171 (75.5% shotguns)
• Popular shotgun model(s): Maverick 88, Mossberg 500
• 2021 manufacturing location(s): Eagle Pass, TX, and North Haven, CT

2. Legacy Sports International

• Domestic shotgun production in 2021: 161,099 (23.9% of all U.S.-made shotguns)
• Total domestic firearm production in 2021: 214,258 (75.2% shotguns)
• Popular shotgun model(s): Pointer Field Tek 3, Pointer Sport Tek 5, Pointer Acrius
• 2021 manufacturing location(s): Reno, NV

3. Kel Tec CNC Industries

• Domestic shotgun production in 2021: 46,737 (6.9% of all U.S.-made shotguns)
• Total domestic firearm production in 2021: 215,804 (21.7% shotguns)
• Popular shotgun model(s): KS7 Bullpup, KSG Bullpup
• 2021 manufacturing location(s): Cocoa, FL

4. Remarms (Remington)

• Domestic shotgun production in 2021: 45,277 (6.7% of all U.S.-made shotguns)
• Total domestic firearm production in 2021: 70,076 (64.6% shotguns)
• Popular shotgun model(s): Model 1100, Model 870 Fieldmaster, V3 Tactical
• 2021 manufacturing location(s): Ilion, NY

5. Beretta USA

• Domestic shotgun production in 2021: 24,210 (3.6% of all U.S.-made shotguns)
• Total domestic firearm production in 2021: 155,352 (15.6% shotguns)
• Popular shotgun model(s): A300 Ultima, A400, 686 Silver Pigeon I
• 2021 manufacturing location(s): Gallatin, TN

6. IWI US

• Domestic shotgun production in 2021: 15,965 (2.4% of all U.S.-made shotguns)
• Total domestic firearm production in 2021: 96,662 (16.5% shotguns)
• Popular shotgun model(s): Tavor TS12
• 2021 manufacturing location(s): Middletown, PA

7. Henry RAC

• Domestic shotgun production in 2021: 15,878 (2.4% of all U.S.-made shotguns)
• Total domestic firearm production in 2021: 316,050 (5.0% shotguns)
• Popular shotgun model(s): Single Shot Shotgun, Lever Action X Model
• 2021 manufacturing location(s): Bayonne, NJ, and Rice Lake, WI

8. Savage Arms

• Domestic shotgun production in 2021: 13,352 (2.0% of all U.S.-made shotguns)
• Total domestic firearm production in 2021: 406,867 (3.3% shotguns)
• Popular shotgun model(s): 555 Sporting, 320 Field Grade, 212 Slug
• 2021 manufacturing location(s): Westfield, MA

9. International Firearm Corporation

• Domestic shotgun production in 2021: 11,423 (1.7% of all U.S.-made shotguns)
• Total domestic firearm production in 2021: 11,423 (100.0% shotguns)
• Popular shotgun model(s): IFC Radical Bullpup, IFC Maximus
• 2021 manufacturing location(s): Midwest City, OK

Weeks ago, the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) showed gun-buying soared the highest in eight months. 

Authored by Lawrence Wilson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) adamantly insisted that President Joe Biden’s support is rock solid among black voters moments after the president won the state’s Democratic presidential primary.

“The best illustration of that, he got 96 percent of the vote in this primary, but its largest percentage—over 97 percent—was in the town of Orangeburg where there are two HBCUs and a community college,” Mr. Clyburn told reporters at the Democratic watch party on Feb. 3.

“I go to an African American barbershop. I go to an African American Church. Joe Biden is as strong with African Americans as he has ever been,” Mr. Clyburn added.

Democrats have labored to dispel the notion that President Biden is losing popularity with black voters, a key element of the Democratic coalition, after a Dec. 12 survey by GenForward revealed that 17 percent of black Americans would vote for President Donald Trump and 20 percent said they would vote for someone other than the two major candidates.

A poll conducted by The New York Times and Siena College in November revealed that 22 percent of black voters in six battleground states vote for President Trump in 2024.

South Carolina was specifically selected to hold the nation’s first Democratic primary this year in order to give black voters, who comprise 51 percent of the state’s Democratic voters, a greater voice in the electoral process.

While the impressive margin of victory helped place President Biden in a position of strength at the beginning of the 2024 campaign, the data itself presents a mixed picture. And some, especially younger, South Carolina democrats seem resigned rather than enthusiastic about supporting his reelection.

The Black Vote

While awaiting the result of the Feb. 3 primary, Christale Spain, chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party, touted an increase in voting by blacks. “From the data, we saw a 13 percent increase in black voter participation,” she told attendees at a Democratic watch party.

