Government Funding For mRNA Technology Is Being Scrutinized And, In Some Cases, Sidelined

Government Funding For mRNA Technology Is Being Scrutinized And, In Some Cases, Sidelined

It looks as though government funding for mRNA technology is on a short leash…

Take, for example, a promising mRNA vaccine for pancreatic cancer, developed by Memorial Sloan Kettering, that showed encouraging early results: in some patients, immune responses lasted up to four years and appeared to reduce recurrence.

It is being overshadowed by new concerns about federal support for mRNA research, according to a new op-ed by science commentator Anjana Ahuja in the Financial Times

According to Nature, NIH officials are informally advising scientists to remove references to mRNA from grant applications, and a spreadsheet tracking 130 related projects has raised fears of funding cuts.

NIH claims it’s simply reviewing what mRNA work it currently funds, but the lack of clarity has sparked unease—especially given the agency’s massive $47 billion research budget.

Drew Weissman, the Nobel-winning scientist behind mRNA vaccine breakthroughs, warned that cutting NIH support for mRNA research would stall medical progress and harm U.S. science. Even the threat of funding cuts creates fear and instability, especially for young researchers who may now look abroad for more secure opportunities.

To which we reply: if mRNA vaccines have a safe solution, the free market will eventually allow them to flourish…

But the Financial Times piece says that concerns have intensified with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. leading Health and Human Services, and reports that mRNA projects are being scrutinized or sidelined politically. 

One early study using personalized mRNA cancer vaccines is already yielding hopeful results and has launched a broader global trial, according to the op-ed.

Scientists argue that pulling support now could derail life-saving innovation. As history shows, today’s medical breakthroughs rest on decades of consistent public research investment — a pipeline that can’t survive in a climate of political interference.

*  *  *

Best sellers at ZH Store:

Click picture, check out knife…

Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/02/2025 – 18:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/5C19nTU Tyler Durden

California’s Regulations, Not Price Gouging, Cause High Gas Prices, USC Study Finds

California’s Regulations, Not Price Gouging, Cause High Gas Prices, USC Study Finds

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times,

Gov. Gavin Newsom stands behind his claim that “Big Oil” is responsible for California’s higher gas prices and vowed on April 1 to continue his fight against the industry. The pledge comes after new research put the blame on state regulations and policies for the high prices at the pump.

California’s Democratic leaders have come out strongly against the oil industry in recent years, saying the companies’ gouging was causing record-high gas prices.

“Gov. Newsom has done more than any other governor in recent history to tackle the challenge of rising gas prices—despite what the oil industry and its allies say,” a spokesman for Newsom told The Epoch Times in an email Tuesday.

A new study published March 16 by Michael Mische from the Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California says the evidence contradicts Newsom. Mische’s research indicated California’s high gas prices were caused by the state’s regulations and policies.

“There is no economic data to support the allegation of price gouging,” Mische told The Epoch Times. “It just doesn’t exist.”

The professor also pushed back against Newsom’s claim that he was an industry ally.

“The data is the data,” Mische said.

Mische has been on the USC faculty since 1997, where he coordinates the business school’s management consulting undergraduate and graduate programs.

In March 2023, the governor signed a “windfall-profits penalty law” to target oil companies. The new law created a slew of regulations and extensive oversight for oil companies.

Newsom’s office said the governor saved Californians billions of dollars at the pump by signing the law.

The measure allows the governor’s appointed Energy Commission to fine and penalize oil companies if they earned profits beyond state-imposed limits.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks in the Capitol rotunda in Sacramento on March 28, 2023. Courtesy of the Office of Gov. Gavin Newsom

The legislation also created a watchdog agency within the Energy Commission and appointed a Department of Justice prosecutor, Tai Milder, to oversee it.

“And with last year’s special session on gas price spikes, we have more tools on the way, including requiring oil refineries to maintain adequate supply to protect the state from supply-driven price spikes,” Newsom’s spokesman said Tuesday. In October, the governor signed a bill allowing the state to require that refiners keep a minimum inventory.

Study Show High Prices ‘Largely Self-inflicted’

According to the USC study, which included up to 50 years of data, California’s high gasoline prices and supply problems are “largely self-inflicted, and the result of directed policies and a litany of regulations, taxes, fees, and costs.”

“The economic evidence is abundant; California refiners have not engaged in widespread price gouging, profiteering, price manipulation, ‘unexplained residual prices’ or surcharges, magical or otherwise,” Mische wrote in the report.

Vehicles pass the Phillips 66 Los Angeles Refinery in Wilmington, Calif., on Nov. 28, 2022. Mario Tama/Getty Images

“The Golden State’s gasoline price dilemma is the result of the complex interactions of regulatory and political policies, and the subtleties of refinery operations and global crude oil prices and in-state centric supply and demand,” he added.

The state’s aggressive environmental policies are a major contributor, the report said. These include the state’s cap-and-trade charge for the industry that is passed down to the consumer. Environmental fees add about 51 cents per gallon of gas, according to the report. The state’s reporting and compliance costs are also high, which adds to the retail price of gasoline, including the state’s required special summer blend gasoline.

California also charges the highest excise tax in the nation, which along with local taxes and other program costs, increase prices at the pump, according to Mische.

Cargo shipping containers are seen adjacent to storage tanks at Marathon Petroleum’s Los Angeles Refinery in Carson, Calif., on March 11, 2022. Reuters

Operating and refinery costs are also higher in California, he said.

