Month: December 2024

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

Big Lots finalized a deal that preserved the brand name and prevented the discount retail chain from entirely going under.

Ohio-based Big Lots announced it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy earlier this year, citing economic pressures. The company tried to sell its business to Nexus Capital Management but failed to strike a deal. On Dec. 27, Big Lots announced a sales transaction with Gordon Brothers Retail Partners.

As part of the agreement, North Carolina-based Variety Wholesalers will acquire around 200 to 400 Big Lots stores “which it plans to operate under the Big Lots brand.”

Variety, which owns more than 400 retail stores in the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic United States, may also “employ Big Lots associates at the acquired stores and distribution centers, as well as certain corporate associates.”

Bruce Thorn, chief executive officer of Big Lots, said the sale to Gordon Brothers and transfer to Variety is a “favorable and significant achievement.”

“This sale agreement and transfer present the strongest opportunity to preserve jobs, maximize value for the estate, and ensure continuity of the Big Lots brand,” he said.

The agreement now needs to be approved by the bankruptcy court and must undergo other closing conditions.

Big Lots operates more than 1,400 stores across 48 states in the United States. While filing for bankruptcy, the company cited issues like inflation, saying that rising prices have changed the spending behaviors of customers.

“The prevailing economic trends have been particularly challenging to Big Lots, as its core customers curbed their discretionary spending on the home and seasonal product categories that represent a significant portion of the company’s revenue,” it said in September.

Big Lots listed assets and liabilities in the range of $1 billion to $10 billion, owing money to 5,001 to 10,000 creditors. The company’s shares have crashed by more than 99 percent this year.

Last week, the company said it intends to kick off a “going out of business” sale at its stores.

Bankruptcies on the Rise

Multiple American retail chains have entered bankruptcy over the past year. In June, apparel retailer Bob’s Stores went bankrupt and decided to sell all its stores in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.

In July, furniture retailer Conn’s announced filing for bankruptcy, closing down all its 553 stores nationwide following a sales slowdown over past years.

New Jersey-based Party City filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in December, and said it was preparing to close down almost 700 stores across the country. This was the second time in two years that the company filed for bankruptcy.

According to an S&P report, there have been 634 U.S. corporate bankruptcy filings in 2024, up to the end of November, with the figure on track to potentially hit a new 14-year annual high. S&P bankruptcy numbers only take into account large companies that exceed certain asset and liability thresholds.

The jump in bankruptcies comes as businesses face challenges like inflation, elevated interest rates, and changing consumer spending patterns, it said.

“While the US Federal Reserve has begun lowering its benchmark interest rate from a 20-year high, the pace of further cuts may slow in 2025 amid challenges posed by persistent inflation and potential tariffs implemented by President-elect Donald Trump,” said the report.

“However, Trump’s election victory in November did provide an initial boost to stock markets and investor risk appetite.”

The American Bankruptcy Institute reveals that overall commercial bankruptcy filings fell 1 percent yearly in November, according to a Dec. 4 statement.

Michael Hunter, vice president of bankruptcy filing data provider Epiq AACER, attributed this small decline to fewer business days and the holiday season.

ABI Executive Director Amy Quackenboss said that “elevated interest rates, tougher lending terms, and increased geopolitical tensions continue to impact the balance sheets of many struggling businesses and families.”

“While still below the levels recorded prior to the pandemic, the steady growth in filings reflects the growing financial challenges faced by distressed companies and consumers.”

Lawmakers in Georgia have been granted the authority to serve subpoenas on Fulton County DA Fani Willis as part of an inquiry into her prosecution of President-elect Donald Trump.

In a Monday ruling revealed later in the week, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Shukura Ingram allowed the Georgia Senate to compel Willis’s testimony – giving her until Jan. 13 to argue that the lawmakers’ demands are overly broad, or seek confidential information.

Willis plans to appeal the ruling, the Epoch Times reports.

“We believe the ruling is wrong and will appeal,” said Willis’s attorney, former Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes.