That data point was derived from the roughly 48,000 ballots cast during the state’s 12-day early voting period. It is not yet known how data from the remainder of the approximately 131,000 votes cast may alter that result.

Overall, voter turnout in this primary appears to have been low by historical standards. Nearly 188,000 Democratic votes were cast in the state’s 2022 midterm primary. More than 330,000 voters participated in the state’s 2020 Democratic presidential primary.

Some Democratic officials had speculated that voter turnout could be depressed by the fact that an incumbent president was facing little opposition and that some Democrats had stated an intention to vote in the Feb. 24 Republican primary to oppose President Donald Trump. Crossover voting is possible in this state with an open primary system.

Democratic leaders did not entertain the idea, at least publicly, that some Democrats may have preferred to vote for neither President Biden nor President Trump.

If that were to have been the case, President Biden could face a significant challenge in the general election. Black eligible voters are projected to number 34.4 million in November, comprising 14 percent of eligible voters, a historic high, according to Pew Research.

“I think the president needs to be concerned about black voters,” Richard Gordon, founder of Gordon Strategies and member of the chairman’s board of the Democratic Governors Association, told The Epoch Times.

“Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia … were enormously close [in 2020]. And if the President were to lose, let’s say, 2 percent of the vote in each of those, he probably won’t get reelected. And that is why the black vote in all of those states is massively important,” Mr. Gordon said.

Younger People, Different Issues

Democrats are not a monolithic group, and one fissure runs along generational lines. Older, more traditional Democrats are more likely to be well satisfied with President Biden’s performance and age.

Asked if the president has an electability problem, Jim Horch, 67, an ironworker from Aiken, said, “No, I really don’t because I’ve seen President Biden give several speeches, and his fitness, in my opinion, is great.”

Younger Democrats were more likely to hedge their answer about President Biden’s electability. “I hope and pray his health remains good for the next four years,” Andrina Mullins, 40, of Florence, said.

A 31-year-old Columbia woman supporting President Biden, who asked not to be named, when asked about his electability, paused, laughed nervously, and said, “Do I have to answer that?”

Younger black Democrats may also be driven by different issues than their elders, according to Marcurius Byrd, 39, an advisor to Young Democrats of the Central Midlands.

That difference in perspective is readily seen in attitudes toward the war in Gaza, according to Mr. Byrd, who, as an older Millennial, sees himself as a bridge between generations.

Older Democrats are more likely to view support for Israel as unconditional based on their emotional memory of previous conflicts and historical support for an ally. Younger Democrats, lacking that attachment, may be more likely to evaluate the fact in a neutral manner.

“There are also the complexities of this being warfare,” Mr. Byrd said. “There’s more [to it] than just a ceasefire because ceasefire does not bring an end, and other things will be happening,” he added, “and people aren’t thinking that far ahead.”

That’s why Gen Z Democrats may be more likely to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, according to Mr. Byrd.

Younger black Democrats are more likely to mention the war in Gaza, affordable housing, and the cost of higher education as key issues. Older black Democrats are more likely to mention access to abortion, voter suppression, and preserving the gains made in civil and women’s rights as key concerns.

In South Carolina, 42 percent of registered black voters are under age 45 according to data from the South Carolina Election Commission. Nationally, 60 percent of black eligible voters are age 59 or younger according to Pew Research.

Messaging and Turnout

President Biden has had a messaging problem with some black voters, according to Mr. Gordon.

“For many people in the black community, it’s been very hard for the President to translate what he has done for them,” Mr. Gordon said. That may be easier done in a small state like South Carolina than in a battleground state like Michigan or Wisconsin, he added.

Some black Democratic leaders are aware of this communication gap. “I think my only concern is that we have to do a better job of getting the message out about why we should be voting for Joe Biden,” Isaac Wilson, 36, chair of the Florence County Democratic Party, told The Epoch Times. “We’ve got to do a better job of getting that message out.”

Regarding President Biden’s electability, Jonathan Kirkwood, 54, of Columbia, told The Epoch Times, “I don’t think that there’s a big concern, but I think that we all need to get out and vote and just make sure that that happens.”

That will involve new messaging tailored to specific demographics, according to Mr. Byrd. “He’s done a good job. The problem is, nobody knows about it,” he said. “You have to do more direct targeting.”

For some black Democrats, this comes down to a binary choice between Presidents Biden and Trump in which they believe President Biden will surely prevail.