The number of California refineries has also dropped by nearly 70 percent since 1984, from 43 to 13, Mische noted in the report.

The combination of regulations, taxes, and requirements placed on the oil and gas industry have driven up prices and taken a toll on the average working Californian who needs to drive to work, according to Mische.

“The issue is, we have Californians who are suffering,” Mische said. “They are feeling the squeeze and they’re going to feel more of the squeeze. We already have the highest cost of living in the United States. This just adds more burden onto the back of the consumer, and we can fix it.”

Vehicles pass a gas station in Rosemead, Calif., on Sept. 23, 2024. Frederic J. Brown/AFP

California is the second largest consumer of petroleum in the United States but produces less than 3 percent of the nation’s supply, the study found.

To meet the needs of drivers, utilities, and industry, the state is highly dependent on oil imports. California’s imports have increased significantly from Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and other petrostates such as Brazil, Guyana, and Ecuador, according to the report.

Nevada gas prices also hinge on California refineries, as the Silver State’s retailers get most of their supply from the state next door.

The study’s results were no surprise to industry and political leaders who are critics of Newsom’s stance on the industry.

Catherine Reheis-Boyd, director of the Western Petroleum Association in Los Angeles, said the study backs up what the association has said for years.

“It’s no secret that California has gotten in its own way when it comes to high [gas prices] and supply challenges,” Reheis-Boyd posted on X March 20.

Rigs extract oil in Culver City, Calif., on May 16, 2008. Gabriel Bouys/AFP via Getty Images

State Senate Republican Leader Brian Jones, of Santee, said 83 percent of California voters agree that gas prices are too high.

Jones told The Epoch Times in an email, “Despite knowing what’s driving costs up, Democrats refuse to fix their mistakes. In fact, they continue to double down on their war against our wallets and raise prices at the pump.”

California had the highest gas prices in the nation Tuesday, with an average of $4.85 per gallon, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA).

The national average was $3.20, AAA reported.

The second most costly gas could be found in Hawaii, where consumers paid an average of $4.52, AAA reported.

“We now know the reason our prices are $1.65 higher than the national average,” Jones added.

“Enough with the political grandstanding and games. It’s time to get to work and finally lower these prices.”

Another report, published March 18 by the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC), titled “Oil and Gas in California,” shows California’s oil and gas industry is essential to the state’s economy.

“Despite facing significant challenges, including regulatory pressures, market fluctuations, and global geopolitical tensions, the industry has continued to provide critical economic, employment, and fiscal benefit across the state,” the report stated.

The data used in the report was from 2022—the same year that the governor vowed to punish “Big Oil” for allegedly “price gouging.”

Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/02/2025 – 17:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/nRplo6q Tyler Durden

Seattle Economic Crisis: Proof That Democrat Wealth Taxes Lead To Disaster

Seattle Economic Crisis: Proof That Democrat Wealth Taxes Lead To Disaster

To look at the Pacific Northwest today one would never know that 25 years ago the region was an economic powerhouse at the forefront of technology and business innovation.  At the time Portland and Seattle were known for constant rain as well as raining cash, and the “millionaire density” of the Seattle area was at historic highs.  The tech boom and international trade with Asia had created a Silicon Valley of the northern coast.  

Companies like Nike, Starbucks, Microsoft and Amazon established corporate offices and generated tens of thousands of jobs, and many of those jobs were considered high income.  People can debate the overall effects of the population surge to the region; there are many who would argue that Washington and Oregon were better off when they were considered backwoods fishing and lumber states.  That said, it’s undeniable that for a time the Northwest was one of the most desirable and lucrative places to live in the US.  

That’s all gone now.  The wealthy are leaving Seattle like it’s a leper colony and all that’s left are millions of broke activists, poverty stricken residents and illegal immigrants.  Some blame the constant riots or the steady stream of welfare recipients. Others say that the draconian covid mandates caused people to jump ship.  However, a primary factor in businesses (and money) leaving the city was the institution of a progressive “Payroll Expense Tax”.  

The PET is a quarterly tax approved by the Seattle City Council in 2020 in the middle of the Covid hysteria.  It increases taxes on businesses depending on how many employees they hire and how much their employees get paid.  In other words, it punishes companies that hire more people and pay them a good salary.  The conditions of the PET are very similar to what Democrats say they want for their “Wealth Tax” – An extra tax on top earners and large companies beyond the income tax.  

Democrats were high on their own supply in the early 2020s and in their fervor to destroy conservatives they instituted every suicidal policy imaginable, from defunding police to near-zero prosecution for property theft under $1000.  It’s not surprising that wealth taxes were established at the same time to “stick it to the capitalists”.  What they seem to have forgotten, though, is that communist tactics don’t work if people and businesses are able to walk away, and that’s exactly what has happened in Seattle.

Larger businesses are packing up and leaving the Northwest as quickly as they arrived.  Amazon, Meta, Google and Expedia are the most prominent examples of companies exiting the Seattle labor market and hiring elsewhere to avoid the Payroll Tax, but there are numerous others

The Emerald City is facing a dangerous budget shortfall which has the council and the mayor in a panic.  Payroll Tax revenues indicate a surprise decline of over $47 million, far less than expected.  To understand why this is such a big deal, keep in mind that Democrat cities have a habit of budgeting based on projected earnings.  Meaning, they launch various programs based on the money they assume they will get instead of the money they actually have.  

Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell acknowledged that the drop in payroll tax revenue will significantly impact the city’s budget for future years. He blamed Seattle’s large businesses for shifting employees to offices outside of the city to avoid the tax (everyone warned Democrats that this would happen and they didn’t listen). 

“Large corporations should pay their fair share and we should be wary when they use job placements to avoid paying funding that our communities rely on, but we also must recognize businesses will make choices based on their bottom line…We need to design our tax policies with the full context of our economy and a comprehensive view that ensures we raise the revenue needed to support all of our residents in a progressive way, aligned with our values.”

How does the mayor suggest the problem be solved?  Well, Seattle is already stuck with a multitude of programs they slated for funding before revenues were counted.  So, Harrell hinted that “additional sources” may need to be taxed to fill the gap left by the PET.  What does that mean?  Most likely, new taxes on the middle class.  As Harrell notes…

“We will be closely monitoring OERF’s April forecast to understand the full implications and what steps are necessary to maintain a balanced budget. As we develop the City’s 2026 budget, my office will consider all options, including additional revenue sources and appropriate expense reductions, to ensure we are making the priority investments and funding the essential services that matter to our residents…”

When wealth taxes fail, the Democrat Plan B is always to feed off the middle class through methods like new sales taxes or gas taxes.  Seattle is already in the midst of an economic decline and a budget shortfall of this size is a crisis.  Not only did their new taxes cost tens of thousands of jobs for the area, but they increased their spending projections, counting their chickens before they hatched.

Insanely, Democrats in Washington still want to pass a similar Payroll Tax system for the entire state (due to their own budget problems) despite the fact that it has been an unmitigated disaster in Seattle.  The economic events in Seattle and the Pacific Northwest in general are a canary in the coal mine for the entire nation; a warning of what is to come if Democrats are allowed to continue running some of Americas biggest metropolitan areas.  

Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/02/2025 – 17:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/VWYc0af Tyler Durden

The Swirling Vortex Of Weaponized Lawfare

The Swirling Vortex Of Weaponized Lawfare

Authored by Ramesh Thakur via The Brownstone Institute,

Like a bad ‘When a chicken walked into a pub’ type of joke, when activist litigants walk into a courtroom and meet injunction-happy judges, the result is a swirling vortex of weaponised lawfare. In discussing the current jurisdictional kerfuffle between the US federal executive and judiciary, I find it impossible to overlook the total failure of the courts to protect people’s rights, dignity, and liberty under comprehensive assault from the administrative state during the Covid years. I accept the possibility that this may colour my judgment on the controversy.

It has become sadly obvious in recent years that the gravest threat to the theory and practice of democracy is not the rise of populism with wannabe fascists and neo-Nazis as their seductive tribunes, but technocratic elites with barely concealed disdain for the political beliefs and voting behaviour of the ‘deplorables.’ Moreover, as the firewalls of resistance to populist advance crumble one by one under assault from enraged voters, the final frontier of elite resistance is the courts. The legal clerisy—lawyers, law professors, and judges—is part of the ruling elite and the last line of defence for safeguarding victories already won by social justice warriors in their long march through the institutions.

Judicial Fallibility

Unlike every other profession, is the judiciary infallible? Clearly not, else they would not have been complicit in the biggest violation ever of people’s liberties and freedoms during the Covid years. Every country with a credible rule of law every so often overturns wrongful convictions from the past. Among the best-known Australian examples are those of Lindy Chamberlain and Cardinal George Pell.

As a corollary, are judges individually infallible and free of any influence of personal prejudices, beliefs, and life experiences? Again, clearly not. If they were, then in every single verdict heard by a bench of judges, verdicts would be unanimous and we could save considerable time and expense by dispensing with layers of appeal. From Australia consider the case of Cardinal Pell once again. He was convicted by jury verdict, the conviction was upheld 2-1 by the state appeals court, but overturned unanimously by the High Court of Australia (our apex court). Same laws, same evidence, different judgments.

Is every judge a paragon of judicial integrity and competence? Not so. A few are corrupt or guilty of other acts of malfeasance. Many more, I suspect, are incompetent rather than dishonest or corrupt. Mechanisms for acknowledging incompetence are fewer and less frequently invoked than for detecting and punishing corruption and malfeasance. Yet, even the latter cannot always be relied upon.

There is an interesting scandal playing out in India even now. On the night of 14 March, the official residence of a judge of the Delhi High Court,  Justice Yashwant Varma, went up in flames. Firefighters and police officers who rushed to deal with the conflagration discovered jute sacks of burnt-out cash. The Police Commissioner got in touch with the chief justice of Delhi High Court on the 15th to apprise him of developments, who in turn communicated the information to the Supreme Court of India. The Chief Justice of India established a three-judge panel to probe the matter and its report, which has been uploaded online (with redactions) in the interests of transparency given the intense public interest, substantiates that there are grounds for a full and proper inquiry. Justice Varma meanwhile has been transferred to another high court (against the protest of that court’s bar association) pending further investigations and action.

The hint of corruption would very likely have gone entirely undiscovered but for the fortuitous fire in the judge’s house. This in itself is an indictment of the inadequacy of oversight mechanisms for judges.

