The United States is facing an unprecedented confluence of security threats, according to FBI Director Christopher Wray, who said the agency is deeply concerned about the simultaneous rise in terrorism, cybercrime, foreign election interference, and espionage activities by adversarial powers.
Speaking to reporters from The Associated Press at the FBI’s Minneapolis field office on Aug. 21, Wray said he’s “hard-pressed to think of a time” in his career “where so many different kinds of threats are all elevated at once.”
“I worry about the combination of that many threats being elevated at once, with the challenges facing the men and women in law enforcement more generally,” Wray said, pointing out the stark statistic that law enforcement officers are being killed in the line of duty in the United States at a rate of about one every five days.
Wray declined to go into detail about any specific investigation or threat but noted that the FBI is concerned about Chinese espionage and intellectual property theft, foreign election interference, artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled threats, and terrorism.
He said better cooperation between law enforcement agencies is a key part of confronting the unprecedented security landscape.
Wray added that he hopes that the U.S. tech industry, in particular its developments around cutting-edge AI, can also play a role in helping protect Americans from AI-enabled threats coming their way.
The FBI director’s latest remarks build on his previous warnings, including that China-sponsored hackers are poised to hit U.S. infrastructure at any time with a “devastating blow” to induce panic and that the FBI is increasingly concerned about the potential for a coordinated terror attack on the U.S. homeland.
From the specter of terrorism to the growing menace of cyberattacks, Wray’s warnings reflect the findings of several key national security reports, including a 2024 White House report of the Cybersecurity Posture of the United States and the Director of National Intelligence’s 2024 annual threat assessment and its National Counterintelligence Strategy.
Foreign intelligence threats to the United States are unprecedented as foreign adversaries deploy various tactics to focus on a range of possible targets, according to the counterintelligence strategy report.
It warns that the Chinese communist regime and the state of Russia pose “the most significant intelligence threats,” adding that these leading adversaries are working together more often to amplify threats to the homeland.
“An expanding array of actors are attempting to steal national secrets, sensitive data, intellectual property, and technical and military capabilities, and undermine and disrupt U.S. foreign policy and intelligence operations,” the strategy document warns.
Foreign intelligence entities are actively trying to compromise U.S. infrastructure crucial to health, safety, and the economy, per the document. They also aim to influence U.S. policy and public opinion, targeting government, commercial firms, defense contractors, think tanks, and academic institutions to obtain sensitive information.
The report on the cybersecurity posture of the United States identifies five key trends, each posing distinct challenges to national security and the country’s broader digital ecosystem.
“Nation-state adversaries” have increasingly targeted critical infrastructure, not just for espionage but as a strategic leverage point, per the report. Ransomware attacks have also grown more sophisticated, posing ongoing threats to national security and economic stability as attackers refined their tactics to outmaneuver defenses, it adds.
Moreover, the exploitation of complex supply chains, the rise of commercial spyware, and the rapid advancement of AI presented new risks, the report warns, while highlighting the need for robust cyber defense strategies.
The intelligence community’s annual threat assessment additionally highlights the ongoing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear threats from North Korea, as well as the potential for interstate conflicts in regions including the South China Sea.
This Is The Chart That Keeps Japanese Policymakers Up At Night
Japan has a demographic crisis that started in 2017 and picked up steam in 2020 and will accelerate from there into at least 2050… as a high life expectancy and a low birth rate has created an unprecedented aging population.
As a simple and effective measure of that ‘crisis’, we look at the old-age dependency ratio measures the number of people over the retirement age of 65 for every 100 working-age people.
The higher dependency ratio means fewer workers are supporting a growing number of retirees, which strains social security systems, healthcare, and pension funds. This situation could lead to economic stagnation or decline unless addressed through policy changes like increasing immigration or boosting birth rates.
Japan has had a rapidly rising old-age dependency ratio for several decades and has the highest ratio currently at 54.5.
Meanwhile, Germany is the runner-up in the top 10 economies with a distant second-place dependency ratio of 41.4.
At the same time, the United States maintains a relatively low old-age dependency, with a ratio of 31.3, which places it seventh among the top 10 economies.
By 2050, Japan will maintain the highest old-age dependency ratio of the group, moving from 54.5 to a staggering 80.7.
In an effort to head-off such a high ratio, Japan is has put policies in pace to attract young immigrants and migrant workers.
However, despite government incentives, cultural shifts towards later marriages, fewer children, and more women entering the workforce have not significantly reversed the trend in Japan (or many other nations).
