Authored by T.J.Muscaro via The Epoch Times,

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is preparing for the busiest Thanksgiving holiday travel period in 15 years.

More than 360,000 flights are scheduled between Monday, Nov. 24, and Tuesday, Dec. 2, delivering people to and from their destinations across the country. Flights are set to peak on Nov. 25, with more than 52,000 flights alone, and Nov. 26 is expected to be nearly as busy, with more than 50,000 flights scheduled.

Thanksgiving Day, Nov. 27, is expected to see the lowest air traffic that week, with the administration forecasting more than 25,500 flights. Last week, the FAA ended its mandatory flight reductions and now stands ready to oversee the travel spike.

“Thanks to the dedication of our air traffic controllers and every FAA employee, we are ready for the holiday rush and take pride in helping travelers reach their friends and families during this important time of year,” FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford said.

“I am deeply grateful to our entire FAA team. Even through a period of record-high traffic, their unwavering commitment keeps the system running safely.”

One of the airports that faced those reductions, Tampa International Airport (TPA) in Florida, released its own statement ahead of the holiday rush to assure travelers that it would be fully staffed.

“TPA is ready to fully handle the estimated 924,000-plus passengers projected to pass through the Airport over the Thanksgiving holiday travel period from November 20 to December 1,” the airport said in its statement.

“TPA’s operations team anticipates that Sunday, November 30, will be the busiest day, with an estimated 86,278 passengers expected to pass through the airport.”

If delays are experienced, it is unlikely to be due to the volume of flights, according to the FAA.

As of Nov. 10, the administration said that approximately 13.5 percent of total delay time was due to volume, while more than 62 percent was due to weather.

And weather could become an issue for several airports across the country and across the travel period.

“A frontal system passing from the Great Lakes to the interior Northeast Sunday into Monday will bring a mix of rain and snow showers,” the Weather Prediction Center said on Nov. 22.

“Thunderstorms will continue today for south Texas in [the] vicinity of a stationary frontal boundary.”

The Dallas-Fort Worth area is anticipating severe rainfall on Nov. 24, with rainfall totals possibly reaching up to four inches. However, on Thanksgiving Day, the weather is expected to be sunny and dry, with a high of 60 degrees Fahrenheit.

Heavy rains will also be felt across Texas and the Mississippi River, extending to Kansas City, Missouri.

“Scattered showers and thunderstorms are expected late Monday into Tuesday as another disturbance and associated cold front pushes through Southeast TX,” the National Weather Service’s Houston office stated.

“Some storms will have the potential to become strong to severe. In addition, locally heavy rain will be possible. The greatest risk of strong to severe storms will be generally north of I-10. Instability will be a limiting factor though.”

Slow-moving showers will also affect the greater Atlanta area and the southeast.

“Slow-moving showers push into the area Tuesday night into Wednesday and Thursday with beneficial rainfall expected, especially over north Georgia,” the National Weather Service’s Atlanta/Peachtree City Office said.

Out west, Denver could also be affected as the National Weather Service reports a cold front moving across its part of the Rocky Mountains on Nov. 24 and Nov. 25, bringing possible snow showers. However, as of Nov. 22, forecasted travel impacts remain minimal.

The American Automobile Association (AAA) projected that approximately 6 million people will travel by air for Thanksgiving this year, a 2 million year-over-year increase. But this represents only a fraction of total travelers during this holiday period.

“At least 73 million people will travel by car, that’s nearly 90 percent of Thanksgiving travelers, and an additional 1.3 million people on the road compared to last Thanksgiving,” AAA said on its website.

“That number could end up being higher if some air travelers decide to drive instead of fly following recent flight cancellations.”

The global coffee market continues to grow, but consumption patterns vary widely across countries. Northern European nations dominate the upper tiers, driven by a long-standing café culture and high per-capita spending. Meanwhile, large emerging markets drink far less per person despite being major producers.

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti, ranks 65 countries by their daily coffee consumption per capita in 2025, showing how drinking habits differ around the world. The table below also includes data on lifetime coffee consumption, and average cup prices.

The data for this ranking comes from Cafely.

Europe Continues to Dominate Global Coffee Consumption

Northern Europe remains the global center of coffee drinking. Luxembourg leads the world with 5.31 cups per day per person—far ahead of larger economies.

