Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Authored by John Cody via ReMix News,

In the run-up to major elections across the West, including the U.S. presidential election and the EU parliament elections in June, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán warned that conservatives face unprecedented pressure from liberals, who are lashing out over fears they may lose power.

During his speech at the third annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Budapest, Hungary, Orbán described five methods of oppression being deployed by liberals to silence the opposition, with the Hungarian prime minister noting that some of the most advanced forms of oppression, including court action and intelligence service spying, are already being deployed against conservatives across the West.

1. Change the meaning of words

The first step Orbán describes is liberal actions designed to change the meaning of words and phrases in order to mislead the people, with the issue of migration being the most substantial example of this trend.

“The first step of progressive liberals, their oppression, is to make normal mean the exact opposite. War is peace. That is what progressives still say today. The Peace Facility. That’s the name of the Brussels financial fund from which the most destructive weapons are sent to the front. Migration is a resource, they say, while crime is rising, the threat of terror is increasing and trust is being drained from our societies,” said Orbán.

Orban noted that Hungary has been able to withstand this sea change, making it a “unique location in all of Europe.”

“It is the fact that, while the whole of Europe is being swamped by an ocean of progressive liberalism, a conservative island has survived (in Hungary), an Island of Deference, defying the liberal tide, the Brussels blast, and the Washington hurricane. Not only defying but surviving, even thriving, even succeeding, even triumphing and triumphing again and again.”

2. Invert everything that is normal

The second step on the path to liberals maintaining power is to invert everything that is normal, including sexuality, education, family life, love of country, and ethnic homogeneity.

“The second step is to start spreading this inverted normality by state means. Anyone who thinks otherwise is problematic. There is something wrong with that. Anyone who disagrees is either ignorant or insane. The perception must be that listening to them would lead to some fatal disaster,” said Orbán.

This method helps tear families apart, mock cultural and national traditions, and normalize behavior that up until just a few decades ago was considered beyond the pale, Orbán told the conference, adding that liberal subversion had led to “crashing birthrates, soaring divorces, broken families, and a failing education system that focuses more on ideology than academic greatness.”

“All of this is fertile breeding ground for left-wing parties to thrive and paint conservatives and the right as “backward” and deserving of political suppression and even outright violence,” he said.

3. Make the right into a “security threat”

The next step is to create an aura of “danger” around right-wing and conservative views, which will help the state justify any action taken against conservatives. In the United States, this includes, for example, portraying supporters of Donald Trump as terrorists, or equating any right-wing view as “Nazi.”

“You are made to believe that you hold dangerous views and that you are also a security risk. They send some kind of democracy watchdog at you, which then finds out that you do not share the views of normality they preach, and are therefore a radical whose freedom of speech can be safely restricted,” Orban said.

This particular step has played out across social media, where conservatives and the right face enormous censorship. However, NGOs and organizations, many of whom are lavishly funded by governments, corporations, and billionaire oligarchs such as George Soros, are actively working to silence and persecute conservatives. As Remix News has reported, they are deeply embedded in the major social media networks, and work to police conservative thought and views.

Demonizing conservatives was also evident just last week in Brussels after another conservative conference in which Orbán and many other high-profile politicians from Europe were speaking, was shut down by the local mayor citing public safety concerns.

It took the lawyers of the National Conservatism conference to file last-minute motions in Belgium’s top administrative court to ensure the conference could continue for its second day.

4. The press goes on the attack

In the fourth step, the liberal press targets you, often personally, while the state turns civilians into a mob of informers, Orbán warned.

“They deploy activists who use legal means to silence you. Then, the often anonymous profiles on the internet come to denounce you on social media, while a plethora of civilians bombard the courts and state bodies with complaints and denunciations,” he added.

5. Send the authorities in

“And if you still have the stomach for it, and if you’re still standing, the fifth step is for the public authorities to spring into action. They receive so many complaints and denunciations that they are obliged to investigate you, unfortunately, so they become the private institutions of the progressives,” the Hungarian prime minister explained.

“They will find that the accusations of the press, the concerns of the watchdogs, are well founded, they will prosecute yo,u and you will eventually be silenced by state means. That is what they do to Hungary in Brussels, and that is what they do to conservatives in progressive, liberal European capitals.”

Orbán noted that the same thing was happening in the United States where the judiciary was being utilized in an attempt to get President Trump off the ballot for the upcoming presidential election.

He also pointed to the German government’s actions against the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. Due unique laws in Germany, the authorities have been able to label the AfD a “definite case of right-wing extremism” in key eastern states. In turn, this gives intelligence services authority to monitor communications, including phone calls, messages, and emails, between AfD politicians and members — all without a warrant.

“This is what happened in the European Union when they tried to ban Tucker Carlson by administrative means. It is happening in Germany, where political parties are being monitored by the secret services. And it happened in Finland when they wanted to condemn a politician and a bishop for quoting Scripture. Ladies and gentlemen, that is where we are.”

A new era for Europe

The Hungarian leader expressed hope, however, that the tide could turn should the people desire it at the forthcoming polls across the West, including the European Parliamentary elections in June.