Earlier this year, a state Senate committee was formed over allegations of misconduct by Willis during her prosecution of Trump and his co-defendants (one of whom revealed that Fani hired her lover to help with her prosecution). In August, the committee subpoenaed Willis, who then skipped a September hearing, delaying the inquiry. Her attorney argued that the committee’s subpoenas are overly broad and lack legitimate legislative purpose – and that they seek confidential information.

Republican state Senator Greg Dolezal applauded the ruling.

“Judge Ingram has ruled the state Senate does indeed have the power to subpoena D.A. Fani Willis,” Dolezal wrote on X. “We’ll see you soon, Madam D.A.“

Judge Ingram has ruled the state Senate does indeed have the power to subpoena D.A. Fani Willis.

We’ll see you soon, Madam D.A. pic.twitter.com/yZXjmDS07w

— Senator Greg Dolezal (@dolezal4senate) December 27, 2024

As the Epoch Times notes further, scrutiny of Willis intensified after the Georgia Court of Appeals ruled earlier in December to disqualify her from the Trump case. The split 2–1 decision cited an “appearance of impropriety” stemming from her romantic relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade. While both Willis and Wade have admitted to the relationship, they said it began after Wade was hired and ended before Trump’s indictment. Willis’s office filed a notice of intent to ask the Georgia Supreme Court to review the decision.

This came after earlier rulings, including one by Judge Scott McAfee, who described Willis’s actions as a “tremendous lapse in judgment” and allowed her to continue prosecuting Trump if Wade stepped aside—a condition that was met.

The Senate committee’s investigation also highlights concerns over Willis’s hiring of Wade, which legislators allege created a “clear conflict of interest” and defrauded taxpayers.

Following the court of appeals’ decision to disqualify Willis, Trump proclaimed the election case “dead” and alleged corruption within her office.

Authored by Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov via Headline USA,

Conservatives recently criticized Amazon for editing the iconic Christmas movie It’s a Wonderful Life, removing the crucial part of Frank Capra’s work.

In the movie, the main character, George Bailey, played by Jimmy Stewart, tells his guardian angel, Clarence, that it would’ve been better for everyone if he had never been born. After that, Clarence shows him the dark and depressing world without Bailey to show him that his life matters and positively affects many people. After that, Bailey abandons the idea of committing suicide and returns home to his family and friends.

In one of the movie versions available on Amazon Prime for streaming, the part where Clarence shows Bailey the world without him was removed, eliminating the film’s entire point.

Breitbart reported that the abridged version of the movie was presented because the suicide scene was “too dark.”

The news source also revealed that the movie “has been beset with copyright issues after Capra apparently used the short story The Greatest Gift as the basis for the removed scene and never credited its writer for its use.”

“If you want to know what’s wrong with the world, Prime Video has an ‘abridged’ version of It’s a Wonderful Life that removes THE ENTIRE POTTERSVILLE SCENE where George sees life if he wasn’t born. That’s all that abridged. The best, most crucial part of the movie. Just. Wow,” Germain Lussier of Gismodo wrote. “Just beyond awful.”

Just beyond awful. pic.twitter.com/sGNdLOQCpI

— Germain Lussier (@GermainLussier) December 24, 2024

Lussier then wrote that Amazon Prime offered both black-and-white and colored full versions of the movie, noting that the fact that this edited version exists makes watching it “weird.”

By the way, yes. Prime does have the real version too, in B&W and color. This is just one alternate option.

And plenty of people in the replies have explained why this even exists. But – doesn’t make watching it any less weird!!

— Germain Lussier (@GermainLussier) December 24, 2024

“It’s a Wonderful Life has been reduced to a Not-So-Wonderful Hour. It may be because Congress continues to daisy-chain extensions of copyright periods. As Clarence said,  ‘Strange, isn’t it? Each man’s life touches so many other lives.’ The same can be said of copyrights,” law professor and legal analyst Jonathan Turley wrote.

