Today’s News 6th February 2024

• Why All of America Could See a San Francisco-Style Homeless Crisis
  Why All of America Could See a San Francisco-Style Homeless Crisis

  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…

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 23:40

• The Most Popular Shotguns In America 
  The Most Popular Shotguns In America 

  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. 

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 23:20

• Concern Lingers About Biden Losing Black Voters After South Carolina Primary
  Concern Lingers About Biden Losing Black Voters After South Carolina Primary

  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.”

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 23:00

• Standard Chartered Sees Ether HItting $4,000 By May, When Ethereum ETF Is Approved
  Standard Chartered Sees Ether HItting $4,000 By May, When Ethereum ETF Is Approved

  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

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  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.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 22:40

• Federal Judge Rejects Challenge To Mail-in Ballots In North Dakota
  Federal Judge Rejects Challenge To Mail-in Ballots In North Dakota

  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.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 22:20

• The Scale Of California's Pineapple Express Phenomenon
  The Scale Of California’s Pineapple Express Phenomenon

  A second atmospheric river rainstorm in a week is moving across California and has been causing landslides, downpours and high winds of hurricane strengths that toppled trees in some locations.

  Statista’s Katharina Buchholz reports that conditions could persist until mid-week as the storm is now projected to move across the state slower than originally expected.

  

  The National Weather Service in Los Angeles warned that the storm was “dangerous” and posed “major risks to life and property.” The service’s office in San Diego meanwhile predicted the potential of flooding in Los Angeles and “locally catastrophic” flooding in Orange County as amounts of rain typical for a whole month could come down in just the span of days. The risk of excessive rain in Southern California was put at a 4 out of 4. More than half a million Californians were already without power early Monday due to wind damage. Some residents in Santa Barbara, Los Angeles and San José are currently under evacuation orders, according to CNN.

  The phenomenon of atmospheric rivers is fed by the El Niño conditions that have taken over the climate of the Americas again since mid-2023. Atmospheric rivers are plumes of moisture that extend from the tropics all the way to more Northern reaches and are made possible by El Niño-related changes in the jet stream air currents that circle the globe. Normally, these jet streams travel in a westerly directions but under certain conditions, plumes can escape and travel long distances, bringing tropical rains to more moderate locales.

  An atmospheric river that has been reoccurring is the one originating from the Pacific near Hawaii all the way to California – dubbed the Pineapple Express because of the fruit being a symbol of the U.S. island chain.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  The latest Pineapple Express pummeling California was rated moderate to strong – a level 2-3 out of 5 possible – by the center for Western Weather and Water Extremes at the University of California San Diego. 

  Partially forecast as of early Monday, the current storm’s rating could increase since the system is now expected to move more slowly and duration is one of two levels the storms are rated on. The current weather phenomenon was initially expected to continue for around 30 hours into early Tuesday while carrying around half the moisture intensity of the most exceptional scenario still included in the rating system. 

  Thursday’s system that already brought heavy rains as well as snowfall to the state was rated similarly, but opposed to Monday’s forecast was a little shorter, yet a little more moisture intense at a level 3 out of 5 on the rating scale.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 22:00

• IRS To Boost Enforcement Workforce By 40% By Year-End 2024
  IRS To Boost Enforcement Workforce By 40% By Year-End 2024

  Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intends to raise its enforcement personnel by 40 percent by the end of this fiscal year, with revenue agents seeing the largest workforce increase.

  

  For fiscal year 2024, the IRS plans to boost enforcement staff by a net 5,462 employees, according to a Jan. 29 report by IRS watchdog Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). This would take the total number of enforcement personnel at the tax agency to 18,960 by the end of fiscal 2024, which is 40 percent higher than the staffing at the beginning of October 2023.

  Out of the 5,462 net additions, 4,704 will be revenue agents who are tasked with conducting “face-to-face audits of more complex returns.”

  The tax agency intends to add a net 493 special agents for the year, who are armed officials investigating “potential criminal activities.” Staffing of revenue officers will rise by 265 employees. Revenue officers are tasked with collecting delinquent taxes and securing delinquent returns.