He said the elections could help “end an inglorious era of Western civilization” and help defeat a “progressive liberal hegemony” that has only served to bring “war, chaos, and unrest” to Europe, as well as a collapsing economy and confusion to the world.

Instead, the European electorate could vote in favor of a new “world spirit” that promotes nation-state sovereignty as its core principle.

“In that world, national interest will determine the movement of states, and each independent nation will act in its own national interest. I also believe that in a sovereign world order, the real sovereign is the people, as our guests would say, popular sovereignty.

“I hope that it will no longer be NGOs of all kinds, big business, media outlets, dubious experts, and out-of-touch academics who tell us what is right and what should be done, but elected representatives and politicians elected by the people.”

In a rallying cry to fellow conservatives, Orbán urged them to “saddle up, arm up, take to the battlefield, and let the electoral battle begin,” calling for a “return to the peaceful and secure path that made the West great.”

“Make America Great Again, Make Europe Great Again. Go, Donald Trump! Go, European sovereignists!”

Read more here...

A survey by YouGov conducted on April 24 has found that six in ten people in the United Kingdom think that the Rwanda plan will not be effective in stopping migrants from crossing the English Channel between France and the UK.

As Statista's Anna Fleck shows in the following chart, this figure rises to over seven in ten respondents among Labour voters and Lib Dem voters.

While Conservatives were more tied, only a third of the party's politically-aligned respondents said that they thought the Rwanda plan would be effective.

You will find more infographics at Statista

In a different survey, carried out by think tank British Futures in collaboration with Focaldata, respondents were asked what would be needed in order for the Rwanda scheme to count as a success.

Four in ten respondents said that they would need to see small boat arrivals at least halve and evidence that people were deterred by the threat of removal to Rwanda to consider the plan successful.

Only a quarter of respondents said that getting a plane to take off carrying migrants from the UK to Rwanda would be their idea of success, while another quarter of respondents said that they were opposed to the Rwanda scheme and could not envisage a successful outcome from it.

Authored by Will Porter via The Libertarian Institute,

The Ukrainian military has opted to withdraw its US-supplied M1 Abrams main battle tanks from the front lines due to the threat posed by Russian drones, American officials told the Associated Press. Kiev has reportedly lost several of the tanks since their long-delayed deployment in February.

The decision came as Moscow increasingly relies on UAVs for round-the-clock surveillance and air strikes, making the Abrams "too difficult… to operate without detection or coming under attack," the AP reported on Thursday. The tanks have been removed from the fight for an unspecified period as Kiev and Washington work to "reset tactics," Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Adm. Christopher Grady told the outlet.

Photo published by the Russian military reportedly shows a US-made Abrams main battle tank after it was crippled during fighting near the city of Avdeevka.

"When you think about the way the fight has evolved, massed armor in an environment where unmanned aerial systems are ubiquitous can be at risk," Grady added. "Now, there is a way to do it. We’ll work with our Ukrainian partners, and other partners on the ground, to help them think through how they might use that, in that kind of changed environment now, where everything is seen immediately."

Though the United States agreed to provide 31 Abrams in January 2023, the armor took months to arrive, and even longer before they first saw combat in February. Ukraine has so far lost at least five of the tanks, according to the AP, with Russian forces claiming several kills since the Abrams was first spotted on the battlefield. At least one of the tanks was reportedly crippled with a cheaply made kamikaze drone, part of Moscow’s growing fleet of surveillance and armed UAVs.

The ubiquity of drones in the conflict has meant "there isn’t open ground that you can just drive across without fear of detection," another senior defense official told the AP, explaining the decision to sideline the Abrams. 

The move comes as Washington steps up assistance to Ukrainian troops following a lull in support, with Congress passing a massive $61 billion military aid package last weekend after months of gridlock in the House.

The Pentagon immediately approved a $1 billion shipment on Wednesday, including artillery rounds, air defense missiles, infantry fighting vehicles and a long list of other gear – the largest round of US aid in several months. Another $6 billion weapons package was announced on Friday which is to include munitions for the US-made Patriot air defense system.

Following a failed counteroffensive last summer, Kiev has repeatedly urged for additional weapons from its NATO sponsors, warning it would continue to lose ground to Russian forces without Western-made aircraft, armor and long-range missiles.

On Wednesday, the US State Department revealed it had already sent Ukraine its first shipment of longer-range ATACMS missiles last month, saying the decision was not announced “in order to maintain operational security for Ukraine at their request.”

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson,

Details of the recent limited Israeli retaliatory strike against Iranian anti-aircraft missile batteries at Isfahan are still sketchy. But nonetheless, we can draw some conclusions.

Israel’s small volley of missiles hit their intended targets, to the point of zeroing in on the very launchers designed to stop such incoming ordnance.

The target was near the Natanz enrichment facility. That proximity was by design. Israel showed Iran it could take out the very anti-missile battery designed to thwart an attack on its nearby nuclear facility.