…If A Wonderful Life has been reduced to a Not-So-Wonderful Hour, it may be because Congress continues to daisy-chain extensions of copyright periods. As Clarence said, “Strange, isn’t it? Each man’s life touches so many other lives.” The same can be said of copyrights.

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) December 26, 2024

Self-described “grumpy American cartoonist” George Alexopoulos also mocked Amazon by remembering the ultra-woke Lord of the Rings series, The Rings of Power.

100% unacceptable, that’s like making a Lord of the Rings prequel starring Galadriel as an action hero

— George Alexopoulos (@GPrime85) December 25, 2024

“100% unacceptable. That’s like making a Lord of the Rings prequel starring Galadriel as an action hero,” he wrote.

The White House has said Moscow is treating its North Korean partner forces as “expendable” in its war against Ukraine, and following South Korean and Pentagon intelligence assessments which say North Korea has suffered at least 1,100 casualties so far

National Security communications adviser John Kirby said in a Friday press briefing, “It is clear that Russian and North Korean military leaders are treating these troops as expendable and ordering them on hopeless assaults against Ukrainian defenses.”

“These North Korean soldiers appear to be highly indoctrinated, pushing attacks even when it is clear that those attacks are futile,” he added.

Kirby said there have been reports of North Korean troops committing suicide due to the battlefield conditions and hopelessness of the situation. He presented this as anecdotal and tangential evidence pointing to massive losses, but the assertion could very well be wartime propaganda.

“We also have reports of North Korean soldiers taking their own lives rather than surrendering to Ukrainian forces, likely out of fear of reprisal against their families in North Korea in the event that they’re captured,” Kirby asserted.

On Friday Kiev forces claimed to have actually captured North Korean troops on the battlefield. These foreign troops are believed mainly deployed in Russia’s Kursk region, to assist Moscow in regaining its lost territory.

“Today we received reports on several soldiers from North Korea, our warriors managed to capture them. But they were seriously wounded and could not be resuscitated,” Zelensky had said in an address.

“This is one of the manifestations of the madness dictatorships are capable of,” he continued. “The Korean nation should not lose its people in the battles in Europe.”

Zelensky also called on China to exert pressure on Kim Jong-Un to abandon the deployment in the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Beijing, however, has remained mum on the issue.

Kirby in his briefing had also vouched for recent South Korean intelligence figures: “Our estimate is that, to date, they have suffered more than 1,000 killed or wounded in this particular fighting in just the past week of them fighting on the front lines,” he said.

Authored by Eric Utter via AmericanThinker.com,

This is going to be controversial to many, but I am going to tell it like I see it, so damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

The Biden administration, set up as it was by the Obama administration, has been a clear and present danger to the United States of America. In almost every way imaginable.

It has tanked an economy that otherwise was on the way to (an almost inevitable) rapid, post-pandemic recovery, causing pain to countless American families.

Speaking of the pandemic, its ludicrous lockdown policy, and a host of other counterproductive and destructive policies, caused immeasurable physical, mental, and emotional harm to millions of people—and summarily destroyed many small businesses, particularly restaurants. It fostered a growing oligarchy by ensuring certain government-approved giant corporations prospered while the small businesses were devastated. It nourished this budding fascism even as it took every opportunity to baselessly label Donald Trump and his supporters as “fascists.”

Similarly, it incessantly talked of “saving our democracy” even as it tried to destroy it by pushing for the end of the Electoral College and the filibuster, supporting the advent of congressional representation for Washington, D.C., urging the granting of statehood to Puerto Rico, and, most egregiously, going to any and all lengths to get rid of its chief political opponent, Donald J. Trump. It is still doing all it can to obstruct the will of the people, as was evident in its post-election auctioning off materials for the border wall for pennies on the dollar, as well as in placing various other roadblocks in front of the incoming administration. (In other words, it is doing everything possible to counteract the will of the people. Doesn’t sound very democratic to me.) Leaving the border wide open for years has created the greatest current—and latent—security threat the nation has ever faced. Period. 