Luxembourg’s per-capita figure is boosted by its huge commuter workforce. Nearly half of all workers (47%) live outside the country, and their daily coffee consumption is counted in Luxembourg’s totals.

Finland and Sweden, long known for their strong coffee cultures, follow closely behind. All of the top 10 countries are European, reflecting both historical preferences and high purchasing power.

Large Economies Consume Less Coffee Per Person

Despite being major consumers in absolute terms, large countries such as the United States, Japan, and Brazil rank much lower on a per-person basis.

The United States averages 1.22 cups per day, placing it 24th overall. Japan, with its thriving café scene and canned-coffee culture, averages just under one cup per day. Brazil, the world’s biggest coffee producer, lands mid-pack at 18th with 1.58 cups per day.

Some Countries Barely Drink Coffee at All

At the bottom of the ranking are countries where tea or other beverages dominate daily habits. India records the lowest consumption at just 0.02 cups per day—roughly one cup every seven weeks. Several African and South Asian countries also rank low, typically drinking less than 0.3 cups daily.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Which Countries Drink the Most Wine? on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Authored by Felicity Bradstock via OilPrice.com,

• UK selects Rolls-Royce as preferred SMR developer and launches its first project at Wylfa, aiming for mid-2030s power generation.

• The decision triggers criticism from the Trump administration, which pushed for U.S. firm Westinghouse to lead the project.

• Despite diplomatic friction, the UK says SMRs will anchor a domestic nuclear revival and leave room for future collaboration with U.S. developers.

After selecting Rolls-Royce as the United Kingdom’s preferred bidder to build the country’s first small modular reactors (SMRs), the government has confirmed the start of project development in Wales. The development of SMR technology is expected to help the U.K. expand its nuclear power capacity, as well as become a competitive SMR power. However, the United States Trump administration, which recently signed an agreement with the U.K. for SMR development, does not support the choice of a British company for the development of the technology. 

In June, the U.K. government announced that Rolls-Royce SMR had been selected as the preferred bidder to partner with Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) to develop SMRs, subject to final government approvals and contract signature. The government pledged almost $3.3 billion for the SMR programme, expecting to support the creation of 3,000 new skilled jobs and power the equivalent of roughly 3 million homes with clean, domestic energy. 

The SMR project marks a major shift in the U.K.’s approach to nuclear energy, as it develops the first two major conventional nuclear plants in several decades and invests in new nuclear technologies. SMRs are smaller and faster to build than conventional nuclear reactors, and their modular nature means that more capacity can be added as required. 

In November, the government announced plans to develop a first-of-its-kind nuclear power station on the Welsh island of Anglesey. The plant at Wylfa will be home to three SMRs, although it will have space for up to eight, with works expected to commence in 2026 and first power generation in the mid-2030s.

The existing nuclear plant at Wylfa was powered down in 2015, and previous plans for a large-scale replacement were scrapped in 2021. The new project is expected to bring a much-needed boost to Anglesey’s economy, as well as provide jobs for several decades. Prime Minister Kier Starmer said, “Britain was once a world leader in nuclear power, but years of neglect and inertia have meant places like Anglesey have been let down and left behind. Today, that changes.”

The First Minister of Wales, Eluned Morgan, supports the project and has been “pressing the case at every opportunity for Wylfa’s incredible benefits”. Meanwhile, the U.K. energy minister, Ed Miliband, said that Britain is in the race for new reactors. Miliband said in a radio interview that the aim is to “work with local colleges to make sure that there are local skills providers, skills training opportunities, so local people get these jobs”.

The SMRs will be built in a modular format in factories before being shipped to site to be assembled. However, several challenges remain, including getting regulatory approval, building the SMR factories, and training the workforce to operate the sites. Rolls-Royce will build on its experience developing reactors for Britain’s nuclear submarines to develop the SMRs. Since promoting its SMR business, the British firm has attracted several investors, including the UAE’s sovereign wealth fund – the Qatar Investment Authority, the American utility Constellation, and CEZ, the Czech Republic’s power company.

While the new project offers high hopes for the development of the U.K.’s nuclear energy industry, U.S. President Trump is less than happy with Prime Minister Starmer’s selection of Rolls-Royce for the job. The U.S. was reportedly hoping that the U.K. government would choose American Westinghouse Electric Company to develop a conventional nuclear plant at Wylfa.