The larger message sent to the world was that Israel could send a retaliatory barrage at Iranian nuclear sites with reasonable assurances that the incoming attacks could not be stopped. By comparison, Iran’s earlier attack on Israel was much greater and more indiscriminate. It was also a huge flop, with an estimated 99 percent of the more than 320 drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles failing to hit their planned targets.

Moreover, it was reported that more than 50 percent of Iran’s roughly 115-120 ballistic missiles failed at launch or malfunctioned in flight.

Collate these facts, and it presents a disturbing corrective to Iran’s non-stop boasts of soon possessing a nuclear arsenal that will obliterate the Jewish state.

Consider further the following nightmarish scenarios: Were Iranian nuclear-tipped missiles ever launched at Israel, they could pass over, in addition to Syria and Iraq, either Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the West Bank, Gaza, or all four. In the cases of Jordan and Saudi Arabia, such trajectories would constitute an act of war, especially considering that some of Iran’s recent aerial barrages were intercepted and destroyed over Arab territory well before they reached Israel.

Iran’s strike prompted Arab nations, the US, the UK, and France to work in concert to destroy almost all of Iran’s drones. For Iran, that is a premonition of the sort of sophisticated aerial opposition it might face if it ever decided to stage a nuclear version.

Even if half of Iran’s ballistic missiles did launch successfully, only a handful apparently neared their intended targets—in sharp contrast to Israel’s successful attack on Iranian missile batteries. Is it thus conceivable that any Iranian-nuclear-tipped missile launched toward Israel might pose as great a threat to Iran itself or its neighbors as to Israel?

And even if such missiles made it into the air and even if they successfully traversed Arab airspace, there is still an overwhelming chance they would be neutralized before detonating above Israel.

Any such launch would warrant an immediate Israeli response. And the incoming bombs and missiles would likely have a 100 percent certainty of evading Iran’s countermeasures and hitting their targets.

Now that the soil of both Iran and Israel is no longer sacred and immune from attack, the mystique of the Iranian nuclear threat has dissipated.

It should be harder for the theocracy to shake down Western governments for hostage bribes, sanctions relief, and Iran-deal giveaways on the implied threat of Iran successfully nuking the Jewish state.

The new reality is that Iran has goaded an Israel that has numerous nuclear weapons and dozens of nuclear-tipped missiles in hardened silos and on submarines. Tehran has zero ability to stop any of these missiles or sophisticated fifth-generation Israeli aircraft armed with nuclear bombs and missiles.

Iran must now fear that if it launched 2-3 nuclear missiles, there would be overwhelming odds that they would either fail at launch, go awry in the air, implode inside Iran, be taken down over Arab territory by Israel’s allies, or be knocked down by the tripartite Israel anti-missile defense system.

Add it all up, and the Iranian attack on Israel seems a historic blunder. It showed the world the impotence of an Iranian aerial assault at the very time it threatens to go nuclear. It revealed that an incompetent Iran may be as much a threat to itself as to its enemies. It opened up a new chapter in which its own soil, thanks to its attack on Israel, is no longer off limits to any Western power.

Its failure to stop a much smaller Israel response, coupled with the overwhelming success of Israel and its allies in stopping a much larger Iranian attack, reminds the Iranian autocracy that its shrill rhetoric is designed to mask its impotence and to hide its own vulnerabilities from its enemies.

And the long-suffering Iranian people?

The truth will come out that its own theocracy hit the Israeli homeland with negligible results and earned a successful, though merely demonstrative, Israeli response in return.

So Iranians will learn their homeland is now vulnerable and, for the future, no longer off limits.

And they will conclude that Israel has more effective allies than Iran and that their own ballistic missiles may be more suicidal than homicidal.

As a result, they may conclude that the real enemies of the Iranian nation are not the Jewish people of Israel after all, but their own unhinged Islamist theocrats.

"The marriage of ineptitude and high self-esteem is really the marker of our time," explains Tucker Carlson as part of his wide-ranging discussion with Joe Rogan.

Reflecting on the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Karine Jean-Pierre, Carlson remarks that "I've nothing against dumb people at all. My dogs are dumb and I love my dogs..."

"I'm not attacking [AOC] for being dumb, and the White House Press Secretary is in the same category, but the idea that dumb person has no idea she's dumb, she really thinks like she won the prize, she's the most impressive, like:

"I'm White House Press Secretary because I'm the best talker in America."

It's so crazy and yet the smartest people I know are very often sort of, they have humility."

Watch the brief discussion below:

Tucker Carlson about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Karine Jean-Pierre: "The marriage of ineptitude and high self-esteem is really the marker of our time. I've nothing against dumb people at all. My dogs are dumb and I love my dogs....I'm not attacking her for being dumb but the… pic.twitter.com/aL9PyyWyyf

Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times,

The Supreme Court indicated on April 25 that it would issue a narrow ruling refining the scope of presidential immunity while leaving the details of former President Donald Trump’s other legal battles up to lower courts.

The most immediate effect of their decision on President Trump’s legal battles would be to delay his Washington case, where his immunity appeal originated. That trial was scheduled to start on March 4 but, more recently, observers have been questioning whether it will even start before the election.