Italy, which is facing similar demographic pressures, will move from distant third to a close second, moving from a ratio of 40.9 to 74.4.
China, because of the results of the one-child policy and low immigration, could surpass the U.S. by 2050 with a ratio of 47.5.
The Libertarian Party was assembled in 1971 and has proven throughout its history to be a resoundingly-unsuccessful third-party venture in American politics. While libertarians are outspoken in their advocacy for individual liberties, limited government, and free markets, their presidential candidates have proven largely unsuccessful throughout history.
Why have they not experienced greater success in the face of confronting what has become two ideological extremes?
Further, if a “protest vote” for the libertarian candidate isn’t sitting well with you, which party is more aligned to libertarian policies?
Libertarians face an eternal uphill battle in the face of American politics.
As it stands, third party campaigns are almost entirely funded by grass-root donations, which pale in comparison to the millions of dollars that special interest groups and corporate donors pour into Democratic and Republican campaigns.
Mainstream media tends to focus on the two major parties; hence, very little exposure and airtime is given to third party candidates.
Even though libertarianism primarily focuses on individual freedoms of its citizens, most voters have associated the party with the “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” views. This allows for common ground to alienate voters on both sides of the perceived party lines.
No matter the reasoning, it’s undeniable that a Libertarian candidate for president is a pipe dream. As a libertarian who considers the reality we face, which party is most aligned with our shared values?
The Republican leans more towards libertarianism than the Democratic party.
Here’s how:
Republicans have traditionally garnered the mantle of limited government spending and limited levels of taxation. The most were during the Reagan era and, therefore, it appealed to libertarians. Though this line is blurred more and more as each day passes, Republicans still hold the torch in this arena.
Free market economics is another plane where traditional Republicans have shown their affinity with libertarians, though this interventionism has been tempered in the cases of healthcare, education, monetary policy, and the military.
In many cases, Republicans oppose excesses of regulation by the government—a general reflection of the libertarian disdain of a creeping bureaucracy.
Caveats apply, though: Republicans are more socially conservative than libertarians, and the agendas inherently clash with each other.
Republicans have also frequently supported military intervention and “national security” over the libertarian principle of non-interventionism.
In the end, the winning combination of libertarian candidates is to rise above both structural and ideological obstacles.
While the Republican Party is part libertarian when it comes to economic and fiscal issues—having manifested itself in this way—its social conservatism and an interventionist attitude in some aspects create a dichotomous relationship between the two ideologies.
Ultimately, however, libertarians will have to moderate their message and otherwise change stratagems to capture more mainstream voters, or else find places to build coalitions with other, like-minded organizations interested in making their policy preferences a reality.
Taxpayer-Funded Oregon Group Offers $30,000 To Home Buyers… As Long As They’re Not American Citizens
Only days after it was announced that California will be pushing a bill to give illegal aliens access to zero down, no payment home loans, it has been revealed that a taxpayer-funded group out of Oregon called Hacienda CDC is already offering non-citizens a $30,000 home assistance loan for new homebuyers through a program called Camino a Casa.
Screenshots from the Hacienda website posted by X user Oregon Citizen note:
“Only for people who are not American citizens…”
“Clients work closely with financial coaches and HUD-certified housing counselors throughout the entirety of the homebuying process. In addition to mortgage readiness and financial fitness workshops, we provide various opportunities for down-payment assistance…”
What do you think Oregon friends? Should non citizens and undocumented citizens be given $30,000 for down payments to buy a home here in the state of Oregon? Check out the requirements! ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/riGm6AuMGJ
Hacienda CDC is funded in part by Business Oregon, which is a state institution that manages state and federal tax dollars for economic development in Oregon. Business Oregon’s director is Sophorn Cheang, who is also a coordinator for the Oregon governor’s “Racial Justice Council.” As Business Oregon mentions in her bio:
“Prior to her work with the Governor’s Office, Cheang served as Senior Community Development Manager and Director of the Asian Family Center for the Immigrant and Refugee Community Organization, where she developed and directed culturally specific programs and services for immigrants and refugees; mobilized diverse community leaders across the state to address social and racial injustices; and performed other strategic planning and advocacy work…”
The funding is funneled through the Economic Equity Investment Program (EEIP), an equity-based beneficiary project established through the Economic Equity Investment Act (SB 1579), which the Oregon legislature passed in 2022. The organization receives millions in Oregon state taxpayer money and federal taxes through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), according to its recent annual report.