Before the Anglesey project was announced, the U.S. ambassador Warren Stephens published a statement saying that Britain should choose “a different path” in Wales. “We are extremely disappointed by this decision, not least because there are cheaper, faster and already-approved options to provide clean, safe energy at this same location,” Stephens stated. The ambassador’s response follows the signing of a nuclear partnership between the U.K. and the U.S. in September, with a potential value of $100 billion.

However, a source close to the U.K. government said, “This is the right choice for Britain. This is our flagship SMR programme, producing homegrown clean power with a British company, and we have chosen the best site for it.”

Nevertheless, the U.K. government said that developing SMRs at Wylfa “doesn’t close the door” to a U.S. manufacturer working on a future project. GBE-N is also assessing different sites in the U.K. for the potential development of another large-scale nuclear power plant, like Hinkley Point in Somerset and Sizewell C in Suffolk, which are currently being developed and are expected to power around six million homes once complete.

Despite the agreement for greater cooperation between the U.K. and the U.S. on nuclear power, the U.K. government has chosen a British company to develop its first SMR project, showing its support for the development of domestic nuclear technologies. The project is expected to make the U.K. highly competitive in the field of SMR reactor development over the coming decade, as well as diversify the country’s nuclear power industry. 

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Many observers were surprised after Kazakhstan joined the Abraham Accords during President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev’s trip to DC to attend the latest C5+1 Summit since it’s already recognized Israel since 1992.

The Presidential and Foreign Ministry websites shed more light on this decision.

The first wrote that “By joining the Abraham Accords, Kazakhstan seeks to contribute to overcoming confrontation, promoting dialogue, and supporting international law based on the principles of the UN Charter.”

It added that “The decision of Kazakhstan does not affect the country’s bilateral commitments with any state and represents a natural continuation and manifestation of its multilateral diplomacy aimed at promoting peace and security.”

The second echoed this message: “This important decision was made solely in the interests of Kazakhstan and is fully consistent with the nature of republic’s balanced, constructive, and peaceful foreign policy.”

Their statement then concluded as follows: “Joining the Abraham Accords will contribute to strengthening our country’s cooperation with all interested states and, therefore, is fully in line with Kazakhstan’s strategic goals. Kazakhstan will continue to firmly advocate for a just, comprehensive, and sustainable settlement of the Middle East conflict based on international law, relevant UN resolutions, and the principle of ‘two states for two peoples.’”

Accordingly, the official explanation is that this purely symbolic move was meant to signal support for a “two-state solution” and bolster Kazakhstan’s multi-alignment policy, but there’s actually more to it. This was indisputably intended to appeal to Trump, thus raising Tokayev’s profile in his eyes, and coincided with the raft of deals that they agreed to. This importantly includes a MoU on critical minerals that was assessed here as putting pressure, unintended by Kazakhstan but deliberate by the US, on Russia.

The above preceded Tokayev’s trip to Moscow to meet with Putin, the purpose of which was to reassure Russia that Kazakhstan isn’t siding with the US against it, but it’s now clear that Kazakhstan is more actively relying on the US for balancing Russia. It’s this trend, which isn’t new but is now taking on a qualitatively different form due to how the new TRIPP Corridor is expected to intensify US-Kazakh ties and Tokayev doing a personal favor for Trump by joining the Abraham Accords, that’s most newsworthy.

It was earlier warned that “The West Is Posing New Challenges To Russia Along Its Entire Southern Periphery”, which Russia is aware of as proven by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s recent remarks to this effect, and that “A US Think Tank Considers Kazakhstan To Be A Key Player For Containing Russia”. Nevertheless, Kazakhstan is still a member of the Russian-led CSTO military bloc and the EAEU economic one, but it’s understandable if Putin might soon begin to wonder about Tokayev’s long-term intentions.

Azerbaijan just announced that its armed forces now conform with NATO standards, and if Kazakhstan one day tries to follow suit, then Russia’s threat assessment would spike. Tokayev hasn’t signaled any such plans, but by doing a personal favor for Trump by joining the Abraham Accords, he likely expects him and the US to have his back if he ever decides to do so and this leads to a crisis with Russia. Therein lies the real significance of what he just did, which lends credence to concerns about his intentions.