“Do you want a competent administration led by an 81-year-old man or an incompetent administration by someone that’s pushing 80? That, I believe, is going to end up becoming the choice. And I believe that most people will vote for competence in the end,” Austin Jackson, 33, president of Young Democrats of South Carolina, told The Epoch Times.

The question is whether winning most black voters will be enough.

In 2020, President Biden won 92 percent of the black vote compared to 8 percent by President Trump. Even a relatively small change in that balance could affect the outcome of the 2024 election, according to Mr. Gordon.

“I don’t believe there is a realignment of the black vote in America. I feel there is an erosion of the black vote in America,” Mr. Gordon said. “I think it will prove relatively small when the population is confronted with a binary choice between Biden and Trump. But he doesn’t have room to lose those voters.”

One month ago, Standard Chartered predicted that with ETF approval in the rearview mirror, bitcoin would eventually rise up to $200,000. It has since turned its attention to ether and the inevitable ethereum ETF approval, and while it does not follow up with a similarly bombastic forecast, it nonetheless sees ETH rising to $4,000 by May 23, when it expect the Ethereum ETH will be approved. Incidentally, we agree.

And now, frontrunning the ETH ETF

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 9, 2024

How do they get there? Well, as Std Chtd analyst Geoff Kendrick writes, the SEC approved 11 new spot Bitcoin ETFs on 10 January. The approvals, along with BTC price action before and since, provide valuable lessons for the ongoing Ethereum (ETH) ETF application process.

According to Kendrick, the SEC’s dominant strategy for ETH ETF applications is to replicate the BTC process. This partly reflects structural similarities between the two. During its case against Ripple in June 2023, the SEC did not list ETH (or BTC) among the 67 coins and tokens that it claimed were “securities”. In addition, ETH – like BTC – is a listed and regulated futures contract on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME).

As a result, the bank expects pending applications for ETH US spot ETFs to be approved on 23 May, the final deadline for the first of the ETFs under consideration – the equivalent date to 10 January for BTC ETFs. And if ETH prices perform similarly to how BTC prices performed in the lead-up to BTC ETF approval, Kendrick expects ETH to trade as high as $4,000 by then.

To be sure, for ETH prices to follow the same price pattern as BTC, Standard Chartered lays out three conditions that need to be met:

First, current market expectations for the probability of a 23 May approval date would have to be low, as was the case for BTC ETFs. This appears to be true; several media reports (for example from The Block, a leading digital-assets news provider) suggest that commentators are mixed on the chances of approval. ‘No approval’ expectations centre on the view that the SEC defines ETH as a security rather than a commodity – the argument that was at the heart of the Ripple case in 2023. Based on market commentary, we believe approval expectations are relatively low, likely below 50%.

Second, the market-implied probability of approval would have to be wrong. We also believe this is the case. While SEC Chair Gary Gensler did say during the SEC’s June 2023 lawsuit against Ripple that “everything other than Bitcoin is potentially a security“, ETH was not included among the 67 coins and tokens the SEC identified as securities at the time. Also notably, the SEC was not successful in that case – Ripple was ruled to be a security when sold to institutional clients, but not when purchased on exchanges. In addition, the SEC has since lost its case against Grayscale on the BTC ETF. Grayscale also has an ETH trust that it wants to turn into an ETF, so a denial of that application would likely lead to another appeal by Grayscale. Both BTC and ETH are listed and regulated futures on the CME, and we see no fundamental reason for the SEC to view ETH differently than the CME already does.

Third, several spot ETH ETFs would need to be approved on 23 May. In other words, the SEC would need to follow the same process that it did for BTC ETF approvals. We think this is highly likely. During the BTC ETF vetting process, the SEC continually postponed decisions, and stated publicly that they would not be approved right up to the time of approval. The SEC postponed decisions on two ETH ETFs (Blackrock and Fidelity) on 24 January and a third (Grayscale) on 25 January, and Gensler claimed that the BTC approval was a one-off. Indeed, we think a similar SEC approach to ETH ETFs is not only likely but also optimal in terms of ETH price impact, as it would create lower market expectations – maximising price upside as approval probability increased.

Looking beyond the ETF approval, Standard Charated believes that that ETH is less susceptible to the post-approval selling that BTC has seen:

the BTC price fell to an intra-day low of USD 38,500 on 23 January from an intra-day high of USD 49,000 on 11 January. This is because the Grayscale Ethereum Trust has a smaller share of overall ETH market cap than the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) did before ETF approval. FTX holdings, and the associated forced selling pressure, have even smaller relative market cap shares of ETH versus BTC.