Hacienda CDC works with credit unions that offer mortgage loans for non-citizens who cannot get a social security number. Instead, these credit unions use an IRS loophole by processing the mortgage with Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs).
As Fox News argues, programs like these appear to be an attempt by progressive institutions and politicians to buy a new voting base. They offer vast incentives to illegals, give them special treatment through a two-tier system (as we have seen in the UK), eventually secure their citizenship through sweeping amnesty bills and then register them to vote Democrat.
Oregon is offering $30,000 for illegal aliens to buy homes. This program is not open to American citizens. Only illegals.
If this trend continues it could be less than a decade before legal citizens and conservative are completely sidelined within their own country by an army of foreign mercenary voters, mostly from third-world countries. Good luck winning local and state elections let alone federal elections ever again.
Beyond the election issue, there is the ongoing problem in US housing. Millions of illegal migrants pouring into the US under the Biden Administration have escalated a housing shortage and exacerbated an already existing inflation crisis. With upwards of 2 million (or more) migrants crossing the border illegally every year, there is an endless supply of non-citizens trying to access welfare programs and housing programs they have never paid a cent into. Meanwhile, real American citizens are struggling with a 30% increase in home and rental costs in the past four years.
Bringing home prices down would be a matter of increasing supply without building new homes with inflated material costs. The easiest way to do that would be to either kick out as many illegal immigrants as possible, or force international corporate buyers like Blackstone to dump their distressed mortgage holdings (or do both).
However, as long as blue states continue to incentivize illegals with access to welfare programs and easy money and as long as the federal government continues to refuse to do it’s duty and protect the southern border, there is little chance of stopping the steady flood on non-citizens. The “great replacement” continues.
Fast-food restaurants survive by providing affordable, quick, and convenient meals, but cost inflation is now pushing their business models to the brink.
It has become more expensive to eat out over the past five years, with food away from home increasing by 30 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In just the past year, the cost of eating at a fast-food restaurant has increased by more than that of a full-service restaurant.
Within the consumer price index, the limited-service meals category (food that is ordered at a counter and taken to go) rose by 4.3 percent year over year in July. By comparison, full-service meals (sit-down restaurants with wait staff) increased by 3.8 percent over the same period.
Mcdonald’s was recently stung by reports that it was charging $18 for a Big Mac, prompting the company’s president to issue an open letter in May.
“I can tell you that it frustrates and worries me, and many of our franchisees, when I hear about an $18 Big Mac meal being sold—even if it was at one location in the U.S. out of more than 13,700,” McDonald’s USA President Joe Erlinger wrote, noting that the average price of a Big Mac across all U.S. franchises had gone up by 21 percent since 2019, from $4.39 to $5.29 today.
According to a McDonald’s “myths vs. facts” sheet, the company increased average menu prices by about 40 percent over the past five years, which is in line with the increase in the firm’s costs. Employee salaries have gone up by 40 percent since 2019, and food and paper costs went up by 35 percent during the same period, the company stated.
At some point, however, customers will question the value of fast food, compared to alternatives such as full-service restaurants or eating at home, industry experts say.
“People like going to Subway to grab lunch. It’s cheap, it’s quick, it’s easy, it’s good. But they question whether they want to pay $12.99, or $14.99, for what used to be an $8.99 bundled meal,” Gary Pryor, a former owner of restaurants and food production companies and a business consultant at Waters Business Consulting Group, told The Epoch Times.
According to a May survey of 2,000 U.S. adults by Lending Tree, price hikes have caused 78 percent of Americans to view fast food as an increasingly unaffordable luxury. And while three-quarters of Americans say they typically eat fast food at least weekly, nearly two-thirds say they are now eating it less due to rising prices.
Chipotle increased menu prices four times between 2021 and 2023, according to an American Institute of Economic Research report by economists Thomas Savidge and Andrew den Boggende, prompting a backlash from customers who also accused the chain of reducing portion sizes. Viral complaints by diners circulating the internet prompted then-CEO Brian Niccol to assure customers in a Fortune interview in May that portion sizes had not changed.
Niccol left Chipotle on Aug. 13 to take the helm at Starbucks, which is also struggling. Starbucks reported in its third-quarter fiscal 2024 results that sales were down by 3 percent, driven by a 5 percent decline in the number of customer transactions, although there was an average 3 percent increase in what each customer paid at the coffee chain.