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Taiwanese National Science and Technology Council Minister Wu Cheng-wen said that Taiwan and the United States have reached a “consensus” to keep tariffs off Taipei’s semiconductor industry.

In a Financial Times interview published on Nov. 20, Wu said that Taiwan will support the United States in building its chip industry, and in return, the United States will offer tariff relief for the island’s semiconductor sector.

“Of course, there’s the recipes of how to make the chips, but it’s also about the science park management, attracting companies, integrating academic research with industry,” Wu told the news outlet. “No other country has done what we have done.”

Wu did not provide details about the consensus that was reached.

Taiwanese Economic Minister Kung Ming-hsin told reporters on Nov. 22 that Taiwan has not finalized any trade agreement with the United States yet, but he noted that Taiwan’s negotiators are “working hard on it,” local media reported.

Taiwan hopes to secure a deal with the Trump administration that would ease the current 20 percent U.S. tariffs on its exports. U.S. President Donald Trump in August threatened tariffs of up to 300 percent on chip imports.

Wu said that Washington is unlikely to impose such high tariffs on Taiwan’s semiconductors because the administration understands that “punishing Taiwan is not in their interests.”

Taiwan’s dominant role in global chip manufacturing, led by chipmaker Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., has been labeled as a deterrent against the Chinese regime’s military aggression, a concept known as the “silicon shield.”

Wu said in the interview that Taiwan was looking to create a “second silicon shield” in areas such as drones, robotics, and medical technology to diversify its strategic assets beyond chips.

However, Wu noted that Taiwan intends to keep its cutting-edge research and development within the island, citing potential security concerns if the sector were relocated overseas.

“If we move our [research and development] overseas, it’ll be dangerous for us,” he said. “New weapons and defense systems rely on advanced chips.”

The White House has not publicly commented on Wu’s remarks.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told NewsNation on Sept. 27 that the two sides have discussed producing equal shares of the semiconductor chips required to meet U.S. demand.

Washington wants Taiwan to move half of its semiconductor production to the United States, Lutnick said. Ultimately, the goal is for the United States to capture at least 40 percent of the semiconductor market, which would require $500 billion in domestic investment, he said.

“That has been the conversation we had with Taiwan, [telling them] that ‘you have to understand it’s vital for you to have us produce 50 percent,’” he said.

In response to Lutnick’s comments, the Office of Trade Negotiations of Taiwan’s Executive Yuan, the highest administrative organ in Taiwan, said that it would exercise prudence in trade negotiations with the United States, according to Taiwanese media outlets.

Frank Fang contributed to this report.

Hamas is threatening the collapse the US-backed ceasefire after a series of Israeli airstrikes and a rising death toll in Gaza over much of the past week. However, Israel’s military in fresh Sunday statements has said it is Hamas terrorists repeatedly violating the truce.

“The agreement is over and [Hamas] is ready to fight,” Hamas sources have been cited in regional outlets as saying. Hamas has reportedly communicated its stance to US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, that it is ready to end the ceasefire.

Authored by Mollie Engelhart via The Epoch Times,

Most people check the weather the way they check traffic or the time. Rain might mean rearranging plans or canceling a child’s T-ball game. A cold snap might simply mean pulling out a sweater or your favorite tweed jacket. Weather, for most people, is an inconvenience or a conversation starter. Because when you need water, you turn on a faucet. When you’re cold or hot, you adjust the thermostat. Weather becomes background noise rather than a force that shapes survival.

For farmers, weather is everything.

We don’t just look at the forecast. We live by it. We watch humidity, wind patterns, soil temperature, and cloud formation with the kind of attention most people reserve for financial markets or national security briefings. A few degrees of difference can determine whether a crop thrives or dies. We wait for moisture the way some people wait for medical news. Because one wrong call can erase months of work.

Earlier this year, the temperatures had been in the high 90s for weeks. Summer seemed to arrive early, and the weather service confidently projected warm, stable nights in the 50s. Based on that forecast, we continued preparing the greenhouses and tending the spring crops. Everything looked promising.

Then one Monday morning in late April, we woke up to ice. Not frost. Ice.