A final preliminary question: Unlike all other branches of government, is the judiciary collectively and are judges individually magically incapable of judicial overreach and in need of being put back in their lane? I suppose that such a perfect distribution of relative self-discipline among the branches of government is possible but, being an old cynic, forgive my scepticism. Not all judges have the necessary self-awareness and strength of character to avoid the temptation to abuse their powers and authority. On the contrary, the legal profession has a collective self-interest to expand the reach of its authority over all other sectors and, conversely, to protect itself from pushback by others.

A follow-up question is: How can the slow and deliberative process of judicial decision-making be reconciled with the need for sometimes urgent action by the executive? The judiciary is habituated into its own sequence and pace of actions. Thus for judges, the ultimate acquittal of Cardinal Pell by the High Court of Australia was a triumph of judicial institutions and process. To ordinary mortals, the process itself was a harsh punishment, and the 405 days that the aging cardinal spent behind bars was a damning miscarriage of justice.

In other words, from the date of his indictment in June 2017 through two jury trials, a first failed appeal, the final successful appeal, release from prison in April 2020, and death in January 2023 still unable to fully cleanse the taint of paedophilia, more than half of Cardinal Pell’s remaining time on earth was under malicious trial and punishment by a cadre of anti-Catholic Church activists out for blood. The nation demanded a scapegoat for the Catholic clergy’s historical sexual abuse of children. I write this not just as a non-Christian but as an atheist.

The Weaponisation of Lawfare and the Ideological Capture of Jurists

In the US, more than 125 lawsuits were filed in Trump’s first two months challenging his policies, mostly against efforts to cut government departments and agencies down to size. In just one day recently, district judges ordered a halt to Trump’s executive orders to dismantle USAID, the reinstatement of DEI grants by the education department, a pause on deportation flights of alleged Venezuelan gang members, and a stay on the ban of transgender members of the military. Was Trump wrong or exaggerating to say ‘These Judges want to assume the Powers of the Presidency,’ the latter must sometimes ‘act quickly and decisively,’ and the US ‘is in serious trouble’ if the Supreme Court refuses to ‘fix this toxic and unprecedented situation’ urgently? 

An article in the Journal of Legal Studies in January 2018 noted that, based on donations to party, a minority of 35 percent of American lawyers and a mere  15 percent of over 10,000 law professors were conservative in 2012. The three authors of the study noted that at the time, conservatives controlled all three branches of the federal government and more than two-thirds of state governorships and legislative assemblies, while voters identifying as conservative outnumbered liberals 35-24.

The pathology of ideological uniformity and misalignment with public sentiments has worsened considerably since then. Derek Muller, a law professor at Notre Dame University, examined political donations by law professors by political party (such information is public knowledge in the US) from 2017 to early 2023. To the surprise of no one, they skew overwhelmingly towards Democrats. Of the 3,284 law faculty donors in this five-year-plus period, 95.9 percent gave money only to Democrats, 2.7 percent to Republicans, and 1.5 percent to both parties. When broken down by dollar figures, 92.3 percent of donations went to Democrats and 7.7 percent to Republicans. Of the more than 100 institutions Muller looked at, every single one had more registered Democrats than Republicans in the law faculty, mostly by large margins.

Does anyone seriously believe this does not lead to an ideological disconnect between the legal-judicial clerisy in courtrooms and on the benches, and the American people?

District Judge James Boasberg ordered a halt to the deportation of over 250 illegal Venezuelans with links to the Tren de Aragua gang, a federally designated foreign terrorist organisation. Judge Boasberg is part of the Washington bubble. DC voted for Democratic candidate Kamala Harris over Trump by an overwhelming margin of 93.6-5.5 percent (with 0.9 percent write-ins). Flights already in progress were told to return. This did not happen because, the government says, the planes were already in international airspace and so the directive not to ‘remove’ them from the US had been rendered moot.

A senior Trump adviser, Stephen Miller, said a district court has ‘no ability to in any way restrain the President’s authority under the Alien Enemies Act.’ Regardless of legal scholars’ learned opinions, most voters will likely side with the administration that the scale of migration across the southern border in the Biden years does meet the threshold of ‘an invasion or predatory incursion’ under the Act, justifying their arrest and removal as ‘enemy aliens.’ Trump called Boasberg a ‘troublemaker and agitator’ Obama judge who ‘should be IMPEACHED!!!’

Critics warned of an ‘assault on the entire constitutional order in America.’ In a rare public rebuke, Chief Justice John Roberts (who stayed silent when a roll call of Democrats called for impeachment of judges) said ‘For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement’ on judicial decisions. Instead, ‘the normal appellate review process’ provides the proper remedy. On 26 March, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit upheld Boasberg’s temporary stay of deportations by a 2-1 decision.

Roberts ignores a basic cause of the looming constitutional crisis; namely, the absence of mechanisms to ensure the judiciary stays in its own lane even while admonishing the executive to stay in its lane. Separation of powers imposes limits to the jurisdictional overreach of all three branches. The judiciary cannot be the sole arbiter of its own reach and limits as well as that of Congress and the president. Who then holds the judiciary accountable to its limits? National injunctions inevitably encourage activists to lodge a case in a jurisdiction and with a judge likely to be sympathetic. They also ‘tend to force judges into making rushed, high-stakes low information decisions,’ Justice Neil Gorsuch noted in a 2020 Supreme Court judgment.