  By fiscal 2024-end, revenue agents will comprise close to 70 percent of the enforcement personnel. Armed special agents will make up 13.5 percent and revenue officers will account for 16.4 percent.

  The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provided the IRS with $79.4 billion in supplemental funding that is available for the agency until September 2031. By the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2023, the agency had used $3.5 billion of the funds.

  The IRS spent $1.4 billion out of the $3.5 billion IRA funds on its employees, “nearly doubling expenditures in this object class category in the fourth quarter.”

  Most of the labor costs were accounted for by taxpayer services, which the TIGTA said “helped support the IRS’s efforts to hire additional customer service representatives to answer taxpayer telephone calls, as well as employees to staff Taxpayer Assistance Centers for the 2023 filing season.”

  The IRS employed 89,767 people by the end of fiscal 2023. In addition to hiring staff to improve taxpayer services, the tax agency “focused on expanding enforcement on taxpayers with complex tax filings and high-dollar noncompliance to address the tax gap.”

  “Tax gap” refers to the difference between taxes owed and paid to the government. The IRS claims the tax gap rose to $688 billion in 2021 alone, which is $192 billion more than estimates from 2014–16 and $138 billion more than 2017-19.

  In October, IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel pointed to the tax gap to justify the importance of “increased IRS compliance efforts on key areas.” At the time, he said that the agency would use IRA funding to strengthen compliance on “high-income and high-wealth individuals” as well as businesses.

  Expanded Enforcement

  Out of the $79.4 billion in IRA funds, IRS had set aside $45.6 billion for enforcement. Taxpayer services were allocated $3.2 billion. Administration activities like business systems modernization and operations support were allocated $4.8 billion and $25.3 billion respectively.

  The IRS’s decision to use most of the IRA funds for enforcement was questioned by Rep. Lisa McClain (R-Mich.) at a joint subcommittee hearing in October last year.

  “This funding spree prioritizes enforcement over improving taxpayer services,” she said while noting that some of her constituents complained about call wait times when dialing the IRS. A few of them tried to get in touch with the IRS for several months but could not.

  Ms. McClain said that even she had faced such difficulties. “If a private business did what the IRS does on a daily basis, it would quickly go out of business.”

  In the 2022 fiscal year, the IRS raked in a record $4.9 trillion in taxes, which was $790 billion more than the previous fiscal. The agency collected $72 billion in revenues from enforcement activities, which was well above the historical average of $59 billion.

  There are also concerns that the IRS could use some of its IRA funding to boost enforcement on individuals making less than $400,000 per year.

  When Commissioner Werfel was asked about this during a hearing last year, he did not explicitly guarantee that the agency would not increase the number of audits for this income group.

  Budget Shortfall

  Out of the $3.5 billion the IRS has used from IRA funding so far, almost $2 billion went to supplement its fiscal year 2023 appropriations, the TIGTA report stated.

  IRS officials said they had to take $2 billion from IRA funds as the amount it received for spending in 2023 “was insufficient to cover normal operating expenses and did not include adjustments to account for inflation, estimated at approximately $460 million from fiscal year 2022.”

  Out of the $3.5 billion, operations support took the largest chunk at $1.5 billion, followed by taxpayer services, business systems modernization, and enforcement activities.

  The IRS calculates it would need $818 million more than last year’s funding in 2024 just to continue regular operations. The tax agency is yet to receive its fiscal 2024 appropriations.

  The TIGTA pointed out that if Congress keeps the budget flat for 2024, the IRS will have to plug the $818 million shortfall using IRA funds. “This means less funds available for IRS transformation efforts.”

  “Any reduction in the IRS’s annual appropriated funding, including inadequate funding to cover inflationary increases, will require the IRS to shift IRA funding to cover general operating expenses … Without the restoration in the IRS’s annual appropriation, IRA funding will cover only approximately two-thirds of the IRS’s planned modernization.”