Our greenhouses weren’t sealed, because the forecast told us we were safe. The propane heaters inside are set to turn on automatically at 38 degrees, and they ran full force all night. By sunrise, we had burned through $5,000 in propane, and everything was still dead. Every spring tomato. Every cucumber. Tender annuals. Guavas, lemons, and young tropicals. Outside the greenhouse, brand-new kale and broccoli seedlings that had finally established themselves were frozen limp and useless.

There was no warning. Just loss.

That is what it means when a farmer mentions the weather. He isn’t complaining. He is praying that a single cold snap, drought, hailstorm, or unpredictable shift doesn’t take away his livelihood. We do everything we can, but the weather still decides what survives.

Which is why the cultural conversation around climate and weather is so interesting. We’ve been quick for years to talk about climate change. And I’ve always said: If we’re going to talk about climate change, we also have to talk about geoengineering. Because at this stage, it’s hard to know where one ends and the other begins. It’s hard to know whether the shifts we’re experiencing are natural, human-caused, manipulated, or some combination of all three. It’s even fair to ask whether climate change exists in the exact framework we’ve been presented—or whether geoengineering exists in the exact framework we’ve been told—or whether the lines have been blurred without transparency.

This was once considered wild conspiracy, the kind of thing people joked about with tinfoil hat references. Yet now it’s discussed openly. Amazon Prime hosts documentaries about it. Universities conduct research on it. Weather modification companies operate publicly in multiple states. Government agencies acknowledge it.

Today here in Kerr County, after heavy flooding, a CEO of a weather modification company made a point to assure the public that his cloud seeding was not responsible for the rainfall. I’m not claiming it was. But when someone feels compelled to explain themselves for something everyone swore didn’t exist 10 years ago, the conversation has already changed.

And that leads to a reasonable and necessary question:

What is the ripple effect?

Weather is a system. Everything in nature is interconnected. If you add rain here, does that mean less rain somewhere else? If you alter cloud structure or reflect sunlight, does that shift wind patterns, soil moisture, or storm behavior? If we inject particles into the atmosphere to cool temperatures globally, what happens to regional rainfall, food systems, ecosystems, and planting zones?

Farmers think this way because we live in the reality of consequences. We don’t work in theory. We work in soil, water, frost, and risk. Every decision has an outcome.

So if geoengineering and cloud seeding are now part of public policy, private industry, and scientific pursuit, then the people whose lives depend most on natural systems deserve transparency. We deserve honesty. We deserve oversight. And we deserve a voice before—not after—changes are made.

We can choose what we eat and what we put on our bodies. But we cannot choose what falls from the sky.

Weather is not a casual headline or a political slogan. It’s the difference between feeding our community or losing everything. If climate change is real in the way we’ve been told, then geoengineering absolutely matters. If geoengineering is now a reality, then the climate narrative cannot be discussed without it.

The sky is not a laboratory. It is a life support system.

And the question that remains is not whether these experiments are helpful, harmful, necessary, or misguided.

The real question is much simpler.

Did the people beneath the sky ever consent?

Because I don’t remember being asked. And I doubt most people do.

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

Because the universe is nothing if not predictable, we’re back with yet another episode of “New York’s transit agency attempts first grade math.”

The MTA has once again found itself rummaging through the sofa cushions of the nation’s largest transit network, searching for spare millions, according to Bloomberg. If it feels like we’re constantly writing about their chronic cash-management drama, that’s because… we are. 

New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority is now targeting $675 million in additional cuts over the next four years, aiming to trim anything that can reasonably be declared unnecessary. This comes from its latest budget presentation, which also outlines multiple cost-saving initiatives already in motion.

Bloomberg writes that the agency is finally phasing out the yellow MetroCard, swapping in OMNY as the full-time fare system to eliminate a slew of legacy maintenance costs. It’s also replacing older commuter-rail train cars and deploying artificial intelligence to streamline supply needs. Those efforts come alongside hopes for a rebound in real estate tax revenue, expected to return to roughly $1.1 billion annually by 2027 after dropping to $719 million in 2024.

All this belt-tightening is unfolding against the backdrop of fewer riders than before the pandemic, rising labor and supply expenses, and an estimated $1 billion annual hit from fare evasion. Despite that, MTA leadership insists they’re holding things together. As Janno Lieber said during a board meeting, “Figuring out how to do more with less has been the daily priority of the MTA these last few years. And I think we’re doing it pretty well.”