In colluding with the social media giants to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story, or with foreign agents to concoct the Russian-collusion hoax, Democrats have shown, time and again, they will do anything to attain and retain power.

The Biden administration made that abundantly clear…seven ways from Sunday.

In its constant use of lawfare and its “accountability for thee but not for me” perversion of the justice system, it has created a two-tiered system of justice that is deeply anti-American and monstrously pernicious.

And that is troubling—and frightening—to most Americans.

The Biden administration has helped make a mockery of common sense—if not of reality itself—with its official inability to define what a woman is, and to simultaneously approve of “gender reassignment” surgeries and procedures (even for the very young)…and biological men in women’s locker-rooms, bathrooms, and on their sports teams. It has done grievous damage to our culture—and unity—by endlessly promoting the absurd ideologies of DEI and CRT.

Its unwillingness to ever be available, accountable, or transparent is only matched by its overwhelming desire and propensity to lie to the very citizens it is supposed to serve. Which we have seen in its attempts to protect itself, smear Trump and his supporters, give a pass to the Chinese spy balloon, and in its flat-out refusal to tell Americans anything resembling the truth about the drone fiasco that has been ongoing for over a month. The non-answers and gibberish that has spewed from the mouths of “government officials,” has been truly mind-blowing…on this and numerous other matters.

As if all of this weren’t enough, its foreign policy may yet lead to our destruction. It essentially surrendered to goat-herders in Afghanistan, leaving behind billions of dollars of high-end military equipment, more than a dozen dead Americans, and our reputation and dignity. It has bizarrely coddled Iran while playing hardball with Israel, the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. And it seems almost determined to get us directly involved in a shooting war with Russia, if not a nuclear one. 

To me, this is far worse than incompetence, more than malfeasance. 

To me, it spells T-R-E-A-S-O-N. 

Were this an age of reason, what other conclusion could be reached?

Authored by Rudy Blalock via The Epoch Times,

Mexico is developing a new cellphone app for its citizens who are in the United States illegally so they can notify their family members and the nearest Mexican consulate if they are facing deportation, according to a Mexican official on Friday.

The move comes in response to potential mass deportations of illegal immigrants in the United States under the incoming Trump administration.

Juan Ramón de la Fuente, Mexico’s secretary of foreign affairs, said the app is currently in small-scale testing, and it “appears to be working very well.”

De la Fuente described it as a “panic button” in a statement to The Associated Press.

“In case you find yourself in a situation where detention [by U.S. immigration authorities] is imminent, you push the alert button, and that sends a signal to the nearest consulate,” he said.

De la Fuente did not say whether the app includes a feature to cancel an alert if detention does not occur.

In addition to the app, the Mexican government has established a 24-hour call center to address questions from its citizens illegally in the United States or those who are unsure of their status. Mexico has also bolstered its consular staff and legal aid resources to assist illegal immigrants in navigating the deportation process.

According to Mexican government estimates, there are approximately 11.5 million migrants with some form of legal residency in the United States and 4.8 million who are there illegally.

The app is expected to be fully launched in January, coinciding with President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20. During his campaigning, Trump repeatedly said he would implement mass deportations once back in office.

The development also comes amid ongoing discussions between Trump and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum regarding immigration policies. Trump recently claimed a victory in stopping illegal immigration through Mexico following a conversation with Sheinbaum.

Trump stated on his Truth Social account that Sheinbaum “agreed to stop Migration through Mexico.”

Sheinbaum’s own social media post suggested a different perspective, stating, “We reiterate that Mexico’s position is not to close borders but to build bridges between governments and between peoples.”

Sheinbaum further said that Mexico is already addressing migrant caravans, saying, “I told him the caravans are not reaching the northern (U.S.) border, because Mexico is taking care of them.”