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 21:40

• US Diesel Supply Tightens As Manufacturing Comes Roaring Back
  US Diesel Supply Tightens As Manufacturing Comes Roaring Back

  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.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 21:00

• Hong Kong Set To Pass Article 23, Further Tightening Beijing’s Control
  Hong Kong Set To Pass Article 23, Further Tightening Beijing’s Control

  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.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 20:20

• New Jersey Illegal Migrant Gang Charging Other Migrants $6,000 To Illegally Migrate
  New Jersey Illegal Migrant Gang Charging Other Migrants $6,000 To Illegally Migrate

  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.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 20:00

• Doctor Who Helped A Wounded Ashli Babbitt On Jan. 6 Sentenced To Probation
  Doctor Who Helped A Wounded Ashli Babbitt On Jan. 6 Sentenced To Probation

  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.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 19:40

• US Presidents' Approval Ratings In Their Third Year Since WWII
  US Presidents’ Approval Ratings In Their Third Year Since WWII

  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.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 19:20

• "Take Our Border Back" Convoy Ends With Rallies In 3 States
  “Take Our Border Back” Convoy Ends With Rallies In 3 States

  By Noi Mahoney of FreightWaves

  

  Several hundred people gathered in three border states Saturday to call for stricter immigration security, ending the cross-country “Take Our Border Back” convoy that traveled from Virginia to Texas last week.

  Convoy organizers and supporters initially said as many as 700,000 vehicles would take part in three separate rallies in Arizona, California and Texas, including truckers who took part in recent protest convoys in Washington, D.C., and Canada, according to U.S. Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas.

  While hundreds of thousands of vehicles never materialized as the convoy moved across the country, about 100 passenger vehicles, recreational vehicles and trucks towing campers arrived in Texas, according to NBC News.

  The Texas rally occurred at the Cornerstone Children’s Ranch in the town of Quemado, about 20 miles outside of Eagle Pass. The daylong event included musical performances, vendors and speakers who voiced their concerns about illegal immigration.

  “The mission here is the border, that’s what we’re here for,” said Trenis Evans, one of the speakers at the Quemado rally. 

  At another “Take Our Border Back” rally Saturday in San Ysidro, California, convoy organizer Scotty Saks said the border is “a national security crisis.”

  “We have a human trafficking problem on the border in proportions that we’ve never imagined,” Saks told a crowd of about 200 people, according to the New York Post. 

  The “Take Our Border Back” convoy also gathered for a rally in Yuma, Arizona.

  The rallies were held amid a feud between Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and the Biden administration over border enforcement measures and jurisdictional authority. 

  The Texas National Guard seized control of Shelby Park in Eagle Pass several weeks ago, and erected a razor wire barrier around it, limiting U.S. Border Patrol’s access to the area.

  On Sunday, Abbott held a news briefing in Shelby Park accompanied by 13 Republican governors to discuss border and immigration issues.

  “A state can defend itself and its citizens to protect their safety from the imminent danger that we are facing, and from an invasion of millions of people coming from across the globe into our country who are unaccounted for whatsoever,” Abbott said.

  Abbott also said he is expanding Operation Lone Star, the controversial border security initiative he launched in 2021. The operation has included deploying Texas National Guard members along the Mexico border, installing a floating barrier in the Rio Grande River and initiating safety inspections on commercial trucks arriving at ports of entry from Mexico.

  “As we speak right now, the Texas National Guard is undertaking operations to expand this effort,” Abbott said. “We’re not going to contain ourselves just to this park, we are expanding to further areas to make sure that we will expand our level of deterrence and denial of illegal entry into the United States.”

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 19:00

• China Joins Russia In Condemning US Strikes In Middle East
  China Joins Russia In Condemning US Strikes In Middle East

  After the Friday large-scale US strikes on Iranian proxy positions in Iraq and Syria, and following the Saturday and Sunday Western coalition attacks on Houthi positions in Yemen, China on Monday issued a blistering condemnation of what is sees as aggression against sovereign countries 

  China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said in a press briefing, “Syria and Iraq are sovereign countries” and thus “China opposes any act that violates the UN Charter and infringes upon other countries’ territorial sovereignty and security.”

  

  “The current situation in the Middle East is highly complex and sensitive,” Wenbin added. “China urges relevant parties to earnestly observe the international law, remain calm, exercise restraint, and prevent the tensions in the region from escalating or even spiraling out of control.”