The agency estimates the combined cuts and revenue gains will narrow deficits by $418 million over the next three years. Officials now anticipate a $160 million gap in 2027 — under 1% of that year’s operating budget — before deficits climb again, to $243 million in 2028 and $306 million in 2029.

Much of the long-term savings are tied to the OMNY rollout, which eliminates MetroCard-related costs like machine upkeep and coin handling. New Long Island Rail Road cars should reduce maintenance needs, and improved scheduling technology is set to make train and crew deployment more efficient.

Still, even with additional state funding replacing expired federal pandemic aid, the MTA faces some significant uncertainties. Future budgets rely on fare and toll hikes planned for 2027 and 2029, assume $500 million in casino revenue that depends on yet-to-be-finalized developments, and hinge on a long-delayed $600 million FEMA reimbursement for pandemic cleaning expenses.

Lieber noted the holdup bluntly: “Money was promised under the first Trump administration to fund that, but it hasn’t yet come from Washington. That application’s been sitting for awhile.”

And so the MTA’s eternal budget circus continues…

There is no way for a government to enforce Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies without also discriminating against certain groups of people.  DEI, by its very nature, is anti-merit, anti-success and pro-privilege.  Of course, the groups that are most commonly discriminated against under DEI quotas are mostly white, male and straight.  The assumption being that white dudes are widely considered “fair game” by the rest of society. 

This dynamic creates a never-ending cycle of people clamoring for oppression status rather than personal integrity and accomplishment.  To win in life, you must figure out a way to catch the government’s favor and attain that coveted prize; to rise to the top of the diversity totem pole.

This ideology has infected societies throughout most first world countries and even some developing nations.  Woke activism seems rampant in the US, but that’s because DEI faces American opposition.  The color revolution is louder because their power is failing.  For the rest of the west, however, DEI in government is an absolute.  This is a problem because it requires Americans to reconsider which countries they view as “allies.” 

The Trump Administration is adjusting to this ideological conflict quickly, and part of this change requires that the US starts openly calling out far-left governments for their destructive behaviors.

Countries enforcing DEI policies will now be at risk of the Trump Administration deeming them as human rights abusers, which upends the status quo when it comes to diplomatic relations.  The State Department is issuing new rules to all US embassies and consulates involved in compiling its annual report on global human rights violations.  

Other policies by foreign governments which US embassies will be told to categorize as human rights infringements include:     

Subsidising abortions, “as well as the total estimated number of annual abortions”     

Gender-transition surgery for children, defined by the state department as “operations involving chemical or surgical mutilation… to modify their sex.”     

Facilitating mass or illegal migration “across a country’s territory into other countries.”     

Arrests or “official investigations or warnings for speech” – a reference to the Trump administration’s opposition to internet safety laws adopted by some European countries to deter online “hate speech” (any speech which is critical of woke ideology no matter rational).  

A senior State Department official says, rather blatantly, that the new rules are “a tool to change the behavior of governments”.  That is to say, the sooner foreign governments abandon woke cultism, the easier it will be for them to engage with the US in terms of relations and trade.  

State Department deputy spokesperson Tommy Pigott said the new instructions are intended to stop “new destructive ideologies [that] have given safe harbor to human rights violations”. 

“The Trump administration will not allow these human rights violations, such as the mutilation of children, laws that infringe on free speech, and racially discriminatory employment practices, to go unchecked.” 

Leftist officials are calling the new policy an “attack on marginalized groups” and a “new low for Trump.”  But once again, there is a substantial disconnect between what leftists see as a human right versus what normal people see as a human right.

The rights that the Trump Administration is referring to include the right to free speech, the right to secure borders, the right to cultural integrity without fear of engineered cultural replacement, the protection of children from manufactured consent, the right to equal opportunities (not equal outcomes), the right to life, etc.  Many of these ideals are taken for granted in the US as the norm, but the Biden Administration revealed how fragile such standards can be.

Leftists see human rights as contingent on identity.  In other words, some people have more rights than others depending on their genetic history and gender orientation.  Bureaucrats and progressive gatekeepers have conveniently made themselves the decision makers for which groups deserve the most rights.