Meanwhile, while GBTC selling in recent weeks (USD 4.9bn) has been heavier than we expected – and recall our report that forced liquidation by FTX and affiliated entities has been one of the main reasons for the bitcoin’s subpar performance in the past month – pressure has eased in recent sessions.

Like us, Kendrick thinks that the period of sharp GBTC selling is over (even if sporadic sizable futures liquidations persist); the analyst also expects inflows to the other new BTC ETFs to continue, allowing BTC prices to resume their uptrend.

As a result, heading into the expected approval date on 23 May, we expect ETH prices to track, or outperform, the BTC uptrend during the comparable period.

Finally, there is a fundamental reason to be optimistic on ETH pricing besides merely the outcome of the ETF process. As Standard Chartered reminds us, the “Dencun” upgrade is imminent and will be tested on the Sepolia and Holesky test networks on 30 January and 7 February, respectively. This should enable it to be rolled out on the Ethereum mainnet in late February or early March.

The upgrade will primarily enable proto-danksharding, a process that will dramatically decrease the cost of transactions on layer 2 blockchains (such as Arbitrum and Optimism), to a level consistent with layer 1 blockchains such as Solana. It will also slow the pace of ETH staking, so that at the new fastest possible pace, 100% staking can theoretically be achieved only by end-2028, rather than end-2024 before the upgrade. Overall, this upgrade should see more value captured within the ETH ecosystem as lower layer 2 fees make ETH more competitive, and slower staking should keep staking rewards higher for longer. Both of these are positive for ETH prices.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a legal foundation focused on election integrity cases that sought to invalidate a North Dakota law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted for 13 days after Election Day.

U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Traynor said in his Feb. 2 order that the lawsuit both lacked standing and failed to show harm or violation of constitutional rights.

“The complaint is dismissed,” Judge Traynor, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, wrote in the order.

The lawsuit was filed in July 2023 by the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) on behalf of Burleigh County Auditor Mark Splonkowski.

Mr. Splonkowski, as county auditor, is required to enforce state law in the administration of elections in Burleigh County. He argued that conflicts between state and federal law force him into an impossible situation in which he risks criminal penalties.

“North Dakota law and Defendant’s enforcement of it harm Mr. Splonkowski because they put him in the position of having to choose between dictates of state law to accept and allow votes to be cast after Election Day and federal law that requires a single election day,” the complaint reads.

A key argument in his lawsuit was that the U.S. Constitution provides that federal elections occur on one day, while North Dakota law allows for mail-in ballots to be counted for up to 13 days after Election Day so long as they’re postmarked on or before the election.

‘Impossibility in Enforcing the Law’

Mr. Splonkowski, who in his role as auditor must swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution (which his lawsuit argues requires a single Election Day), sits on the county canvassing board that reviews and counts ballots arriving after Election Day.

Since North Dakota law requires him to count and certify votes arriving after Election Day, his attorneys said that “he faces an impossibility in enforcing the law” and risks a misdemeanor charge for failing to perform a duty as an election official or a felony for certifying a false canvass of votes.

Mr. Splonkowski sought a court declaration that North Dakota’s extension of Election Day is unlawful and asked for an injunction voiding laws that allow for the extension.

Judge Traynor disagreed. In ruling against Mr. Splonkowski, the judge cited lack of standing, failure to show harm, and lack of constitutional violation in the ruling.

“The only cause for his potential injury is himself because he states he will violate North Dakota election law,” the judge wrote.

“This is deeply concerning to the Court that an elected official openly advocates for violating the law he was elected to enforce because he has independently concluded it contradicts federal law.”

Judge Traynor also said the reasoning in Mr. Splonkowski’s lawsuit, if accepted by the court, could undermine overseas and military voters’ rights to vote.

PILF spokesperson Lauren Bowman Bis expressed disappointment in the judgment.

“We are disappointed in the Court’s ruling,” she told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement. “We believe unresolved elections undermine confidence and that federal law should be followed.”

North Dakota’s top election official, Secretary of State Michael Howe, a Republican, praised the ruling, calling it a “win for the rule of law in North Dakota and a win for our military and overseas voters.”

PILF is involved in various election integrity cases around the country and is also backing former President Donald Trump’s bid before the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court decision to block him from the ballot on 14th Amendment grounds.

More than a dozen states have post-Election Day mail-in ballot receipt deadlines.

Mississippi Challenge

Besides the PILF-led lawsuit in North Dakota, another challenge to extended mail ballot deadlines was filed last month in Mississippi.

The Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, a member of the state Republican Executive Committee, and an election commissioner in one county filed a federal lawsuit on Jan. 26 against Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson and six local election officials.