  Beijing’s critiques of this latest round of Western military intervention related to ongoing spillover from the Gaza war echo that of Russia’s rhetoric. Russia soon after Biden’s Friday airstrikes on Iraq and Syria called for an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council to address the crisis.

  The Kremlin has gone so far as to accuse the US of stoking a great power confrontation and larger war for the Middle East.

  “It is clear that the airstrikes were specifically intended to further escalate the conflict,” Russia’s foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said. “By relentlessly attacking the facilities of allegedly pro-Iranian groups in Iraq and Syria, the United States has been purposefully attempting to draw the largest countries in the region into the conflict.” 

  In response to US strikes in Iraq and Syria, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said that China opposes any actions that violate the UN Charter and infringe upon the territorial sovereignty and security of other countries. The current situation in the Middle East… pic.twitter.com/uNEdAOWJ2N

  — Global Times (@globaltimesnews) February 5, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Meanwhile, Yemen’s Houthis have continued to give Chinese and Russian commercial shipping a free pass in the Red Sea, while attacking US, UK, Israeli-linked and other shipping vessels.

  Still, as VOA reports, “China’s navy has started escorting Chinese cargo ships through the Red Sea, according to a shipping company and Chinese state media reports.” Most major shipping companies are choosing to avoid the passage altogether. 

  Meanwhile…

  “ALL CHINESE CREW” is now out-trending “NO CONTACT ISRAEL”. Those white plastic lawn chairs shall reach Europe by spring, come hell or high water. pic.twitter.com/rfVqJTho0A

  — TankerTrackers.com, Inc. (@TankerTrackers) February 5, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 18:40

• Massachusetts Cuts College Degree Requirements For 90% Of State Jobs
  Massachusetts Cuts College Degree Requirements For 90% Of State Jobs

  By Austin Browne of Campus Reform

  Massachusetts will no longer require a college degree for a large majority of government jobs due to a new state executive order intended to make the commonwealth more “inclusive.”

  

  Governor Maura Healey signed the order, titled “Instituting Skill-Based Hiring Practices,” on Jan 25. The document asserts that “skills-based hiring practices will strengthen the Commonwealth’s workforce, increase access to quality jobs for nontraditional candidates with varied backgrounds and work experiences, and reduce structural barriers that result in inequities in pay and access to employment.”

  It also contends that such practices will build a “workforce that is representative of the diversity of the state.”

  The guideline directs hiring managers to “consider the full set of competencies that candidates bring to the job beyond traditional education.” 

  It prohibits a minimum level of education from being included in job listings “unless the Human Resources Division determines that a particular level of education is necessary to perform the job after completing a job analysis.”

  Candidates will now be assessed based on “their skills from real-world experience, military service, apprenticeship and certificate programs, internships, and other on-the-job programs.”

  “This Executive Order directs our administration to focus on applicants’ skills and experiences, rather than college credentials,” Healey said in an address announcing the new guidelines. “It will expand our applicant pool and help us build a more inclusive and skilled workforce than ever before.”

  Several state labor and education leaders issued statements in support of the order. 

  Massachusetts AFL-CIO President and CEO Chrissy Lynch applauded the governor for what she called an “inclusive workforce strategy.” 

  Western New England University President Robert Johnson stated that the order will help in “breaking down unnecessary barriers and creating equal opportunities” and will build “a more inclusive workforce.”

  Campus Reform contacted Governor Healey for comment. This article will be updated accordingly.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 18:20

• These Are The US States Losing (& Gaining) Population
  These Are The US States Losing (& Gaining) Population

  As pandemic patterns of U.S. population growth are normalizing, three states have remained among the U.S. jurisdictions which are shrinking.

  Statista’s Katharina Buchholz reports that, according to a December release by the Census Bureau, California, Illinois and New York – along with West Virginia, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Hawaii and Oregon – lost population in 2023 compared to 2022. Throughout the new Census first released in 2020, all three states have shown continuously sinking population numbers. New York and Illinois even started to see their populations decline under the old Census since 2016 and 2014, respectively, while California experienced a stagnating number of inhabitants in 2019.