The conversation between the two leaders occurred shortly after Trump threatened to impose new tariffs on Canada and Mexico as part of his strategy to combat illegal immigration and drug trafficking. Trump described the potential tariffs as “effectively closing our Southern Border.”

Citing data from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, AP reports that arrivals at the U.S.-Mexico border have dropped 40 percent from an all-time high in December, largely attributed to increased Mexican vigilance around rail yards and highway checkpoints.

Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times,

President-elect Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to block a law that could ban TikTok within the United States, stating that he would like to pursue negotiations to resolve some of the issues involved and salvage the platform.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments over the law on Jan. 10, just nine days before the deadline for TikTok’s parent company to either divest from the platform in the United States or face an effective ban.

That Jan. 19 deadline is also just one day before Trump is expected to be inaugurated for his second term as president.

“President Trump alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns,” his Dec. 27 amicus brief read.

Trump’s brief underscored the importance of the timing and urged the court to give him more of an opportunity to handle the issue as chief executive.

“This timing binds the hands of the incoming Administration on a significant issue of national security and foreign policy, and thus it raises significant questions under Article II,” the brief read.

Article II refers to the section of the constitution vesting executive authority with the president. Trump’s brief said the law raised questions about legislative encroachment on executive authority.

“The Executive, not Congress, is primarily charged with responsibility for the United States’ national security, its foreign policy, and its strategic relationship with its geopolitical rivals,” his brief read.

The law in question was passed with bipartisan support and signed by President Joe Biden earlier this year. TikTok challenged the law in federal court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that it satisfied a high level of scrutiny under the First Amendment.

Although the Supreme Court has decided to take up the First Amendment issue, Trump said he took no position on the merits of the underlying dispute.

He did, however, raise concern about the impact of the law on TikTok’s 170 million users and indicated that upholding it could create a “slippery slope toward global government censorship of social-media speech.”

Trump’s brief took issue with how the law directed the president to work through an interagency process “instead of exercising his sole discretion over the deliberative processes of the Executive Branch.”

In asking the Supreme Court to halt the law, TikTok similarly cited Trump’s incoming administration and the potential for his intervention.

On the day of TikTok’s application to the Supreme Court on Dec. 16, Trump gave a press conference in which he expressed sympathy for the platform.

“We’ll take a look at TikTok,” he said, noting that he had a “warm spot” in his heart for the platform. He added that TikTok had an effect on the support he received from young people in the election.

TikTok had asked the D.C. Circuit to halt the law but was rejected.

“The petitioners have not identified any case in which a court, after rejecting a constitutional challenge to an Act of Congress, has enjoined the Act from going into effect while review is sought in the Supreme Court,” a December 13 order from the court reads.

Attorney General Merrick Garland, whom TikTok sued in the D.C. Circuit and is the respondent at the Supreme Court, defended the law. In a Dec. 27 filing, the Department of Justice said the law “addresses the serious threats to national security posed by the Chinese government’s control of TikTok, a platform that harvests sensitive data about tens of millions of Americans and would be a potent tool for covert influence operations by a foreign adversary.”

The case drew many amicus briefs from organizations, including the Cato Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union. Both of those supported TikTok. A group of former national security officials backed the D.C. Circuit’s decision.

By now, unless you were living under a rock or so focused on your kids opening their gifts you forgot to check your phone for news, you’ll be aware of what the mainstream media is gloatingly calling a ‘civil war’ breaking out between the MAGA right of Trump’s base and the Musk-ian middle over the topic of ‘legal’ immigration – specifically H1Bs.

As we detailed fully here, not all immigration is bad, but focus on Americans first. To over-simplify the issues (well maybe not):

• There is a contingent of MAGA that wants a total shutdown of migrant activity and a moratorium on work visas.  

• On the other side, some in MAGA want to end illegal immigration while supporting legal immigration of skilled workers.

• The threat of a complete shut down of all immigration, including skilled workers, has the tech industry concerned. 