The assumption that no judge ever acts in an ideologically partisan way is demonstrably false. Events in the real world move much faster than the glacial pace of judicial proceedings. This means the Supreme Court too must move faster and decisively to rein in out-of-control judges. An alternative interpretation to the alarmist ‘constitutional crisis’ therefore is that Trump’s actions may help to restore constitutional integrity and democratic accountability by stripping power and resources from the bloated administrative state and returning them to Congress and the executive.

National injunctions from district courts are rare when Trump isn’t involved. According to an article in the Harvard Law Review last year, there were a total of 127 from 1963 to the start of 2020. More than half (64) were against the first Trump administration. In the period covering the Bush Sr. and Obama presidencies, plus Biden’s first three years, there were 32. In February alone this year there were 15 against Trump II, according to a Justice department filing in the Supreme Court.

Judge Boasberg had earlier given a get-out-of-jail-free card to FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who had altered an email in order to get a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court for surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. This was the prelude to the Russia collusion hoax that severely hobbled Trump I. Boasberg sentenced Clinesmith to probation rather than jail. He also meted out controversial sentences to protestors at the US Capitol on 6 January 2020 and ordered Mike Pence to testify before the grand jury investigating Trump’s role in those riots.

Given the composition of the Senate, any effort to impeach Judge Boasberg isn’t feasible as a political proposition. That is different from assessing the legality of the action. Impeachment can be abused when wielded as a weapon or function as a guardrail against judicial abuses. An isolated bad decision can be handled by the normal appellate review process. A pattern of rulings that gives rise to an apprehension of bias can be an impeachable offence. Moreover, the crisis has intensified to this point because of the Supreme Court’s institutional timidness-cum-cowardice.

Roberts has previously expressed concern with the ‘institutional legitimacy’ of the federal judiciary. A predictable consequence of his implicit scolding of Trump was to embolden activist judges and NGOs in their efforts to delay and obstruct the president from implementing his voter-approved policy agenda. For, contrary to his assertion, the appellate process has not been working efficiently. The Supreme Court needs to step in fast to rein in judicial overreach by district court judges and adopt orderly systems of adjudication of urgent matters.

Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) has proposed a law requiring a three-judge panel from different circuits—two district judges and one court of appeals judge—to rule on challenges to presidential orders, with the possibility of appeal directly to the Supreme Court. This might not be the best formula but does seem like an improvement on the current flawed system.

The Pathology Is Not Restricted to the US

In February 2020, Australia’s High Court decided in a controversial 4-3 split verdict in the Love v Commonwealth case that an Aboriginal Australian who is not in fact a citizen of Australia cannot be considered an ‘alien’ under the constitution. Accordingly, unlike non-Aboriginal people living here who are not citizens, Aboriginal Australians 

cannot be deported even if convicted of criminal offence. Apparently they retain some mystical inalienable connections to the land and country.

It might help readers to understand how and why this strange reading of the constitution might have come about by considering a current controversy involving one Australian law school. Over the last couple of weeks, the Australian has featured a series of articles on racial and gender indoctrination by Macquarie University’s law school courses, on pain of failing grades for wrongthink.

Some of these were written by students of that school who opted for anonymity in order to avoid retribution. Several of the descriptions for the PhD in law are incoherent and grammatically challenged. Often the units have nothing whatsoever to do with the core subject of the course for which they have enrolled. Some of tomorrow’s judges will be graduates of these schools. Can they be expected to apply the law free of indoctrinated prejudices?

In a neat closing of the circle, one unnamed student wrote that students are required:

‘to write an essay reflecting on how one or more of these critical legal studies theories was relevant to our PhD topic. And it was made quite clear to me that you were expected to include something like this in your thesis too, regardless of what the topic is.’ 

Queensland University’s James Allan, one of the very few conservative law professors in Australia, points out that when Prime Minister (PM) Boris Johnson prorogued the UK Parliament in order to get Brexit through, ‘all Remainer UK Supreme Court judges overturned three centuries of precedent and ruled’ his action to be unconstitutional even though the country has no written constitution. Despite this relatively recent precedent from the mother of parliamentary democracy, the Canadian Supreme Court upheld PM Justin Trudeau’s power to prorogue Parliament which he had done so that his government could avert a no-confidence motion before his party had had time to choose a new leader under whom to face the next election (since called for on 28 April).

Indeed, the fact that Mark Carney, who has never even contested let alone won an election, can be installed as PM is itself a sad indictment of the state of Canadian democracy. The leadership change has completely transformed the election dynamics. Doesn’t this amount to judicial interference in Canada’s elections?

As many Western democracies reach an inflection point on mass immigration, courts have become the place where democracies go to die. UK PM Sir Keir Starmer, possibly the strongest supporter of the rule of law among world leaders and himself a human rights lawyer, complained on 13 March about ‘A sort of cottage industry of checkers and blockers using taxpayer money to stop the government delivering on taxpayer priorities.’

Elite Contempt for the People

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that judges increasingly reflect a more general elite contempt for the people that extends to the political choices made by people. Why does Trump horrify the rest of the Western democratic world so much? Well, we are beginning to understand. He says what he means, does what he says, and wants to accomplish what he promised to do in the one term of four years available to him. The dominant British and European approach to exercising power could not be more different. The established major parties treat citizens as absolute mugs, campaign in poetry to promise voters whatever they want, then, once in power, govern in prose to do whatever ‘we the elite’ want. The next election becomes an exercise in rinse and repeat.