  While during pandemic conditions, many other states experienced the same shrinking populations (19 at the height of the trend in 2022), the release of the 2023 data now shows that the demographic problems that have plagued some states since before the pandemic are still ongoing.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  Americans resettling because of high cost of living do play a role in this development, but changes in immigration into the U.S. have also had a big part in the state’s ongoing population decline as immigrants increasingly diversify their destinations in the U.S., favoring – like domestic migrants – the Sun Belt states, but also smaller cities.

  The story of New York, the country’s fastest shrinking state as of the latest Census release, fits this mold. New York lost 0.5 percent of its population between July 2022 and June 2023 and the previous Census had recorded a decreasing population in the state since 2016. The speed of New York’s population shrink also seems to have sped up since – from just 0.1 percent in 2016 to 0.4 percent in 2019 and now 0.5 percent in 2023. While Covid-19-era losses were even higher in New York, which became the poster child of pandemic city flight, normalization seems to mean that New York is now back on its trajectory of steadily increasing population loss. The state experienced a negative domestic net migration of more than 200,000 people last year and it received only a net 73,900 people from overseas, staying behind Florida, California and Texas for international migration.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 18:00

• Open Borders & Closed Courts: How The Supreme Court Laid The Seeds For The Immigration Crisis
  Open Borders & Closed Courts: How The Supreme Court Laid The Seeds For The Immigration Crisis

  Authored by Jonathan Turley,

  The upcoming impeachment vote on Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has caused a deep rift even among his critics, including some Republican members of Congress.

  

  Many view Mayorkas as an unmitigated disaster as Homeland secretary. The massive numbers of migrants crossing the border has become a growing economic and security threat to the entire nation.

  I have previously expressed my disagreement with the two articles of impeachment, which present their own inherent dangers to the underlying constitutional standards. But whatever happens in the House, the real crisis is not the employment status of Mayorkas. It is what brought the House to seriously consider this extreme remedy in the first place.

  The seeds of this disaster were planted by the Supreme Court over a decade ago, in Arizona v. U.S., if not earlier. In that case, a 5-3 majority ruled against a state seeking to enforce immigration laws in light of what it described as a vacuum of federal action. The court declared that the states were preempted or barred from taking such action. While giving the state a small victory in allowing state officers to investigate the immigration status of a suspect with reasonable suspicion, it left little room for independent state action in the area.

  Despite President Obama’s orders giving some migrants effective immunity from enforcement (such as the youths that came to be known as “DREAMers”), he actually deported a significant number of illegal migrants. At the time, many of us asked where the line would be drawn in the future, often raising the hypothetical of a president who abandons enforcement entirely or to a large extent.

  It took a decade, but that hypothetical seems dangerously close to reality. Mayorkas is carrying out the policies of President Biden, who continues to praise his work and the worst record of enforcement in history. One of the first things that Biden did when coming into office was to seek to shut down policies and construction used to deter unlawful migration. At the same time, both Biden and Mayorkas were widely viewed as supportive of those crossing the border as many Democratic cities declared themselves sanctuaries for undocumented migrants pursued by ICE.

  Now, even some Democrats are now criticizing President Biden for his lax policies and the failure to do more in securing the border, as hundreds of thousands pour into the country. Most are promptly released, and many are not even asked to appear for eight years at an immigration proceeding.

  For the states, desperate times call for desperate measures. For example, Texas recently declared that it was acting unilaterally under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution. That provision reserves the right of self-defense for a state that is “actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.”

  The current crisis is a practical invasion, overwhelming towns and cities across the country. No state faces a greater danger than Texas. However, “invasion” was clearly meant in the traditional sense of a foreign power or army. Similarly, “such imminent danger” was referencing “such” an invasion.

  The southern border in 2024 is, constitutionally, suffering no more an “invasion” than the Capitol riot in 2021 was an “insurrection.” There is a difference between the colloquial and constitutional meaning of such terms.