In this case, the lawsuit seeks to overturn a Mississippi law that allows absentee ballots in presidential elections to be counted for five days after Election Day.

“Federal law is very clear—Election Day is the Tuesday after the first Monday in November,” RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said in a statement when the lawsuit was announced. “However, some states accept and count ballots days and days after Election Day, and we believe that practice is wrong.”

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) stated that it’s tracking such cases closely and will oppose efforts it sees as voter disenfranchisement.

“Democrats will always stand on the side of voters against unlawful attacks on Americans’ fundamental right to make their voices heard at the ballot box,” DNC deputy press secretary Nina Raneses said in a statement.

By Charles Kennedy of OilPrice.com

U.S. manufacturers are recovering from an extended slump in activity and their energy consumption is about to start rising, with the risk of tightening an already tight diesel market.

Reuters market analyst John Kemp reported the index for manufacturing activity had improved to 49.1 for January from 47.1 in December. The latter figure was the highest since October 2022, Kemp noted in his report, adding that the trend signaled a return to growth.

As manufacturing activity improves, however, diesel demand begins to increase in lockstep. This might be problematic in case of a fast recovery because distillate inventories in the U.S. remain below the five-year average, by 5%, per the latest weekly petroleum report of the Energy Information Administration.

The state of distillate inventories, with the total as of January 26 standing at 10 million barrels below the 10-year seasonal average, per Kemp, is better than it was in late 2023. At that time, distillate stocks were 19 million barrels below the 10-year average. Even with the boost in stockpiles, the distillate supply balance remains elusive.

This means that if manufacturing activity continues to improve, it will soon enough lead to higher fuel prices, which would in turn pressure that same manufacturing activity before too long, constraining any growth.

Diesel prices are already on the rise, both thanks to the rebound in manufacturing activity and a refinery outage. BP’s whiting refinery in Indiana—the largest inland refinery in the U.S.—was shut down last week after a power outage. An analyst has said the return to operation could take as little as a week but there is no guarantee it will be so quick. BP has not given any timeline for the refinery’s return to operation.

The outage comes on the heels of several weeks of lower fuel production across the country amid frigid winter weather, Bloomberg noted in a recent report. Supply, therefore, remains precariously close to a shortage.

Authored by Julia Ye and Angela Bright via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The prospect of Basic Law Article 23, which rocked Hong Kong in 2003, is now becoming a reality under Beijing-controlled Hong Kong authorities.

“While the society as a whole looks calm and very safe, we still have to watch out for potential sabotage and undercurrents that try to create trouble, particularly some of the ‘independent Hong Kong’ ideas are still being embedded in some people’s minds,” John Lee Ka-chiu, Hong Kong’s chief executive, said at a press conference on Jan. 30.

Article 23, outlined in Hong Kong’s Basic Law enacted after its handover from British rule in 1997, mandated that Hong Kong write its own national security code. An attempt to do so in 2003 led to massive protests, leading the government to shelve the proposal.

After pro-democracy protests brought hundreds of thousands of Hongkongers to the streets in 2019, Beijing imposed a national security law to punish four major crimes: secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces.

Now, under an administration hand-picked by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Hong Kong is once again looking to pass Article 23, which authorities say will fill loopholes left by the national security law. A four-week comment period will precede a vote on the law by Hong Kong’s Beijing-aligned legislature.

The new national security law will cover five offenses: treason, insurrection, theft of state secrets and espionage, destructive activities endangering national security, and external interference.

The newly added ordinance on “external interference” will prohibit any person from cooperating with foreign powers to interfere with Hong Kong’s elections, legislature, and judiciary.

To the question of “Why now?” Mr. Lee responded, “The threats to national security—they are real. We have experienced all these threats. We have suffered from them badly. We were all very heartbroken. We still remember the pain and the sorrow. We don’t want to go through that painful experience again.”  The chief executive referred to foreign agents who “may still be active in Hong Kong.”

“We can’t afford to wait,” Mr. Lee said. “It’s for 26 years we have been waiting.”

Explainer: What Is Article 23?

The Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984 set out the conditions under which Hong Kong would be transferred to China control and for the city’s governance after the handover. The treaty guaranteed a high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong, enshrined in the Basic Law, a mini-constitution that was the blueprint for the “one country, two systems” arrangement.

After the signing of the treaty, the CCP was eager to establish a legal framework for the resumption of its sovereignty over Hong Kong. Article 23 of the Basic Law was part of that legal framework, stipulating that Hong Kong must enact legislation on its own to prohibit seven types of acts that endanger national security, including “treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People’s Government, or theft of state secrets.”