The tensions escalated (and were obviously amplified by the media) after Elon and Vivek turned the rhetoric dial up to ’11’ with comments about “war” and “go fucking yourself” as well as implicit reflections on the lack of work culture among young American workers – none of which which plays well against the longstanding DEI backdrop of white students, and white employees, being passed over for non-whites with similar scores and credentials.

As ‘sundance’ wrote at The Last Refuge:

It always appeared the MAGA alignment with Silicon Valley would not be an issue until the interests of the billionaire tech team came into conflict with the MAGA base.  I did not anticipate the fracture being so fast, nor did I anticipate immigration would be the trigger.  However, H1B visa issuance is apparently a key part of the Silicon Valley business model.

That said, several pragmatic aspects of the discussion are now being lost amid a very toxic shouting match that has begun.

We would agree – a lot of nuance has been lost in the furor.

Former RFK Jr. running mate Nicole Shanahan wrote a lengthy statement on X (but this introduction nailed it):

“Having lived in Silicon Valley for 20+ years and founded and sold an AI company, I’ve seen firsthand how we rely on H-1B to fill grueling, unglamorous coding jobs. These jobs are essential, and we need capable people doing them. But the system needs an overhaul.”

Overhaul indeed…

While Silicon Valley may indeed be short of coders, we find it hard to believe America is suffering enough of a shortage of Golf Instructors to warrant H1Bs…

AMERICANS MUST HAVE AN EXTREME SHORTAGE OF GOLF INSTRUCTORS pic.twitter.com/37VTOr9POj

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) December 27, 2024

…or math teachers…

H1B MATH TEACHERS pic.twitter.com/6k8QDW0vT5

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) December 27, 2024

Of course, none of this is new.

Here’s Trump in March 2016:

“Megyn Kelly asked about highly-skilled immigration. The H- 1B program is neither high-skilled nor immigration: these are temporary foreign workers, imported from abroad, for the explicit purpose of substituting for American workers at lower pay. I remain totally committed to eliminating rampant, widespread H-1B abuse and ending outrageous practices such as those that occurred at Disney in Florida when Americans were forced to train their foreign replacements. I will end forever the use of the H-1 B as a cheap labor program, and institute an absolute requirement to hire American workers first for every visa and immigration program. No exceptions.”

…and remember this from 2020…

From Oct 6, 2020: “The Trump Administration Is Taking Action to Tighten Foreign Worker Visa Requirements and Protect American Workers… Trump and his Administration are protecting American workers by reforming requirements governing the H-1B visa program.”

This went nowhere

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) December 28, 2024

…to which Musk responded at the time…

But H1B denial rates surged under Trump’s last term…

So far, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg have been quiet on the subject – perhaps this chart explains why…

May we humbly suggest there is a balance between Biden’s 2% denial rate (basically no denial at all – even golf instructors and math teachers) and Trump’s 24% denial (show us your special skills and here’s the red carpet, otherwise ‘nope’).

The Biden administration reversed some restrictive policies introduced during Trump’s administration, though recent proposed policies have become more restrictive as well…

Big Tech and IT outsourcing now receive nearly equal volumes of H-1B approvals, a shift from 2017-2018 landscape where IT outsourcing dominated. Big Tech companies have ramped up H-1B sponsorships as they have grown their US headcount significantly over the past decade. Since 2017-18, when IT outsourcing firms led in H-1B approvals, the landscape has shifted. As of 2024, Big Tech and IT outsourcing now receive nearly equal volumes of H-1B approvals.

Finally, while the mainstream media is more than happy to perpetuate this splintering among Trump’s supporters, we suggest getting worked up now is futile since the Biden administration has already enacted more restrictive rules which are due to be put in place in early 2025.

“U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [USCIS] is committed to the president’s goal of restoring faith in the legal immigration system and attracting global talent,” said a USCIS spokesperson.

“USCIS will continue to promote policies and procedures that attract the best international talent, expand economic prosperity, maintain America’s competitive edge in STEM fields and uphold the country’s promise as a nation of welcome and possibility with fairness, integrity and respect for all we serve.”