Sending the case back to D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan would presumably force her to continue pre-trial proceedings with an added layer: Determining how to square Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment with the Supreme Court’s new definition of immunity.

Based on their April 25 questions, the justices are expected to distinguish between official and unofficial acts while ruling that presidents enjoy some immunity for the official ones. But it’s unclear how specific they will be in their description and whether they'll provide enough instructions for the lower court to avoid yet another appeal that could once again reach the Supreme Court.

“The Supreme Court could remand the immunity case with very little, if any, instruction, let the district court come up with its opinion, and then let the appellate court deal with it again,” John Shu, a constitutional law expert who served in both Bush administrations, told The Epoch Times. He added, “I certainly hope that doesn’t happen, because we’d end up right where we are today.”

Even if the case does proceed to trial, it’s questionable how effective it will be without some of the indicted actions that President Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, said were private and therefore outside the scope of immunity. Michael Dreeben, who argued for Mr. Smith, said the Justice Department was willing to proceed with a weakened indictment.

Perhaps previewing the court’s opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts worried that without official acts, the trial court may be proceeding with a “one-legged stool.” Mr. Sauer responded that he didn’t think the case “would be able to go forward.”

Mark Miller, senior counsel at the Pacific Legal Foundation, told The Epoch Times that Justice Roberts could require a special interrogatory verdict form in which the jury is asked to distinguish between official and nonofficial conduct in weighing President Trump’s case.

State of Trump’s Other Cases

It’s difficult to predict how the court’s decision would impact President Trump’s other ongoing criminal cases. Their future may hinge on the justices’ particular phrasing rather than merely distinguishing between official and non-official acts.

The Georgia election case is the most likely to be impacted by the decision since the accusations are most similar to the Washington trial, which will likely loom large in the justices’ deliberations.

But as the court indicated, their eventual opinion will have long-lasting impacts on other cases. “We’re writing a rule for the ages,” Justice Neil Gorsuch told Mr. Dreeben. The opinion would presumably ripple through multiple levels of the justice system as well. In an exchange with Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Mr. Dreeben acknowledged that immunity would apply to both state and federal prosecutions.

On the day of the oral argument, President Trump was facing state charges related to his purported attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election with a “hush money” payment to adult film actress Stephanie Clifford. In that case, he tried raising presidential immunity as a reason to exclude certain evidence since it came from his official communications channels as president.

New York Judge Juan Merchan said the motion was filed too late but it nevertheless highlighted the complicated nature of President Trump’s cases as they relate to immunity. While the alleged payment to Ms. Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels, was made before the election, the purported falsification of documents didn’t occur until after he took office.

President Trump theoretically could appeal a conviction in New York based on the Supreme Court’s decision. It’s unclear, however, whether the payments would fall under the type of immunity that the Supreme Court eventually granted.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis testifies during a hearing in the case of the State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump at the Fulton County Courthouse in Atlanta on Feb. 15, 2024. (Alyssa Pointer/Pool via Getty Images)

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis requested the Georgia trial start in August but that seemed increasingly unlikely after information surfaced about her affair with Nathan Wade, one of her top prosecutors.

“That’s not even going to ... start before the election,” Article III Project senior counsel Will Chamberlain told The Epoch Times.

Kevin O'Brien, a former assistant U.S. attorney, similarly told The Epoch Times that “no one” knows when the Georgia trial will start. “Even under the best of circumstances, it wasn’t going to start until next year,” he said.

Post-Election Fallout

If the Georgia trial proceeded, Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee would presumably need to parse out that indictment like Judge Chutkan would with the one in Washington.

Besides President Trump, more than a dozen others were named in the Georgia indictment. Those included former aides like former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Experts like South Texas College of Law Professor Josh Blackman and Mr. Chamberlain suggested it was unlikely the immunity decision would afford substantial protection to defendants other than President Trump.

Mr. Meadows filed an amicus brief in which he told the Supreme Court that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution made him immune from charges in Fulton County because they “arise from his official acts as Chief of Staff.” It’s unclear how the court will rule or affirm criminal immunity for advisers, if at all.

“The Court should therefore take care to ensure that it leaves intact the robust immunity from state prosecution afforded under the Supremacy Clause, particularly as it relates to subordinate federal officials,” he said.

Then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows talks to reporters at the White House in Washington, on Oct. 21, 2020. (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

President Trump’s remaining federal case in Florida involves his handling of classified documents and was initially scheduled to start on May 20, but that appeared to be in limbo. The Supreme Court is expected to issue an opinion in June, meaning that a delayed trial in Florida could see an attempt by President Trump to raise legal arguments from the justices’ opinions.

As in the New York case, it appeared that President Trump could appeal a would-be conviction depending on the scope of immunity provided by the Supreme Court’s decision. “It would definitely impact [the Florida and Georgia cases] because both of those deal with what Trump and his lawyers would argue are official acts,” constitutional attorney Gayle Trotter told The Epoch Times.