However, the mandated legislation has not been realized since the handover of Hong Kong’s sovereignty in 1997.

In 1985, the CCP’s rubber stamp legislature set up a 59-member “Hong Kong Basic Law Drafting Committee.” However, the first draft of the Basic Law was regarded as too vague and wide-ranging.

The drafting committee added the words “to legislate on its own” to the second draft so that the Hong Kong authorities could legislate only when it considered necessary.

The drafting of the relevant provisions coincided with the Tiananmen Square movement in 1989. To strengthen its control over the Asia financial hub, the CCP reintroduced the offense of subversion and added a provision concerning political organizations to the re-draft.

The CCP has continued to push for the completion of Article 23 legislation. However, the legislative process that was initiated has aroused great controversy, and disputes have abounded.

A Broader Scope than the National Security Law

Some may wonder why, since the national security law had already been imposed when Mr. Lee came to power as chief executive in 2022, he should be so eager to legislate Article 23.

“One reason is that recently, the whole international society is targeting the Hong Kong national security law. Many Western countries are questioning Hong Kong’s human rights situation,” current affairs commentator Wang Anran told The Epoch Times.

Mr. Wang said he believes that, given the negative attention garnered by the national security law, Article 23 may be an alternative.

While the national security law was implemented in 2020, of the seven items to be covered under Article 23, it only covered two: secession and subversion of state power. Therefore the two laws are expected to work together.

It is expected that if the legislation on Article 23 is completed, the scope of its coverage will be wider than initially planned. For instance, its definition of state secrets will be broader and more in line with China’s vague laws on espionage and state secrets. The proposal for the law deemed Hong Kong’s current definition of state secrets to be “not broad enough.”

There are concerns that Article 23 will cause the business environment in Hong Kong to continue to deteriorate. The law would include economic matters in its definition of national security.

“If a business or organization has a certain connection with a foreign government, it may be arrested,” said Simon Ngai Man Young, a professor at the University of Hong Kong’s Faculty of Law. “On top of that, even if it is a business enterprise or a joint venture, the source of funds may have to be checked more carefully.”

Chung Kim-wah, deputy chief executive of Hong Kong’s Public Opinion Research Institute, argued that Hong Kong authorities are now expanding the scope of Article 23 to include soft counter-opposition, cybersecurity, and false information.

“The current implementation of the national security law has resulted in the criminalization of everything, and the introduction of Article 23 is an additional tool and weapon for [the] violent regime to suppress the public,” he told The Epoch Times.

Was 2003’s Legislation Targeted at Falun Gong?

Sources familiar with top CCP officials have said that in 2003, when authorities pushed for Article 23, their intended target was Hong Kong’s Falun Gong community.

Hong Kong’s first chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, openly made negative comments about Falun Gong in 2001. The following year, Mr. Tung initiated the legislation to implement Article 23. The legislation of Article 23 at the time was seen as a political mission given to Mr. Tung by late CCP leader Jiang Zemin, who initiated the persecution of Falun Gong.

During the SARS outbreak in 2003—a time when Hong Kong’s economy was in the doldrums, coupled with the introduction of the consultation paper on Article 23 legislation—worries about the future and dissatisfaction with Mr. Tung reached an unprecedented high.

The law was set to be passed on July 9, 2003. As the date approached, the Civil Human Rights Front, a pro-democracy group, called for a protest. On July 1, over 500,000 people took to the streets to oppose Article 23 and to demand that Mr. Tung step down.

Authorities withdrew the bill on Sept. 5 to “allay the public’s concern.” More than a year later, Mr. Tung stepped down.

Consolidating Control: Reciprocal Enforcement

Article 23 is now on the fast track to legislation, but it remains to be seen whether it will be shelved again.

Meanwhile, Hong Kong authorities have introduced a law that allows for the mutual recognition of judgments in civil and commercial cases between China and Hong Kong.

On Jan. 29, the Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance came into effect. According to a statement by Hong Kong’s Department of Justice, the arrangement reduces the need to re-litigate the same dispute in Hong Kong courts and China. 

Despite the description of the law as “reciprocal,” the legislation is clearly aimed at the Hong Kong judiciary, said political commentator and Epoch Times contributor Ji Da.

“The purpose is for Hong Kong to recognize China’s judicial system. Judgments in mainland China are also valid in Hong Kong,” Mr. Ji told the Chinese edition of The Epoch Times.