Exhibit A of this treat-voters-as-mushrooms (keep them in the dark and feed them manure) strategy is PM Starmer with his loveless landslide in the UK. 

Exhibit B is wannabe Chancellor Friedrich Merz in Germany

Exhibit C, PM Anthony Albanese here in Australia. Like Germany and the UK, the starkest evidence of the reality of Uniparty in Australia is how PM Scott Morrison, having won an election on opposition to climate change lunacy, embraced the insanity of an artificial deadline for net zero at the Glasgow COP summit in October 2021 that was an equal opportunity offender to all voters and he duly lost the next election six months later. Yet, Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton refuses to abandon it despite the rest of the world moving on, especially since Trump pulled the US out of the green energy scam.

In Australia and the UK, voters have gotten tax-and-spend, big government, mass immigration, and net-zero policies regardless of which party they chose at elections with their campaign promises. Centre-right parties in Germany’s new Bundestag got 49 percent of the vote compared to 28 percent for the Greens and SPD. Yet it’s the latter whose policies are being enacted by Merz, using a constitutional amendment passed by the outgoing Bundestag full of MPs already voted out. And all in the name of safeguarding democracy! I wonder what Vice President JD Vance has to say about this? In nearby Romania, democracy protection means cancelling the leading candidate from the presidential election, again vindicating Vance’s criticism of the corruption of democracy across Europe.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/02/2025 – 17:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/7spZ1Tm Tyler Durden

Alec Baldwin Says Quiet Part Out Loud As Democrats Become More Unhinged 

Alec Baldwin Says Quiet Part Out Loud As Democrats Become More Unhinged 

As the Democratic Party spirals into disarray—polling in freefall, far-left activists firebombing Tesla showrooms and vehicles, and USAID funds cut for its sprawling NGO network used for domestic color revolution operations—struggling actor Alec Baldwin has openly said the quiet part out loud: “You can see now that we are in a pre-civil war culture.” 

The Hollywood elitist rambled on for a few minutes in a video posted on Instagram, adding: “And watching this show really reminded me of how we are in a very similar state now in a pre-Civil War culture, in a pre-Civil War environment.” 

Baldwin’s comments merely reflect the rudderless Democratic Party as its back is against the wall, growing increasingly desperate by the day as its rogue political machine (billionaire-funded) falls apart—with USAID funding eliminated, DOGE uncovering fraud involving Social Security numbers handed out to migrants like candy (which, by the way, allegedly allows migrants to vote in elections), and other Marxist-aligned, anti-American programs that were in place to undermine the nation. 

Never forget just how cringe Baldwin is… 

One X user perfectly explained why Baldwin is reading from a script:

The “pre-civil war” panic is a familiar script from Hollywood elites who spent four years cheering riots, censorship, and impeachments when they didn’t get their way. But now that Trump’s back in office and the populist tide is rising, suddenly it’s dangerous polarization.

In truth, the cultural divide wasn’t created by Trump, it was exposed by him. And people like Baldwin don’t fear civil war, they fear accountability. They fear a public no longer hypnotised by their narratives, no longer obedient to their values.

If anything, it’s the ruling class and its institutions, Hollywood included, that have been waging a cultural war for decades. Trump just stopped apologising for fighting back.

Just as the far-left corporate media cheered on domestic terrorism against Tesla, unhinged celebrities like Baldwin are now pushing propaganda warfare against the American people. It’s time to break free from the matrix. 

Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/02/2025 – 16:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/lvia5tb Tyler Durden

Will Today Go Down In History As The Beginning Of A New Era?

Will Today Go Down In History As The Beginning Of A New Era?

To paraphrase Michael Every’s earlier take, “will today go down in history, marking the end of one era and the beginning of another?” 

That’s the question asked by DB’s Jim Reid who notes that only time, and subsequent negotiations, will tell. However, as the DB credit strategist notes, “tariff announcements today could well take us into uncharted territory.”

According to Deutsche Bank’s calculations, the previously announced measures already bring the US to a 12% average tariff rate, the highest since World War II. 

And then, today’s announcement could increase this to 18%, and potentially even higher if the reported near-universal 20% tariff option is implemented. 

This would approach the levels seen in the early 1930s after the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, though likely remaining below the very protectionist rates of the early 20th century. 

This earlier period has been cited by Trump and Lutnick as a golden era for the US (presumably this excludes the Great Depression that followed the Smoot Hawley protectionism). Reid’s points out that the recent Lutnick and Bessent podcasts highlight Lutnick’s emphasis on tariffs as the foundation the US economy was built on, noting the absence of income tax until 1913 during what he considers the nation’s wealthiest period. 

He argues that post-World War II tariff reductions were a strategic move to aid global reconstruction, with the understanding that other countries would maintain higher tariffs. 

However, he now believes this imbalance has persisted too long, requiring a new approach.

In one respect, we’ve already returned to McKinley-era levels. Because trade represents a larger share of the economy today, Reid notes that tariff revenue as a percentage of GDP is already set to slightly exceed 1%, based on the announced tariffs on China (20%), Canada and Mexico (partial 25%), and steel, aluminum, and autos (25%). This puts us back in McKinley territory, and we’re likely to surpass it today (chart right below).