McDonald’s reported in July that its quarterly sales were down by 1 percent worldwide and by 0.7 percent in the United States. At the same time, its operating income decreased by 6 percent, indicating the company’s difficulties with both income and expenses.
Getting Squeezed
“Restaurant owners are really stuck between a rock and hard place, whether it’s Chipotle, which doesn’t franchise, or McDonald’s, which does,” Thomas Savidge, a research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, told The Epoch Times.
“The last thing they want to do is raise menu prices any more than they have over the past couple of years. But ultimately, there’s going to have to be some painful choices made.”
The more obvious options for fast-food restaurants are higher prices, smaller portions, or less staff, which often means longer lines and a less pleasant dining experience, he said.
The industry is currently racing to figure a way out of the current situation.
McDonald’s CFO Ian Borden said on the company’s April 30 conference call that “everybody’s fighting for fewer consumers or consumers that are certainly visiting less frequently.”
“We’ve got to make sure we’ve got that street-fighting mentality to win,” he said.
Cratering sales led Subway last week to call what was reported to be an “emergency meeting” of the 19,000 franchisees of its North American sandwich shops to discuss price promotions, discounts, and other ways to increase customer traffic.
The industry is at a “crossroads,” according to Michael Podolsky, CEO and co-founder of an online review platform and consumer advocacy group.
“While these brands remain strong players, consistent issues with customer service, food quality, and pricing are causing consumer dissatisfaction,” Podolsky told The Epoch Times. “Addressing these concerns will be critical for staying strong on the market, otherwise, consumers might switch to a better quality dining experience at similar or slightly higher prices.”
Searching for Solutions
Some restaurants are getting creative in their search for solutions.
This includes Taco Bell offering Happier Hour, when drinks are discounted to bring more customers in during slower hours. It includes customer loyalty programs such as MyMcDonald’s Rewards, which can award frequent customers points toward free meals.
Wendy’s CEO Kirk Tanner told investors in February that the fast-food chain was considering instituting a “flexible pricing” system, which would adjust menu prices based on customer demand, similar to “surge pricing” spikes charged by Uber during rush hour. This sparked protests from customers, as well as accusations from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) of “price gouging,” prompting Wendy’s to issue a statement saying it wouldn’t implement the practice.
While the fast-food industry looks for solutions to remain profitable as its costs continue to rise, restaurants are being hit by not only escalating costs for food, energy, and materials but also by wage hikes. Wage expenses are typically between 25 and 30 percent of total costs for fast-food restaurants.
On April 1, California increased the state minimum wage to $20 per hour for fast-food employees, in a growing trend of states mandating higher labor costs. Currently, 29 U.S. states now have a minimum wage at or above $10 per hour, according to data collected by the Economic Policy Institute. This compares to the national minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, which has not increased since 2009.
In addition, 15 states now have a minimum wage above $14 per hour, or approximately double the federal rate. Seven states—Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Wyoming—have no state minimum wage, although in those states, the federal minimum applies.
Many restaurants unable to pass these costs on to diners simply close.
Based on data collected from Google maps and tracking the number of locations that were listed as “permanently closed,” a restaurant services company called Snappy calculated that 1,040 fast-food restaurants had closed in California in the four months since the state’s $20 minimum wage took effect, compared to 315 that had closed in 2024 prior to the wage hike.
Other restaurants are looking to invest in automation to increase worker efficiency and cut staffing levels. According to a February 2023 survey by the National Restaurant Association, 58 percent of restaurant operators said they intended to rely more on automation in the coming years to reduce the need for human workers.
Entry-Level Jobs Going Away
For many lower-skilled or entry-level workers, however, restaurants often provided an entry point into the labor market, allowing them to build skills and experience toward higher-paying jobs.
“Employers are going to be hesitant to take on an unskilled employee and bear the cost of teaching them a skill,” Savidge said. “They’re going to be less willing to take a risk on those new, inexperienced employees who are looking to build up job experience and enter the job market.”
While the inflation growth rate has slowed over the past year, price pressures remain throughout the food industry, which is now also facing an increasingly cost-conscious consumer.
“They’re spending money on their vacations or things, but eating out at fast food is not a valuable proposition for a family of five people when it’s costing $100,” Pryor said.
And beyond the struggle to keep menu prices down, there is the pressure on fast-food restaurants to provide meals with the same speed and efficiency, even as they try to cope with staffing issues.
“Costs don’t always get translated in menu prices,” Savidge said. “Sometimes, the cost is sitting in a really long drive-through line, waiting 20 minutes to just take your order there.