They see speech rights as conditional; it all depends on the ethnicity and sexual identity of the person who is talking. 

They treat national borders and national identity as a social construct that needs to be torn down (if the country rooted in western civilization).  They see the west as a global commons, an economic zone to be pillaged, not protected.

The view morality as relative, childhood as circumstantial and parental rights as an obstacle.  The grooming of children is a political imperative for leftist survival.  Questions of right and wrong never enter their minds.    

Millions of Americans united in solidarity against DEI and other mechanisms of progressive authoritarianism, turning back from the edge of utter disaster.  It makes little sense, then, to reward woke foreign governments with alliances and economic benefits after spending years struggling to defeat those same cancerous notions in the US.    

Derek Chauvin’s defense attorneys have filed a new petition that challenges the 2021 murder conviction that sent Chauvin to prison over George Floyd’s death. The petition includes over 50 former and current MPD officers who made sworn declarations that the technique Chauvin used to restrain George Floyd was part of the official training they received.

The 71-page petition was sent to Hennepin County District Court, where Attorney Greg Joseph stated that “this case simply never made sense.”  The petition asserts that the case involves two key issues: intent and causation. Did the restraint of Floyd follow policies and procedures of the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD); and, did the restraint cause Floyd’s death

In each case, the evidence is thin.  Yet, prosecutors achieved a conviction which many critics argue was pure theater – The human sacrifice of Derek Chauvin on the altar of race politics as a means to justify the mob violence of Black Lives Matter groups.  The protests (and the hysteria over the pandemic), paid for with hundreds of millions of dollars in NGO funds, brought chaos in the middle of the US election process and Democrats took full advantage of. 

The benefits behind throwing Chauvin to the wolves were many. 

During the trial, the Minneapolis Police Department denied that the specific restraint used by Derek Chauvin.  This denial came directly from MPD leadership.  If Chauvin was simply applying restraint techniques that he was trained by the MPD to use then he cannot be held accountable for any potential ill effects that the technique causes.   

The point is of course moot if the restraint had nothing to do with George Floyd’s death. 

In seeking to vacate Chauvin’s conviction, or obtain a new trial, the petition argues that Chauvin “was deprived of his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I of the Minnesota Constitution.” 

In speaking about the prosecution – and what he believes was the false testimony of MPD Inspector Katie Blackwell, Chief Medaria Arradondo, and others during Chauvin’s trial – Joseph told Alpha News, “you can only run from the truth for so long.” 

The petition argues that the methods used to examine video footage of George Floyd’s restraint and arrest by “expert” witness for the prosecution are at odds with the methods used by the medical examiner, Dr. Andrew Baker, the only doctor who conducted an actual autopsy of Floyd.  It should be noted that Baker did in fact blame the subduing of Floyd as the ultimate cause of death, even though no damage was found to Floyd that would explain the death as a homicide. 

The official autopsy performed by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner found no physical trauma, fractures, or damage to George Floyd’s trachea, larynx, hyoid bone, or surrounding throat structures. This included no bruising, lacerations, or other visible injuries in the neck area. The report explicitly noted “no life-threatening injuries identified” to the neck muscles, cartilage, bones, or soft tissues.

The autopsy, instead, said that Floyd died of severe heart disease that was “complicated” by the arrest.  Baker had told the jury “that he had certified deaths due to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease under similar conditions.” 

Furthermore, Baker found 11 ng/mL of fentanyl in Floyd’s toxicology; this is at least twice the amount required for a common deadly dose. He was described by witnesses as erratic and ‘extremely impaired’, throwing himself around the back of the police vehicle to escape arrest. Even if Floyd was a chronic user, fentanyl is known to exacerbate heart disease. 

It should be noted that no other officer in modern history has been convicted of murder charges for a death that took place during prone restraint.  At most, Chauvin should have faced involuntary manslaughter charges. 

In other words, Derek Chauvin was convicted for the second-degree murder of Floyd because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong suspect. He just happened to be arresting the man (who resisted arrest while he had a heart condition and poison in his veins) using a technique which MPD officers say was a part of Chauvin’s training.  The jury was reportedly lied to, and apparently coached to ignore the obvious contradictions.

If this is the case, then it confirms everyone’s suspicions:  The trial was a complete clown show – a political farce.