As such, Reid concludes that “any announcement today will be subject to negotiation, but the starting point will likely be era-defining.”

Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/02/2025 – 15:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/AeUC2Wq Tyler Durden

New FAA Rule Allows Private Jet Owners To Hide Travel Information From Public

New FAA Rule Allows Private Jet Owners To Hide Travel Information From Public

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

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is implementing a data privacy policy that allows people with private jets to hide travel information from the public.

Private jets are seen on the tarmac at Friedman Memorial Airport ahead of the Allen & Company Sun Valley Conference in Sun Valley, Idaho on July 4, 2022. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Private aircraft owners and operators can now electronically request that the FAA withhold their aircraft registration information from public view,” the agency said in a March 28 statement.

“Starting today, they can submit a request through the Civil Aviation Registry Electronic Services (CARES) to withhold this information from public display on all FAA websites.”

In its statement, the FAA said the data protection decision was taken based on a privacy provision included in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024.

The provision allows aircraft owners to request that certain personally identifiable information not be made publicly available via FAA websites.

“The FAA will publish a request for comment in the Federal Register to seek input on this measure, including whether removing the information would affect the ability of stakeholders to perform necessary functions, such as maintenance, safety checks, and regulatory compliance,” said the agency.

“The FAA is also evaluating whether to default to withholding the personally identifiable information of private aircraft owners and operators from the public aircraft registry.”

While some say that such trackers allow people to record carbon emission info, there have been concerns that monitoring aircraft movements puts at risk the people who use that mode of transportation, often high-profile individuals.

The new rule could negatively affect jet trackers that use FAA information as a key source to track and report flight details of famous personalities.

In December 2023, attorneys for Taylor Swift issued a cease-and-desist letter to a university student, blaming his automated tracking of her private jet travel for revealing the celebrity’s whereabouts to stalkers.

The letter accused the student of “willful and repeated harassment” as well as “intentional, offensive, and outrageous conduct and consistent violations” of Swift’s privacy.

Attorneys alleged that the student essentially offered “individuals intent on harming her, or with nefarious or violent intentions, a roadmap to carry out their plans.”

In 2022, social media platform X, then named Twitter, suspended several accounts that tracked private planes, including those of Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk. The platform prohibited the sharing of real-time location data, citing a “risk of physical harm.”

Some cite the high carbon emissions to question the integrity of wealthy celebrities and politicians who advocate fighting climate change while flying around in private jets.

In 2023, Klara Maria Schenk, a transport campaigner for Greenpeace’s European mobility campaign, called the use of private jets at the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting a “distasteful masterclass of hypocrisy” since the WEF said it is committed to tackling the so-called human-induced or anthropogenic climate concerns.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/02/2025 – 14:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/FwJd6ma Tyler Durden

Judge Blocks Trump Admin From Firing Federal Employees On Probation In 19 States

Judge Blocks Trump Admin From Firing Federal Employees On Probation In 19 States

Authored by Katabella Roberts via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal judge on April 1 indefinitely blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from quickly firing thousands of probationary federal workers in 19 states and Washington, narrowing a nationwide order issued last month.

Protesters hold signs at a rally in support of federal workers at the Office of Personnel Management in Washington, on March 4, 2025. Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images

U.S. District Judge James Bredar in Baltimore, Maryland, had already ruled on March 13 that the administration should have provided advance notice when it terminated at least 11,000 workers without notifying states and local governments in advance.

The judge had ordered the administration to reinstate the fired workers at 18 agencies by March 17.

Bredar’s latest decision replaces that order but also covers two additional agencies: the Defense Department and the Office of Personnel Management.

In handing down his decision, the judge said that the federal government may “terminate probationary employees en masse (i.e., dismiss them via a reduction in force, or ‘RIF’)” but that when it does, it “must follow certain laws and regulations.”

Recently, government agencies executed a series of mass terminations, but when they did so, on the record before the Court, they failed to follow mandatory RIF procedures,” the judge wrote.

Bredar found the Trump administration “probably broke the laws that regulate en masse terminations of government employees, and this to the continuing and irreparable harm of the Plaintiff States.”

He noted, however, that his order only applies to employees who either live or work in the mostly Democratic-led states that, along with Washington, D.C., sued over the mass firings.

“Perhaps a broader injunction would be in order if this action were on behalf of the thousands of employees who were laid off, the circumstances of each likely being similar if not identical to those of the others, and there being little doubt that the harms visited on some were representative of those experienced by all, or almost all. But this is not that case,” Bredar wrote.

“Only states have sued here, and only to vindicate their interests as states. They are not proxies for the workers.”

Agencies Covered by Court Ruling

The judge noted that while “each state is entitled to decide for itself whether it will seek relief in the present circumstances,” it would “be inappropriate for the Court to fashion relief having the consequence that decisions properly reserved to the non-party states are effectively, and unnecessarily overruled by this Court.”

Bredar’s ruling covers workers at the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs.

Additionally, terminated probationary workers at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, General Services Administration, Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Agency for International Development are covered by the orders, along with those from the Defense Department and the Office of Personnel Management.

The employees covered by the order must work in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, or Washington, D.C.

Bredar’s ruling is in response to a March 6 lawsuit filed by a coalition of mostly Democratic-led states who sued nearly two dozen federal agencies over the probationary worker firings.