“That in itself is a cost—the value of your time.”
Thanks, Biden-Harris: Map Shows Worst Housing Affordability In America
Buying the average American home today involves a much larger slice of people’s income—mainly realized under the Biden-Harris administration. Shortly after the Biden-Harris team took office in 2021, housing affordability began to slide, then collapse.
The biggest theme in the real estate market in the last 3.5 years has been high mortgage rates and record-high home prices, which have kept home ownership out of the reach of millions of Americans—stuck in the renting economy.
Tight housing supplies have driven up housing prices across the country. However, failed Bidenomics unleashed an inflation storm, which forced the Federal Reserve into an interest rate hiking cycle that was one of the driving forces behind the affordability collapse.
Even as overall inflation moderates, the latest data from the National Association of Realtors shows affordability conditions have yet to improve, still trending at record lows. The Biden-Harris team spent the last 3.5 years championing Bidenomics.
Kamala Harris 367 days ago: “That is called Bidenomics! Ha ha ha! That is called Bidenomics and we are very proud of Bidenomics!” pic.twitter.com/gOxPZvxTCk
Fast forward to today, Harris admits Bidenomics has failed.
KAMALA: “We believe in a future where we lower the cost of living.”
She has been in office for 3.5 years — over which the average American family has lost an extra $26,000 paying for the increased cost of living. pic.twitter.com/NfQtLIpn4s
Meanwhile, the Biden-Harris team offered no real solutions to cushion Americans in some of the worst housing affordability conditions in a generation.
But last week, Kamala Harris unveiled her housing plan. Given the continued affordability crisis, this is just a few years too late for Democrats.
Anyway, the think tank Hoover Institution pointed out that Harris’ housing plan “does not address the most important reason why housing is expensive: high construction costs. Instead, the plan significantly subsidizes housing demand, which will put upward pressure on housing costs.”
“One of the biggest demand subsidizers in the proposal is to provide $25,000 to first-time home buyers,” the think tank said, adding, “Based on the information Harris provided, I expect about 20 million US renters would be eligible and apply for this program if Harris wins the presidency.”
As Hoover pointed out in the note titled “The Unpleasant Arithmetic of Kamala Harris’s Housing Plan,” Harris’ plan concentrates on subsidizing demand, not improving supply. Thus, government subsidies would only supercharge demand and worsen the unaffordability crisis by sending prices higher.
This leaves us with Nick Gerli, CEO of research firm Reventure, who showed on X what prospective buyers need regarding salaries for the most basic homes on a state-by-state level today.
Not surprisingly, Californians must earn more than $200,000 annually to afford the average home.
Housing affordability in California has become so bad that the typical buyer now needs to earn over $200,000/year just to afford a basic house.
That’s by far the worst affordability in America.
Interestingly, prior to the pandemic, you only needed to make $93k in order to buy… pic.twitter.com/R7eBh8kxBx
Gerli provided an informative graphic on a state-by-state basis of the incomes needed to afford basic homes.
The focus here should be on the collapse of housing affordability under Biden-Harris’ watch. The administration offered zero policies to address the crisis effectively. Yet Democrats under Harris want to address the crisis by subsidizing housing demand, which would only worsen the situation by sending prices higher. This is clown world.
U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin on Aug. 21 dismissed a lawsuit against social media platform X brought by people with disabilities who were fired by the company after Elon Musk bought it.
Dmitry Borodaenko, an engineering manager who was with X until late 2022, said the firings violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by treating disabled workers differently from others.
Borodaenko did not provide evidence to support this position, Martinez-Olguin ruled.
“Borodaenko fails to show how employees with disabilities were treated differently by Twitter’s broad return-to-the-office policy and increased workload,” she said.
“Borodaenko’s theory improperly relies on the assumption that all employees with disabilities necessarily required remote work as a reasonable accommodation.”
Borodaenko brought the case, and two other disabled former employees were later named as additional plaintiffs.
Arguments against X, formerly known as Twitter, partly rested on the experience of Hana Thier, one of the additional plaintiffs. According to the new ruling, Thier was improperly added after a different judge permitted Borodaenko to file an updated complaint.
Plaintiffs had alleged that Musk was “openly hostile towards disabled employees and insinuated that they were lazy,” and that he had “tweeted that a disabled former Twitter employee used his disability as an excuse not to work.”
Musk later apologized to the worker, who has muscular dystrophy, “for [his] misunderstanding of [the employee’s] situation.”