In February, President Trump asked Florida Judge Aileen Cannon to dismiss 32 counts in his indictment based on presidential immunity. She has yet to issue a decision on that motion.

Regardless of how the justices rule on immunity, oral argument raised the prospect that presidents can override the effects of state and federal prosecutions by pardoning themselves.

Assuming any of his trials extend past his would-be inauguration, it’s questionable whether he could use his pardon authority on himself.

Justice Gorsuch noted that “happily,” the question of a president’s self-pardoning “has never been presented to us.” Mr. Dreeben told the court: “I don’t believe the Department of Justice has taken a position [on self-pardoning]. The only authority that I’m aware of is a member of the Office of Legal Counsel wrote on a memorandum that there is no self-pardon authority. As far as I know, the Department has not addressed it further.”

Some cities seem to attract the rich. Take New York City for example, which has 340,000 high-net-worth residents with investable assets of more than $1 million.

But there’s a vast difference between being a millionaire and a billionaire. So where do the richest of them all live?

Using data from the Hurun Global Rich List 2024, Visual Capitalist's Pallavi Rao ranks the top 20 cities with the highest number of billionaires in 2024.

A caveat to these rich lists: sources often vary on figures and exact rankings. For example, in last year’s reports, Forbes had New York as the city with the most billionaires, while the Hurun Global Rich List placed Beijing at the top spot.

Ranked: Top 20 Cities with the Most Billionaires in 2024

The Chinese economy’s doldrums over the course of the past year have affected its ultra-wealthy residents in key cities.

Beijing, the city with the most billionaires in 2023, has not only ceded its spot to New York, but has dropped to #4, overtaken by London and Mumbai.

In fact all Chinese cities on the top 20 list have lost billionaires between 2023–24. Consequently, they’ve all lost ranking spots as well, with Hangzhou seeing the biggest slide (-5) in the top 20.

Where China lost, all other Asian cities—except Seoul—in the top 20 have gained ranks. Indian cities lead the way, with New Delhi (+6) and Mumbai (+3) having climbed the most.

At a country level, China and the U.S combine to make up half of the cities in the top 20. They are also home to about half of the world’s 3,200 billionaire population.

In other news of note: Hurun officially counts Taylor Swift as a billionaire, estimating her net worth at $1.2 billion.

Authored by Travis Gillmore via The Epoch Times,

A confluence of factors continues to impact San Francisco’s office market, with vacancy and availability rates reaching record highs in the first quarter of 2024, according to commercial real estate analysts at global companies Avison Young and CBRE.

Availability - the combination of vacancy and sublease opportunities in the market - reached 36.7 percent of all office square footage from January to April, according to recently released market analyses from the leading commercial real estate firms.

“We’re at mostly record levels, and I say that kind of cautiously optimistic,” Dina Gouveia, west region market intelligence manager for Avison Young, told The Epoch Times April 25.

According to Ms. Gouveia vacancies only saw a “slight uptick” during the first quarter which might mean such is slowing.

“[I]f we can continue that slower velocity of additional vacancies ... then it would be a very good indicator of us being near a bottom,” she said.

Much of the issue, experts say, is the city’s reliance on the tech industry, with more than 44 percent of its office space housing technology companies.

Additionally, tech firms lead the list of upcoming lease expirations—accounting for 45.8 percent, according to Avison Young.

San Francisco’s office market was deeply affected as the number of work-from-home employees skyrocketed during the pandemic, though recent trends show a slight return to the office.

Remote job postings fell more than 5 percent to 22.2 percent in the first quarter compared to the end of last year, according to the Avison Young report.

Job postings increased 22.7 percent in the first quarter following seven consecutive quarters of decline. The listings were led by legal services, engineering, consulting, research, accounting, and recruiting companies. Media and tech industries, however, both experienced declines, according to the report.

Unemployment, however, ticked up to 4.4 percent in the first quarter, a sharp increase from its low of 2.3 percent in June 2022.

According to the report, slightly less than 1 million total square footage was leased in the first quarter—a 63.3 percent drop from the five-year pre-pandemic average.

Analysts noted signs they deemed optimistic, including Netherlands-based payment company Adyen’s sublease of space at 505 Brannan Street—in the city’s South of Market district—and multinational accounting company KPMG’s lease renewal at 55 2nd Street, in the city’s financial district. Combined, those leases total 300,000 square feet, experts said.

Sublease opportunities offer lower rents than signing new leases that require build outs and significant capital to develop properties, which is spurring the sector of the market, while also allowing businesses with existing leases to rent out some of their vacant space.

“The amount of sublease activity that we’ve seen has increased a lot because tenants are looking for plug-and-play opportunities,” Ms. Gouveia said. “A lot more activity is happening because tenants ... want to take advantage of pre-built spaces and lower rents.”

High interest rates are making it harder for companies with limited cash to refinance loans. At the same time, rates are also slowing down new purchases, according to analysts.

With an uncertain market—in part due to conflicting signals from the Federal Reserve about the future of interest rates—prospective tenants are seeking flexibility when looking to renew leases or relocate.