CCP Eager to Re-control HK for Strategic Reasons

The Mainland Judgments ordinance, coupled with the CCP’s actions surrounding the legislation of Article 23, shows that the CCP is eager to regain control of Hong Kong in the face of the current tense international situation, Mr. Wang said.

In the international arena, friction continues between China and Japan over the Senkaku Islands (called the Diaoyu Islands by China). In addition, conflicts may arise at any time in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. Concerned that Hong Kong could be another source of unrest, the CCP is enacting Article 23 at this time as a strategic consideration, according to Mr. Wang.

“When Hong Kong experienced a major upheaval in 2019, the CCP was very worried about these unstable factors, especially when it recognized that Hong Kong has always been an anti-communist base linking the mainland and overseas. The CCP was taking precautions by launching Lee Ka-chiu, the police chief, as the chief executive,” he said.

Hong Kong authorities expect to complete Article 23 legislation before the legislative council adjourns in July. The short consultation period has led to public concern that the comment period is only a formality.

Public consultation on Article 23 will remain open until Feb. 28.

A migrant gang based in New Jersey is helping a flood of future Democrats pour into the United States through the Canadian border for a princely sum of $6,000 per head, the Daily Mail reveals.

Several of the ringleaders settled in New Jersey after being released by ICE – where they’ve moved “dozens if not hundreds” of migrants into the US using secret techniques along the poorly-guarded boder between Quebec and Vermont.

See, Biden has created jobs!

What’s more, despite being caught several times, the gang continues to operate amid a 500% surge in border traffic in 2023.

Border Patrol agents apprehended several illegal immigrants in January after they crossed the Niagara River from Canada, which came amid the surge in crossings at the northern border

US authorities have arrested and charged two accused ringleaders who are both undocumented migrants. 

A third alleged leader remains at large in Canada, where authorities say they have no powers to detain him.

Despite snaring two of the ringleaders, individuals linked to the gang have continued to smuggle migrants across the border. -Daily Mail

The ringleaders, Jhon Reina-Perez, 34, and Victor Lopez-Padilla, 35, have been linked to at least five foiled smuggling incidents in Vermont which involved ‘at least 25 migrants,’ while runners for the gang have confessed to Border Patrol officials that many more illegal crossings have gone undetected. 

Reina-Perez is a Colombian national who crossed into the US near El Paso, Texas in April 2022 according to court filings. He was then processed and released into the US ‘pending immigration proceedings,’ which of course, he ignored. Six months later, he was arrested again near the Canadian border in Vermont while allegedly acting as a ‘foot guide’ to traffic five other people who had just crossed illegally over the northern US border. He was subsequently released again, telling authorities that he ‘intended to live in the state of Washington.’

Lopez-Padilla is from Guatemala, and has been accused of playing a leading role in the smuggling operation. The third ringleader, Simon Jacinto-Ramos, is still at large. He ran the Canadian side of the operation.

In 2023, there were 10,021 arrests at the US-Canada border, five times more than the previous year – and the majority of which took place in or around Vermont. The route has become popular with wealthier migrants who want to avoid the hustle and bustle of being human trafficked from the south. According to official figures, people crossing the northern border illegally are more likely to be on the US terror watchlist on a percentage basis.

According to court filings, Lopez-Padilla is a fan of Joaquín Guzmán Loera, the notorious Mexican drug lord known as ‘El Chapo,’ according to the Mail. Several of his social media profiles include references to the cartel leader.

Authored by Joseph M. Hanneman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A California physician who gave medical aid to a dying Ashli Babbitt on Jan. 6, 2021, but was forced away from the scene by police has been sentenced to probation as part of a plea deal for his time at the U.S. Capitol.

Dr. Austin Brendlen Harris, 43, of Granada Hills, California, was sentenced on Feb. 2 by U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton to three years of probation and fined $5,000 for the petty misdemeanor charge of parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.

Federal prosecutors recommended that Judge Walton sentence Dr. Harris to 30 days in jail.

While Dr. Harris acknowledged his presence inside the Capitol broke the law, he said it at least gave him the opportunity to help a mortally wounded Ms. Babbitt, 35, an Air Force veteran from San Diego who was shot outside the Speaker’s Lobby at 2:44 p.m. on Jan. 6.

“He was not involved in that area or situation before he heard the shot, but when he saw her fall he did not hesitate,” defense attorney Scott Weinberg wrote in a four-page sentencing memorandum. “He ran toward her without thinking. As a physician who has worked in many significant trauma situations, this was second nature to him.

“He wanted to help to try to save her life,” Mr. Weinberg wrote. “Unfortunately just as her pulse faded and he was about to start CPR, he was prevented from acting further as law enforcement had to control the crowd and move protesters away from the situation, understandably so.”