The plaintiffs also highlighted how Musk quickly reversed previously broad work-from-home policies after buying X, and said any employees who remained with the company would have to be exceptional people and work long hours.
While Musk’s comments “may contribute to a showing of animus, they fall short of illustrating how the new return-to-the-office and increased workload policies treated employees with disabilities differently than similarly-situated employees,” Martinez-Olguin said.
Accusations that Musk’s policies significantly discriminated against disabled workers and are not justified by business necessity also fell short, the judge said.
The allegations presented in the updated complaint “are nothing more than conclusions devoid of factual support,” she said, adding later that “the new allegations fail to move the needle to plead a plausible disparate impact claim.”
The earlier version of the suit had been dismissed but Borodaenko was allowed to file a new version.
The claims “were previously dismissed by the court because plaintiffs failed to allege facts to plausibly state a claim for relief under a theory of either disparate treatment or disparate impact disability discrimination,” X lawyers said. “These same defects remain in the” updated complaint, they said.
The judge dismissed the lawsuit but said that Borodaenko could file an amendment complaint that adequately fixes the failings within 28 days.
Lawyers for X and the plaintiffs did not respond to requests for comment.
Supreme Court Allows Arizona To Require Proof Of Citizenship For State Votes, But Not For Congressional Or Presidential
Today the Supreme Court cleared the way for a provision of Arizona law that requires proof of citizenship to register to vote in state rolls – but not in Federal elections, such as for Congress ore President – the first time the high court has weighed in on a voting dispute in the run-up to the presidential election.
The order means Arizona election officials must reject state registration forms if voters don’t provide documentation of citizenship. In other words, Arizonans newly registering to vote for the coming election will have to provide copies of one of several documents, including a birth certificate or a passport, in order to prove their citizenship.
However, the justices kept on hold provisions of the law that could have disqualified voters who register separate federal forms from casting ballots in a presidential contest in person or by mail. In other words, Arizona voters can still register using a federal form, without proof of citizenship, and vote in the presidential contest.
Which, in light of recent revelations about noncitizens voting in various elections, and the Democrats’ push not to require voter id for presidential elections, is downright bizarre.
The high court’s 5-4 action, split along gender lines with men voting for and the women against, follows an emergency appeal by the Republican National Committee and lawmakers in Arizona, which is considered a key swing state in the election.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, along with liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said they would have denied the request from Arizona lawmakers. What is notable however, is that Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch said they would have gone further and allowed the federal-form provisions of the 2022 law to take effect.
In other words, another SCOTUS appeal may be all it takes to prevent widespread cheating in the Nov presidential elections.
The decision did not include any legal reasoning, which is common in such emergency applications. But there were signs that the court was divided over the issue, and that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh may have split their votes between two factions.
Republicans have made noncitizen voting a focus in 2024,amid revelations that it is increasingly prevalent. They are pushing a national proof of citizenship bill, and a handful of states have measures related to noncitizen voting on November’s ballot.
Why is this such a critical issue? As noted on X, over 40,000 people have registered to vote in federal elections in Arizona without providing proof of citizenship. In the 2020 election, Joe Biden narrowly defeated Donald Trump in Arizona by just over 10,000 votes. In other words, in the handful of swing states that will decide the outcome of the Electoral College, where the margin of victory can be in the thousands or even hundreds of votes – every singleillegal vote matters, which is why Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to preserve the ability for non-citizens to keep picking the next president!
While Republicans say the measures are necessary to prevent cheating and allowing noncitizens to cast ballots for Democrat candidates who allow millions of illegals to enter the country no questions asked, Democrats have decried the efforts arguing that they are intended to preemptively question the legitimacy of the upcoming election.
The efforts could result in eligible voters being removed from voting rolls, Democrats argue, which of course is idiotic since one needs an id for virtually any activity in the US, yet somehow voting should be excluded. They say the measures are ultimately about revving up conservative voters on the hot-button issues of immigration and voter fraud.
Speaking to the deep-left Washington Post, Richard Hasen, a UCLA law professor and alleged election law “expert”, said the court’s action would “make it moderately more difficult” for some voters and “for no good reason, because noncitizens are not voting in large numbers.” Well, if they are not voting in large numbers then it’s not an issue, and requiring those who do vote in large numbers to present an id is hardly a problem in a country where one needs an ID to enter a nightclub, buy a drink or drive a car.