“Interest rates are a huge catalyst,” Ms. Gouveia said. “We’re hearing a little bit of two different stories that interest rates are going down and then they’re not. If the interest rates do come down ... that will stimulate the commercial market quite a bit.”

In response, the highest quality properties have seen lease term lengths decrease from quarter-to-quarter to make them less risky.

Such wariness from tenants is forcing some landlords to lower rents and offer concession packages to attract business, though a disparity still remains between what tenants want to pay and what landlords can offer given their current debt load.

Many landlords are working with their lenders to restructure debt before loans come due, and analysts expect rent prices to become more favorable for tenants once such is realized.

“Rents will definitely come down,” Ms. Gouveia said. “And once that debt workout happens, there’s going to be a larger reset.”

Distressed properties at risk of default are creating buying opportunities of which private buyers are increasingly taking advantage. Industrial investors and real estate investment trusts, however, are on the sidelines, with 100 percent of all investment activity coming from private buyers in the first quarter, according to the report.

On the other hand, the percentage of private sellers also increased to begin the year compared to prior years, with analysts pointing to uncertainty that their debt can be restructured due to high interest rates and limited financing opportunities.

Refinancing has proven challenging because lenders are reluctant to write loans for office buildings because defaults are looming and valuations are plummeting, with true market values unclear, according to analysts.

A pending election is also slowing activity, as many firms want more certainty before making large capital decisions.

“Because we’re coming up on an election year, a lot of companies go dormant on their expansion plans, and servicers are also in that wait-and-see mode,” Ms. Gouveia said.

Another global commercial real estate leader, CBRE, found that San Francisco’s office market is facing unique challenges given crime and homelessness impacting the city.

According to Colin Yasukochi, executive director of CBRE’s Tech Insights Center, more office tenants are signing new leases, showing a willingness to recommit to the city, but are still somewhat tentative when doing so.

“This dynamic is still somewhat tenuous as employers and their employees still have concerns about public safety and the cost of doing business,” he told The Epoch Times by email.

Noting that some workers are returning to the office for more days a week he suggested such is not enough for a recovery, which, he said, will require a desire to compete in a robust economic environment.

“Additional mandates are unlikely to increase office attendance materially at this point, but rather a booming economy will compel more people to want to be in the office and be better connected to the next growth cycle,” Mr. Yasukochi said.

While artificial intelligence could play a significant role in buoying the tech sector that the city relies on, a fast recovery, he said, is not anticipated.

“The San Francisco office market is beginning to transition out of its four-year downturn,” Mr. Yasukochi said. “While it will take many years to rebalance supply and demand, we are starting to see positive signs.”

Authored by Breeauna Sagdal via The Brownstone Institute,

Seasoned veterinarians and livestock producers alike have been scratching their heads trying to understand the media’s response to the avian flu.

Headlines across every major news outlet warn of humans becoming infected with the “deadly” bird flu after one reported case of pink-eye in a human. 

The entire narrative is predicated upon a long-disputed claim that Covid-19 was the result of a zoonotic jump—the famed Wuhan bat wet-market theory. 

While the source of Covid is hotly contested within the scientific community, the policy vehicle at the center of this dialectic began years prior to Sars-CoV-2 and is quite resolute in force and effect. 

In 2016, the Gates Foundation donated to the World Health Organization to create the OneHealth Initiative. Since 2020, the CDC has adopted and implemented the OneHealth Initiative to build a “collaborative, multisectoral, and transdisciplinary approach—working at the local, regional, national, and global levels—with the goal of achieving optimal health outcomes recognizing the interconnection between people, animals, plants, and their shared environment.”

In the aftermath of Covid-19, the OneHealth Initiative began taking shape, due largely in part to millions of tax dollars appropriated through ARP (American Rescue Plan) funding. 

Through its APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Investigation System) the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) was given $300 million in 2021 to begin implementing “a risk-based, comprehensive, integrated disease monitoring and surveillance system domestically…to build additional capacity for zoonotic disease surveillance and prevention,” globally. 

“The One Health concept recognizes that the health of people, animals, and the environment are all linked,” said USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs Jenny Lester Moffitt. 

According to the USDA’s press release, the Biden-Harris administration’s OneHealth approach will also help to ensure “new markets and streams of income for farmers and producers using climate smart food and forestry practices,” by “making historic investments in infrastructure and clean energy capabilities in rural America.” 

In other words, the federal government is using regulatory enforcement to intervene in the marketplace, in addition to subsidizing corporations with tax dollars to direct a planned economic outcome—ending meat consumption. 

Climate-Smart Commodities – Planning the Economy through Subsidized Intervention

Under the recently announced Climate-Smart Commodities program, the USDA has appropriated $3.1 billion in tax subsidies to one hundred and forty-one new private Climate-Smart projects, ranging from carbon sequestration to Climate-Smart meat and forestry practices.

Private investors such as Amazon founder Jeff Bezos – who just committed $1 billion to the development of lab cultured meat-like molds, and meat grown in petri dishes, to

Ballpark, formerly known for its hot dogs but is now harvesting python meat, is rushing to cash in on this new industry, and the OneHealth/USDA certification program. 