In their lawsuit, the states, led by Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, argued the move was illegal because the agencies had failed to comply with legal requirements for RIFs, including providing 60 days of advance notice to workers and states.

The Trump administration has appealed Bredar’s earlier decision, claiming the firings were lawful and that the judge lacked the power to require workers to be reinstated.

A U.S. appeals court panel earlier in March declined to put Bredar’s ruling on hold.

The Epoch Times has contacted the White House and the Maryland Attorney General’s Office for comment.

Zachary Stieber and Reuters contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/02/2025 – 13:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/VGL3omX Tyler Durden

Will Today’s Trump Moves Force The Fed To Act?

Will Today’s Trump Moves Force The Fed To Act?

Authored by Peter Tchir via Academy Securities,

Apparently today at 4:00 pm we will learn the details of this wave of tariffs.

Treasury Secretary said yesterday that this will represent a “cap” on tariffs and basically the starting point of negotiations from here (we will see if that messaging sticks).

What I think we know:

  • Relatively little “negotiating” has occurred, which I believe is not what the administration expected. Other countries are “playing” the President differently than they did during Trump 1.0. It also probably doesn’t help that this time around, there is no “divide and conquer”.

  • Other countries are already having conversations about trade, bypassing the U.S.  Apparently, Japan, China and South Korea are talking. That makes sense as the U.S. policy toward Taiwan is unclear and that could dramatically impact South Korea and Japan. Canada and Mexico are apparently having discussions. I’m sure Europe (or some countries within Europe) are having a variety of trade dialogues (it is really, really, really important to notice that they do not want to spend their increased military spending on U.S. equipment – to the extent they can avoid it).

  • Other countries are likely going through their tariffs, line by line, estimating which ones they can give in on, with minimal impact and which ones are important. Given that the U.S. is fighting with everyone and allegedly still hasn’t finalized its plan, we are likely to not fare well at the granular level.

  • The Geopolitical actions so far – from NATO, to Russia/Ukraine, to 51st State, to “take” Greenland, etc., have only added to the questions about dealing with the U.S. that other countries have.

  • The U.S. does not have a lot of excess capacity (it will take time to build) and so far no legislation on the deregulation front  

Deliberate/Thoughtful Tariffs :

  • Risk Assets can and should rally. If these sort of tariffs had been the starting point, we could probably move on. But they weren’t and coupled with the issues listed above, I think the rally will stall. It will need indications that global tensions with trading partners have eased to reduce. It will be curious to see how his base responds? Will there be any erosion of the aura of “the art of the deal”?

Medium Level of Tariffs:

  • Anything less than 15% to 20% across the board tariffs. I expect slight risk asset rally (market seem desperate to rally on certainty) but think that fades quickly and we drift lower, trading on headlines going forward. 

Aggressive Tariffs

  • Immediate sell-off in risk assets. Stocks drop 3% or more quickly with ongoing selling pressure. 10-year treasury likely breaks 4%.

I hear a lot of chatter that the policies will force the Fed to act

Maybe but, I think the Fed will act late and it will be too small relative to the total revamp of global trade to stop the slide. 

There were a lot of easier ways to get the Fed to cut – like stick to “drill baby drill”, reduce regulations (ideally via legislation as opposed to executive orders), etc. 

The whole “this is all to get the Fed to cut” is incredibly risky (who knows what was set in motion) and only seems to have gotten traction because Wall Street doesn’t want to believe how much this administration believes in the benefits of tariffs.

Hopefully I will be disappointed and wrong and markets can rally and threats to the global economy can be greatly reduced, but I think once we get beyond debating the tariffs, we will be forced to digest the mess that global trade is in, and that cannot be good for corporate earnings or the economy.

For better or for worse, here is Academy on Bloomberg TV this morning, where, the jetlag worked in my favor as I was up at 3 am anyways 

Should be an interesting few days, to say the least!

Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/02/2025 – 12:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/1UXlHD8 Tyler Durden

Tesla Shares Rise Over Report That Musk To ‘Step Back’ From DOGE

Tesla Shares Rise Over Report That Musk To ‘Step Back’ From DOGE

Shares of Tesla rose on Wednesday following an anonymously sourced Politico report (keeping in mind Musk just yanked millions in government ‘subscriptions’ from them) that President Trump has told his inner circle that Musk would be stepping back from his advisory role in the coming weeks.

Musk, who Politico describes as “governing partner, ubiquitous cheerleader and Washington hatchet man” (totally not salty), claims that Trump “remains pleased with Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency initiative but both men have decided in recent days that it will soon be time for Musk to return to his businesses and take on a supporting role.

Then Politico gets extra nasty – writing that “Musk’s looming retreat comes as some Trump administration insiders and many outside allies have become frustrated with his unpredictability and increasingly view the billionaire as a political liability, a dynamic that was thrown into stark relief Tuesday when a conservative judge Musk vocally supported lost his bid for a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat by 10 points.”

One anonymous official allegedly told Politico that Musk is likely to retain an informal advisory role and continue to be an occasional face around the White House, while another said that anyone who thinks Musk is going to disappear entirely from Trump’s orbit is “fooling themselves.”

As we noted above, shares of Musk-owned Tesla rose more than 5% on the report.

While Polymarket odds that he’ll be out as the head of DOGE in 2025 spiked as well.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/02/2025 – 12:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/bn7JvDT Tyler Durden