Sensing which way the wind is blowing, Democrats are scrambling to make a huge issue out of the long overdue requirement to show some proof of citizenship when voting for, well, anything. Wendy R. Weiser of the Brennan Center for Justice’s democracy program said the change in registration requirements three months before the election will result in a scramble for voters, election officials and voting rights groups.
“There needs to be a massive education effort for people who do not have documentary proof of citizenship for them to understand the correct way to register to vote if they want to be able to vote in the federal elections,” Weiser said. “There’s a real risk of confusion when there are two different voter registration forms.”
Well, Wendy, if people do not have documentary proof of citizenship – say a driver’s license – by voting age, one can safely say they are illegal aliens and have been carted into the US, mostly likely in the deep of night on Biden airlines, for one purpose and one purpose only: to cheat in the November election.
Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (D) agreed. He emphasized that state election officials would abide by the court’s decision and “implement these changes while continuing to protect voter access.”
Gina Swoboda, chair of the state Republican Party praised the decision, calling it a “tremendous victory for every Arizona voter who demands confidence that our elections are protected from non-citizen interference. The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that Arizona can uphold the integrity of its elections.”
The Biden administration and a number of Arizona groups sued to block the law in July 2022, arguing that the federal National Voting Rights Act preempts the Arizona law’s requirements related to the federal voter registration form. The act requires voters to attest they are citizens under penalty of perjury but does not require them to submit proof.
Those challenging the law also pointed to a 2013 Supreme Court ruling that said states violate the Voting Rights Act if they reject a federal voter registration form by requiring a person to submit proof of citizenship. Republicans argued that the ruling does not apply in the current case.
A trial court judge blocked the Arizona law in 2023, citing the rationale put forward by the Biden administration and the state groups. The Republicans then asked the Supreme Court to put the district court’s decision on hold pending an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. They also requested a prompt ruling, saying the state has an Aug. 22 deadline to resolve litigation related to the election because counties need to begin printing ballots.
“The district court’s injunction is an unprecedented abrogation of the Arizona Legislature’s sovereign authority to determine the qualifications of voters and structure participation in its elections,” the Republicans wrote in their filing.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar argued on behalf of the Biden administration that “judicial intervention at this stage would undermine the orderly administration of the election.”
In a hilarious attempt to downplay the risk of millions of illegal aliens illegally voting in the November election, the abovementioned socialist rag Washington Post said that “noncitizen voting is illegal in federal elections and allowed only in some local municipalities and jurisdictions.” Oh, so it’s only “some” then… and since it is illegal to do something, well clearly nobody will do it. Might as well avoid double checking. And while we are at it, we should also allow everyone to drive a car on the honor system, just tell the cop you have a driver’s license somewhere, just not with you.
Trump has repeatedly claimed, not without justification, that noncitizen voting cost him the 2020 election and narrowed his margin of victory in the 2016 presidential contest.
The punchline: a handful of cities, including that socialist hellhole Washington, D.C., allow noncitizens to vote in municipal elections. And since nobody checks if those same noncitizens also vote in presidential elections (because “it is illegal to do so”), it is guaranteed that millions of illicit votes are cast each and every year for Democrat candidates, which is also why Democrats are doing everything in their power to allow half of Latin America in the US so actual legal votes are forever drowned out by the army of “free shit” illegals coming here for the promise of a better life, funding by other honest working taxpayers and legal American citizens, as long as they vote for Kamala.
The good news: this fall, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kentucky and Idaho will vote on ballot measures to enact constitutional bans on noncitizen voting. How these measures are not ironclad in every state, boggles the mind.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” ― H.L. Mencken
The Powers That Be/Deep State have gone to Plan B, since Plan A was a dementia ridden, pants shitting, child sniffing, corrupt, global embarrassment. Everybody knows Kamala Harris is an extremely unlikable, vacuous, commie, diversity shill, Obama puppet. She couldn’t get above 2% support in the 2020 Democrat primaries and had the lowest popularity rating of any VP in history, because she is an honest to goodness moron. She was selected because she can read a teleprompter better than the shuffling cadaver in the White House. Every time she is stumped by a question, she cackles like a hyena, so she cackles a lot.
She hasn’t had an original thought or idea in her entire worthless, sleeping up the ladder, life. But, suddenly she is the toast of the town and the regime media has gone into full propaganda mode to elevate her as the joyful diversity queen who will lead us to the promised land. It is beyond laughable, but have you observed the ignorant masses and their immense gullibility and lack of critical thinking skills? The Deep State engineers have, and they know they can place her in the oval office. The propaganda media machine is in full “elect Kamala” mode, as can be seen in the graphic below.