Culling The Herd – Regulatory Intervention in the Marketplace 

Meanwhile, the last vestiges of America’s food freedom and decentralized food sources are quietly being targeted by the full force of the federal government. 

The once voluntary APHIS System is poised to become the mandatory APHIS-15, which among many other changes, “the system will be renamed Animal Health, Disease, and Pest Surveillance and Management System, USDA/APHIS-15. This system is used by APHIS to collect, manage, and evaluate animal health data for disease and pest control and surveillance programs.”

Among those “many changes” that APHIS-15 is undergoing, one should be of particular interest to the public—the removal of all references to the voluntary* Bovine Johne’s Disease Control Program. 

“Updating the authority for maintenance of the system to remove reference to the Bovine Johne’s Disease Control Program.” 

In addition to removing references to the once-voluntary herd culling program, the USDA is also implementing mandatory RFID ear tags in cattle and bison.

According to the USDA/APHIS-15, expanded authority places disease tracing in their jurisdiction and the radio frequency ear tags are necessary for the “rapid and accurate recordkeeping for this volume of animals and movement,” which they say “is not achievable without electronic systems.”

The notice clearly spells out that RFID tags “may be read without restraint as the animal goes past an electronic reader.” 

“Once the reader scans the tag, the electronically collected tag number can be rapidly and accurately transmitted from the reader to a connected electronic database.”

However, industry leaders and lawmakers alike have said the database will be used to track vaccination history and movement, and that this data may be used to impact the market rate of cattle and bison at the time of processing. 

Centralized Control of Processing/Production via Public-Private Partnership Agreements

In addition to the vast new authority of the USDA funded through the OneHealth Initiative, and the ARP, the EPA has also created its own unique set of regulatory burdens upon the entire meat industry. 

On March 25, 2024, the EPA finalized a new set of Clean Water Act rule changes to limit nitrogen and phosphorus “pollutants” in downstream water treatment facilities from processing facilities. While the EPA’s interpretation of authority and jurisdiction over wastewater is concerning long-term, the broader context of consolidated processing under four multinational meat-packing companies is of much greater concern for the immediate future. 

With few exceptions, in the United States it is illegal to sell meat without a USDA certification. Currently, the only way to access USDA certification is through a USDA-certified processing facility. 

According to the EPA, the new rules will impact up to 845 processing facilities nationwide, unless facilities drastically limit the amount of meat they process each year. 

With processing capabilities being the number one barrier to market for livestock producers, and billions of dollars in grants being awarded to Climate-Smart food substitutes, the amount of government intervention into the marketplace becomes very clear. 

The Rise of Authoritarianism and Economic Fascism – Control the Supply

The United States, once a consumer-demand free market society, is currently witnessing the use of government force, and intervention tactics to steer and manipulate the marketplace. Similar to 1930’s Italy, this is being achieved by the state within the state, through the use of selectionism, protectionism, and economic planning between public-private partnership agreements. 

The long-term and unavoidable problem with economic fascism is that it leads to authoritarian and centralized control, from which escape is impossible. 

As each industry becomes centralized and consolidated under the few, consumer choice simultaneously disappears. As choice disappears, so does the ability of the individual to meet their specific and unique needs. 

Eventually, the individual no longer serves a role outside of its usefulness to the state—the final exhale before the last python squeeze. 

Authored by Matt McGregor via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Justice (DOJ) stands its ground on its refusal to surrender the audio recording of Special Counsel Robert Hur’s interview with President Joe Biden to the House Oversight Committee.

Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and James Comer (R-Ky.), chairmen of the House Judiciary and Oversight Accountability committees, warned Attorney General Merrick Garland that he would hold him in contempt of Congress unless he handed over the recording of Mr. Hur’s interview stemming from a probe into President Biden’s alleged mishandling of classified information.

In the letter, signed on April 25, Assistant Attorney General Carlos Felipe Uriarte told Mr. Jordan and Mr. Comer that despite the committees’ threats of contempt proceedings, the DOJ has adequately responded and sees no reason to give the audio to the committees.

“We have repeatedly invited the Committees to identify how these audio recordings from law enforcement files would serve the purposes for which you say you want them,” the letter stated.

“We have also repeatedly urged the Committees to avoid unnecessary conflict and to respect the public interest in the Department’s ability to conduct effective investigations by protecting sensitive law enforcement files.”

Mr. Uriarte said the DOJ has already complied with the committees’ request by providing Mr. Hur’s report and testimony in addition to transcripts of the interview.

“This is consistent with our strong record of cooperation this Congress,” Mr. Uriarte said.

The committees have failed to articulate “a legitimate congressional need” for the audio recordings, which Mr. Uriarte said the DOJ is withholding to protect “the confidentiality of law enforcement files.”

“The Department will continue to cooperate reasonably and appropriately, but we will not risk the long-term integrity of our law enforcement work,” Mr. Uriarte said.