  States have also tried to go to court to enforce these laws in cases like Arizona v. United States and, most recently, in U.S. v. Texas. They have often found the courts closed to them. The courts have denied standing to sue in many cases or else granted sweeping authority (and preemption) over immigration.

  That has left many in Congress or the states with few meaningful ways to compel enforcement of the law. This includes provisions written as mandatory “shall” obligations, which have been effectively ignored by the federal government.

  The result is that many now see impeachment as the only viable option to force change. However, given Biden’s support for his actions, it is difficult to see how Mayorkas’s removal would alter policies or practices in any respect.

  Congress is not blameless in any of this. The court has virtually invited Congress to pass laws giving people greater standing to sue the government. It could also apply more stringent conditions on spending and block confirmations.

  Yet this crisis is the result of decades of court rulings expanding executive powers while limiting the ability to challenge those policies. The court’s decisions narrowing standing have been deleterious, limiting those who can challenge unlawful or unconstitutional acts by the federal government.

  States such as Texas are absolutely correct that this is a breach of the original understanding with the federal government. The combination of the sweeping preemption by the courts and diminishing enforcement by the agencies has left states as mere observers to their own destruction. It is like watching your house burn down as the fire department works primarily to prevent anyone else from putting it out.

  The Biden fire department is claiming that, just as it has the authority to put out fires, it has the authority to let them burn.

  The question is whether states have finally reached a point of near-total disempowerment, becoming effective nullities or nonentities in dealing with this overwhelming influx across their own borders. While they can patrol the border, they are powerless to exercise inherent powers to protect their citizens and society. It runs counter to the original federalism guarantees used to secure ratification of the Constitution. States were viewed as partners in our federalism system, not mere pedestrians.

  One can see why this looks like a bait-and-switch for states, who were offered something very different when they agreed to abandon the Articles of Confederation. They understood the need for a stronger federal government and that states could not act as separate sovereign powers. States yielded authority to the central government, including interstate matters.

  Yet, the Constitution would have likely failed in ratification if they had been told of the degree to which they would become dependent on federal authority within their states.

  Clearly, the federal government will continue to determine who enters the country. However, Congress has repeatedly tried to impose limits on such actions through express legislative mandates.

  That brings us back to the courts. Members of Congress have been told that they cannot sue to enforce mandatory provisions, while states are told that they cannot sue to secure their own borders. It reduces our system to a mere Potemkin Village, a facade of constitutional powers with little ability to protect them.

  The combination of open borders and closed courts will continue to fuel this crisis. If the justices will not allow states to close their borders, they can at least open the courts to allow them greater ability to be heard.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 17:40

• Glimpse Of Sanity: Dartmouth Returns Standardized Testing For Admission After Failed Experiment
  Glimpse Of Sanity: Dartmouth Returns Standardized Testing For Admission After Failed Experiment

  In response to the virus pandemic and nationwide Black Lives Matter riots in the summer of 2020, some elite colleges and universities shredded testing requirements for admission. Several years later, the test-optional admission has yet to produce the promising results for racial and class-based equity that many woke academic institutions wished.

  

  The failure of test-optional admission policies has forced Dartmouth College to reinstate standardized test scores for admission starting next year. This should never have been eliminated, as merit will always prevail. 

  “Nearly four years later, having studied the role of testing in our admissions process as well as its value as a predictor of student success at Dartmouth, we are removing the extended pause and reactivating the standardized testing requirement for undergraduate admission, effective with the Class of 2029,” Dartmouth wrote in a press release Monday morning. 

  “For Dartmouth, the evidence supporting our reactivation of a required testing policy is clear. Our bottom line is simple: we believe a standardized testing requirement will improve—not detract from—our ability to bring the most promising and diverse students to our campus,” the elite college said. 

  Who would’ve thought eliminating standardized tests for admission because a fringe minority said they were instruments of racism and a biased system was ever a good idea? 

  We’re doomed pic.twitter.com/eNoKVnaOcz

  — Clown World ™ 🤡 (@ClownWorld_) February 5, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Also, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. More from Dartmouth, who commissioned the research: 

  They also found that test scores represent an especially valuable tool to identify high-achieving applicants from low and middle-income backgrounds; who are first-generation college-bound; as well as students from urban and rural backgrounds.