The plan to place this low IQ diversity puppet into the White House is multi-faceted.
First, they will flood the airwaves with negative ads about Trump, because her record is non-existent/disastrous. They have hundreds of millions to do so.
Second, they will have their regime media outlets heap praise upon her glorious rise against all odds through her joyful brilliance, while scorning Trump as a criminal, white supremacist, Putin puppet.
Third, they will try to duplicate the “Basement Biden” strategy of 2020 by never letting her speak off the cuff, do interviews without having the questions a week in advance, or god forbid do a press conference. They will make up reasons why she won’t debate Trump, and then blame Trump for not debating. They cannot allow her to talk, because it will immediately reveal she is one of the dumbest human beings on the planet.
Fourth, they will conspire with their regime media partners to rig the polls, showing Kamala leading on a national level and either leading or very close in the seven swing states that matter. Absolutely nothing has changed regarding mail-in ballots since the 2020 stolen election. The Dems continue to register illegals as voters. With the cover of fake polls showing a close race, they will cheat again in all the Democrat controlled urban shitholes to win again. The left wing governor of PA, who isn’t Kamala’s VP because he is a Jew and was nixed by her handlers, has already announced the PA results will not be final on election night. They need to see how far behind they might be to get just enough additional votes from Philly to win the state. Remember the left wing media polls in 2016? Their game plan hasn’t changed.
Fifth, the Deep State will continue to try and drum up a new pandemic (Monkeypox, Bird Flu, New Covid strain) in order to drastically reduce or eliminate in-person voting, so they can commit more mail-in ballot fraud. They also have the old electronic ballot machine manipulation as a back-up plan.
If this multi-faceted plan does not seem to be doing the trick, they will take more extreme measures, as desperation will creep in, knowing their wealth, power and control over the country is in jeopardy. They already tried to assassinate Trump and missed by inches. They will try again and make it look like Iran was the culprit. It isn’t a coincidence they keep pushing us closer and closer towards war with Russia and Iran. As a last resort, they will create a false flag incident designed to start WW3 and rally the country behind the existing regime. They will declare a national emergency and declare it too dangerous to hold elections, so they will be suspended.
No matter how the next three months play out, there will be blood.
They will do anything to place that cackling diversity drunk into the White House, and if they fail, all hell will be unleashed, as their BLM, Antifa, and illegal immigrant hordes are activated and instructed to burn it all down. Buckle up. A shit storm is coming.
Only all-electric vehicles are included on the map.
California Leads EV Adoption
California has the highest number of electric vehicles, with 1.1 million. Florida follows with 231,000 EVs, and Texas ranks third with 210,000.
When considering EVs per 100,000 people, California also leads with 3,026 cars per 100,000 people, followed by Washington, Hawaii, and Oregon.
U.S. State
EVs per 100k people
California
3026
Washington
1805
Hawaii
1686
Oregon
1422
Colorado
1405
Nevada
1379
New Jersey
1349
Arizona
1139
Vermont
1129
District of Columbia
1115
Utah
1078
Maryland
1050
Florida
1024
Massachusetts
983
Connecticut
818
Georgia
771
Delaware
745
Illinois
741
Texas
690
New Hampshire
660
New York
622
Minnesota
591
North Carolina
589
Oklahoma
564
Rhode Island
542
Pennsylvania
499
Maine
489
Michigan
454
New Mexico
452
Tennessee
428
Idaho
406
Missouri
398
Ohio
391
Montana
373
South Carolina
358
Kansas
354
Indiana
350
Alaska
346
Nebraska
319
Iowa
260
Kentucky
238
Alabama
232
Arkansas
214
South Dakota
169
Louisiana
165
North Dakota
112
Mississippi
110
Mississippi has the fewest electric vehicles proportionally, with only 110 EVs per 100,000 people. North Dakota has a similar lack of EVs, with 112 per 100,000 people in the state.
Additionally, California has the highest number of EV charging stations, with over 15,000, making up 29% of all charging stations in America. As of 2022, the Golden State had nearly double the number of chargers compared to the next three states combined: New York, Florida, and Texas.
If you liked this post, check out Ranked: The Top 10 EV Battery Manufacturers in 2023. In this graphic we rank the top 10 EV battery manufacturers by total battery deployment (measured in megawatt-hours) in 2023.