However, as we noted previously, as usual, whenever there is a divisive issue causing internal conflict and debate among conservative groups there are doom mongers that dance around the edges and act as if the entire movement is suddenly fracturing.  Conservatives have never agreed on solutions – This is normal. 

They are not a hive mind like the political left, which is a good thing.  Such debates are a sign of a healthy political process.     

What we really have here is an artificially created either/or scenario; skilled labor shortages should be treated as a “why not do both” scenario.

In the long term, the national education system needs to be completely overhauled and a focus on practical skills and advanced STEM has to be championed.  Incentives to lure Americans back into science and engineering fields may be necessary. 

The US can do both:  Cut immigration down to only the best and brightest, or down to labor pools with proven shortages, while also encouraging native-born American interest in such fields and creating a domestic pool of skilled assets.

Ukraine is facing a long period of rolling blackouts this winter after Russia’s “Christmas attack” on the country’s energy infrastructure.  Ukraine reports at least 70 ballistic missiles and hundreds of drones were involved in the onslaught which has left at least 50% of Ukrainians without power (accurate reports on true grid damages are impossible to come by and Ukraine keeps such information censored).   

The usefulness of targeting the power grid is undeniable – Any attempt to establish a reliable manufacturing base in western Ukraine to produce armaments will be impossible.  Regular scheduled blackouts are now in effect in many parts of Ukraine in order to preserve power resources.  Energy Research Center Director Oleksandr Kharchenko says electricity consumption restrictions in Ukraine may remain in effect for another 2-3 years, and that’s if the war ends soon.

Another strategic advantage of grid attacks is the use of cold weather conditions to force civilians out of certain energy weak population centers, making it easier to bombard those areas later without producing heavy casualties of non-combatants.

The large scale missile strikes are dominating the news feeds, while Russian advancements on the eastern front are barely reported.  

Southwest of the key city of Pokrovsk, Putin’s forces are currently surrounding another “linchpin” town called Velyka Novosilka.  The area is considered gateway to the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast region and it’s fall would give Russia easier access to central Ukraine due to thinner defensive lines.  The town is currently surrounded on at least three sides and experts suggest Ukraine in unlikely to order their troops to retreat due to the importance of the location.  Kyiv now fears that the soldiers in the area will soon be encircled.

Velyka Novosilka is vulnerable to Russian attack after Ukraine retreated from Vuhledar, roughly 30 kilometers [18 miles] east of Velyka Novosilka.  The Ukrainians originally claimed that Vuhledar was strategically “unimportant”, but the loss has proven to be disastrous. 

Russian gains are expected to slow as winter weather takes hold, but so far there have been no signs of relent.  Velyka Novosilka will fall within weeks, and Pokrovsk is likely to fall within the next couple of months.  The capture of these two vital strongholds will give Russia near total control of the Donbas and Eastern Ukraine.  It is not known if the Kremlin intends to continue pressing to the west, or if they only plan to take control of the East and annex the region in a settlement with Trump and the US. 

A lack of manpower has been blamed for Ukraine’s increasing strategic failures.    

Donald Trump continues to call for an expedient peace plan which includes Ukraine formally giving up some territory to the Russians.  Vladimir Zelensky has recently admitted that it is unlikely that Ukraine will ever be able to gain back the land lost to Russian forces.   

Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Supreme Court made a wave of historic and game-changing decisions in 2024 on topics ranging from presidential immunity to social media and ballot disqualification.

The presidential election combined with rising administrative law disputes helped tee up controversies that put the court and its decisions in the spotlight. Legal precedent flowing from those decisions created rippling effects for other cases and how entire branches of government are expected to make decisions.

Here are several of  the biggest cases this term.

Presidential Immunity (Trump v. United States)

One of the most politically controversial cases this term stemmed from President-elect Donald Trump’s now-dismissed election interference case in Washington. In Trump v. United States, Trump appealed the case with the argument that under the Constitution, presidents should enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution.