  All the colleges and universities that quickly adopted test-optional admissions in 2020 experienced a surge in applications. Perhaps the push for test-optional was under the guise of woke equality but was nothing more than protecting the bottom line for these institutions. 

  A glimpse of sanity returns to woke schools: Admit qualified kids. Next up is corporate America and all tiers of the US government. 

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 17:20

• Trump Says AI Might Be 'Most Dangerous Thing Out There'
  Trump Says AI Might Be ‘Most Dangerous Thing Out There’

  Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Former President Donald Trump said that artificial intelligence, or AI, has “no real solution,” coming weeks after a series of robocalls were made in New Hampshire telling voters not to vote in the primary.

  

  When asked by Fox Business Network host Maria Bartiromo Friday about proposals for digital U.S. central bank currency, the former president said he was concerned about their possible risks.

  “Very dangerous. It’s very dangerous. One day, you don’t have any money in your account. It can be a very dangerous thing,” President Trump said. “And the other thing that I think is maybe the most dangerous thing out there of anything because there’s no real solution—the AI, as they call it. It is so scary.”

  Previously, the former president has issued concerns about AI for its ability to distort voices, pictures, and videos of political candidates to deceive the public during campaigns. In his Bartiromo interview, he said that he recently saw an instance when someone used AI that used his likeness to promote their product.

  “I saw somebody ripping me off the other day where they had me making a speech about their product,” President Trump said. “I said, ‘I’ll never endorse that product.’ You can’t even tell the difference. It looks like I’m actually endorsing it.”

  The former president also made reference to artificial intelligence’s capacity to alter images when he spoke with another Fox News reporter on Thursday. He was asked about pictures that a Getty Images photographer took of him last month that appeared to show red marks on his hands—which at the time drew a number of speculative headlines and online rumors.

  When pressed further, President Trump quipped that “nothing” was wrong with his hands while he held them up. “Maybe it’s AI,” he joked.

  Meanwhile, a digitally made robocall that appeared to use President Joe Biden’s voice to tell people not to vote in New Hampshire’s primary was flagged last month by the state’s attorney general.

  Attorney General John Formella said last month that the recorded message, which was sent to multiple voters on Sunday, appears to be an illegal attempt to disrupt and suppress voting. He said voters “should disregard the contents of this message entirely.”

  A recording of the call uploaded online appeared to generate a voice similar to President Biden’s and employs his often-used phrase, “What a bunch of malarkey.” It then tells the listener to “save your vote for the November election.”

  “Voting this Tuesday only enables the Republicans in their quest to elect Donald Trump again,” the voice mimicking the former president says. “Your vote makes a difference in November, not this Tuesday.”

  It’s not clear how many people actually received the calls.

  White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre had said that the call “was indeed fake and not recorded by the president.”

  The president’s campaign manager, Julie Chavez Rodriguez, said in a statement that the campaign is “actively discussing additional actions to take immediately.”

  Katie Dolan, a spokeswoman for the campaign of Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), who is challenging President Biden in the Democratic primary, said Mr. Phillips’ team was not involved and only found out about the deepfake attempt when a reporter called seeking comment. The Trump campaign said it had nothing to do with the recording either.

  Move to Criminalize AI Robocalls

  Meanwhile, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) appears to have taken heed and moved to explicitly criminalize unsolicited robocalls that appear to use voices created via AI.

  “AI-generated voice cloning and images are already sowing confusion by tricking consumers into thinking scams and frauds are legitimate,” FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said in a statement.

  “No matter what celebrity or politician you favor, or what your relationship is with your kin when they call for help, it is possible we could all be a target of these faked calls,“ she said, adding, “That’s why the FCC is taking steps to recognize this emerging technology as illegal under existing law, giving our partners at State Attorneys General offices across the country new tools they can use to crack down on these scams and protect consumers.”

  She noted that more than two dozen state attorneys general favor regulations on AI-generated robocalls.

  The Associated Press contributed to this report.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 17:00

Digest powered by RSS Digest