The sentencing memo understated the role a Capitol Police bicycle officer played in preventing Dr. Harris from giving Ms. Babbitt further medical aid.

Dr. Harris was on his knees checking Ms. Babbitt’s upper chest wound when the officer reached down and grabbed him by the shoulders. The officer wrestled Dr. Harris away from Ms. Babbitt, grabbed him by the jacket, and shoved him down the hallway.

The visibly angry officer kept pushing Dr. Harris and the two struggled down the hallway. It’s impossible to hear what was said between the men because the crowd was yelling at the police.

Dr. Harris went back and asked the officer to retrieve his medical bag, which was still sitting next to Ms. Babbitt. The officer handed it back to him.

“If Dr. Harris had not been in one specific location within the building, he would not have had the opportunity to render aid to Ms. Ashli Babbitt after she was shot,” Mr. Weinberg wrote.

Tried to Prevent Rioting

Ms. Babbitt, who owned a pool cleaning business with her husband, traveled alone to Washington on Jan. 5 and attended President Donald J. Trump’s speech at the Ellipse on Jan. 6.

She walked to the Capitol along with tens of thousands of other protesters and entered the building through a window at 2:23 p.m., according to a detailed Epoch Times timeline first published on Jan. 5.

While DOJ investigative documents and persistent commentators on social media describe Ms. Babbitt as a rioter, a careful examination of scene video shows she tried to prevent the vandalism and violence that occurred near the Speaker’s Lobby.

In its sentencing memo seeking jail time for Dr. Harris, federal prosecutors cited his “encouragement to other rioters to participate in the attack” and that he compared “police officers defending the Capitol to Nazis.”

Prosecutors acknowledged that Dr. Harris accepted responsibility for running afoul of the law.

“The government has also considered the fact that Harris made clear his intention to accept responsibility for his actions at the time of his arrest and did so at the earliest opportunity,” prosecutors wrote.

The sentencing of Dr. Harris is the latest development in the death of Ms. Babbitt, who was shot and killed by Capitol Police Lt. Michael L. Byrd.

On Jan. 5, Judicial Watch Inc. filed a $30 million wrongful-death lawsuit on behalf of Ms. Babbitt’s husband, Aaron, and her estate. The federal suit was filed in U.S. District Court in San Diego, where the Babbitts lived and where Mr. Babbitt continues to reside.

The lawsuit alleges Mr. Byrd was negligent in use of his service weapon, lacked proper judgment, and had poor scene awareness when he fired a single shot as Ms. Babbitt climbed into a broken window leading into the Speaker’s Lobby. The suit called the shooting an “ambush murder.“

On Feb. 2, Judicial Watch announced a lawsuit against the DOJ, claiming the FBI is wrongfully withholding records related to Ms. Babbitt and Aaron Babbitt.

That federal suit, also filed in San Diego, says the FBI rejected Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and never provided records even after an appeal was filed with the DOJ. The lawsuit asks a judge to compel the FBI to release the records.

President Biden’s approval rating is the second lowest in modern history for a first-term president.

Today, under 40% of Americans approve of his job performance, a level it has hovered around over the last year. According to recent polls, younger Democrats have a lower approval rating of Biden’s handling of the economy compared to older Democrats. Leading up to the election in 2024, the state of the economy is the most important issue among Americans.

This graphic shows approval ratings for first-term U.S. presidents in their third year – and whether or not they were re-elected – based on data from Gallup.

First-Term Presidential Approval Ratings, Ranked

Here’s how Biden’s approval rating in year three stacks up against past U.S. presidents:

Average annual approval ratings from January 20 through to January 19 in the following year. *Approval ratings for Kennedy are from January 20-November 22 1963 due to assassination.

We can see that Biden falls near the bottom, with President Carter being the only president to have lower ratings in their third year.

Biden’s political standing has fallen from a peak of 63% in 2021 given concerns of rising costs and the state of his fitness. The Israel-Hamas war is also weighing on his ratings, with younger Democrats criticizing his handling of the crisis.

While Biden struggles to achieve majority approval, economic indicators have been optimistic. The unemployment rate remains low, GDP growth is strong, and the S&P 500 recently hit record highs. Despite this, Americans are paying attention to the cost of basic goods, which have grown more expensive in the last few years.

The U.S is among the most polarized countries globally, stemming from low trust in the media, economic anxieties, and low trust in the government. As a Biden-Trump rematch looks increasingly likely, political success hinges on who will align most with voter concerns, and whether disaffected Democrats will elect Biden for a second term.