It was the first major Supreme Court precedent establishing presidential immunity since 1982 in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, wherein the court held that presidents enjoy immunity from civil liability for actions taken within the outer perimeter of his duties.

By taking up the case earlier this year, the Supreme Court created a lengthy delay for the pre-trial process and the case was eventually dismissed because of Trump’s election win. The court’s decision set a major historical precedent by outlining the contours of criminal immunity. For unofficial acts, presidents are not immune, while for official acts, presidents enjoy certain levels of immunity, according to the decision.

The majority offered some broad guidance on distinguishing between official and unofficial acts but acknowledged that doing so “can be difficult.” Chief Justice John Roberts said that lower courts should not inquire into a president’s motives and that they could not deem something unofficial “merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.”

While courts should base their distinctions on what a president’s discretionary authority entails, some conduct could qualify “even when not obviously connected to a particular constitutional or statutory provision.”

Trump has attempted to apply that decision to his other criminal cases, including one still playing out in New York. For example, Trump argued in New York that prosecutors improperly used evidence, including testimony, that was prohibited under the immunity decision.

However, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan said that the evidence in question related “entirely to unofficial conduct” and was therefore not protected.

It’s unclear how exactly the new precedent should be applied, and future cases involving presidents could help iron out the details. While the Supreme Court offered a broad outline of immunity, it remanded Trump’s election case in Washington  for further determinations by the lower court regarding specific conduct. The case has since been dismissed.

Ballot Disqualification (Trump v. Anderson)

Before the immunity ruling in June, Trump prompted another historic ruling from the high court in March. In Trump v. Anderson, the court wrestled with how to interpret a provision of the 14th Amendment that disqualifies insurrectionists from serving in certain government offices. The legal debate surrounding the topic was extensive with multiple critical points on which the court could base its decision.

Some argued that Trump, as a former president, wasn’t the type of “officer of the United States” who was subject to disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Others disagreed with the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision that Trump had engaged in insurrection—on Jan. 6, 2021—as covered by that section.

A unanimous Supreme Court ultimately held that states, including Colorado, could not disqualify candidates for federal office as Congress was responsible for enforcing Section 3.

Like the immunity decision, the decision in Trump v. Anderson also revealed divisions in the court. The court’s decision was 9–0 but justices produced separate concurrences that raised speculation that Justice Sonia Sotomayor might have initially intended to dissent.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued a standalone concurrence in which she suggested the court’s more liberal justices used overly heated rhetoric while agreeing that the court’s conservatives went too far in their majority opinion. Sotomayor’s concurrence, which was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, accused the majority of attempting to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.

Jan. 6 Obstruction Charge (Fischer v. United States)

Another high-profile case arose from Jan. 6 defendants challenging the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) application of a financial reform law in their prosecutions.

The DOJ had charged some defendants with violating the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which contains provisions related to document destruction and obstructing an official proceeding.

The section in question reads: “Whoever corruptly—alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

The DOJ had argued that the second portion, starting with “or otherwise obstructs” allowed prosecutions that targeted obstructive conduct in a catch-all way that included methods other than those mentioned at the beginning of the section.

A majority of the Supreme Court, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, disagreed in Fischer v. United States and held the following:

“To prove a violation of §1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.”

It’s unclear how Trump and his DOJ will apply the Fischer decision to the defendants’ unique circumstances. Sarbanes-Oxley carries a 20-year maximum sentence.

In November, the DOJ said it was reviewing cases of “approximately 259 defendants who, at the time Fischer was decided, were charged with or convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1512 to determine whether the charge should continue to be prosecuted.”

The DOJ said that after Fischer, the government “decided to forgo the Section 1512(c)(2) charge for approximately 96 defendants, will continue to pursue the charge for approximately 13 defendants, and continues to assess the remaining defendants.”

Read the rest here…