Mr. Uriarte elaborated on Mr. Jordan’s and Mr. Comer’s request for the audio recording by questioning the necessity.

Among the committees’ expressed concerns as reviewed by Mr. Uriarte are whether President Biden is linked to “troublesome foreign payments,” whether he “retained sensitive documents related to specific countries involved in his family’s foreign business dealings,” and whether the DOJ has acted impartially by avoiding prosecuting President Biden while targeting former President Donald Trump.

Mr. Uriarte said there’s no evidence found in the transcripts that suggests discussions of these issues will be revealed in the audio recording.

‘Severely Chilling’

“You have offered no explanation of how these specific files would provide any information pertinent to the Committees’ stated purposes,” Mr. Uriarte said. “And even if they did have pertinent information, you have not explained how that information isn’t already available from the transcripts we produced as an extraordinary accommodation to the Committees.”

Mr. Uriarte classified the audio as “sensitive law enforcement information” that, if made public, would send a message “to the public that the Department cannot be trusted to keep law enforcement files confidential.”

“It would be severely chilling if the decision to cooperate with a law enforcement investigation required individuals to submit themselves to public inquest by politicians, particularly because congressional investigations are not subject to the same standards and checks as the Department’s,” he said. “Indeed, the Committees have frequently objected to even the suggestion that your investigative powers are subject to any requirement to justify your requests according to objective standards or limit your demands to avoid harming other values and interests.”

Mr. Uriarte added that the threat of contempt proceedings is “unjustifiable” considering the DOJ’s past cooperation with the committees’ investigations.

“We urge the Committees to deescalate and to work with the Department in the same mode of cooperation and respect that we have shown Congress for over a year,” he said. “Furthermore, the Department is eager to make good use of the remaining time in this Congress, such as by working together with the Committees on legislative priorities that can make real, tangible progress for the American people.”

The committees issued the first subpoenas on Feb. 27 requesting notes, audio files, video, and transcripts related to Mr. Hur’s investigation.

The DOJ responded by providing transcripts, but no recordings.

After his probe into President Biden’s handling of classified documents spanning his over four decades in politics, Mr. Hur said in February that President Biden would not be charged and that a jury would probably not convict him partially due to his cognitive decline.

“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” Mr. Hur wrote.

‘With Respect to National Security’

In an April 16 testimony before the House Appropriations Committee on the DOJ’s 2025 budget request, Mr. Garland echoed Mr. Uriarte, stating that the reasons for not giving the audio was due to “privileges with respect to national security.”

When asked about Mr. Hur’s observations of President Biden being an “elderly man with a poor memory,” Mr. Garland said he has “complete confidence” in the president based on his own observations.

“I have watched him expertly guide meetings of staff and Cabinet members on issues of foreign affairs and military strategy and policy in this incredibly complex world in which we now face, and in which he has been decisive—decisive in instructions to the staff, and decisive in making the decisions necessary to protect the country,” Mr. Garland said.

The Epoch Times has contacted the subcommittees for comment.

Authored by Simon Hankinson via The Epoch Times,

After nearly two years of legal and political challenges, Britain’s parliament has finally passed a law confirming that Rwanda is a safe place to send people who arrive in the UK illegally by sea. This is a major policy win for the Conservative government of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and a victory for common sense. Britain, like the United States and Europe, is experiencing mass illegal migration in the guise of asylum claims. The British devised the Rwanda plan in response, but the U.S. already has successful equivalents that can be resurrected when there is a will to once again control America’s borders.

Like those coming to the United States by land, most people illegally arriving in Britain by boat are economic migrants. Britain’s asylum system has been swamped by growing demand, and backlogs for processing cases stretch into years.

In 2018, only 300 people arrived illegally in the UK by small boat from France across the English Channel. In 2022, it was more than 45,000. And in August 2023, the UK received its 100,000th illegal boat-borne immigrant, one of 700 who arrived each day. Nearly all of the 100,000 are still in Britain, joined by ever-increasing numbers.

From Jan. 1 to April 21 this year, 6,265 small boats arrived in the UK carrying illegal immigrants, with the largest numbers being from Afghanistan and Vietnam.

Having left the European Union, the British are unable to return asylum-seekers to the first safe country in the EU under what are called the Dublin Regulations. By mid-2023, 96 percent of asylum-seekers who arrived in 2021 had not received final decisions in their cases, and around 50,000 were being housed in hotels, costing the United Kingdom the equivalent of more than $8.8 million U.S. a day. The limitless liability of illegal immigration to the UK is an important electoral issue for Conservative Party voters.

Sound familiar?

In August 2023, Sunak’s government passed an Illegal Migration Act that barred people who entered illegally by sea from applying for asylum. The act requires British officials to return inadmissible aliens—without appeal—back to their birth country, if possible, or if not, to a safe third country.

To implement the act, Britain needed a safe third country to house putative asylum-seekers pending case processing. Britain does not have any developing-country neighbors, so they struck a deal with Rwanda in 2022 in which that Central African country would be compensated to take up to 1,000 putative asylum applicants over five years.

Anyone sent to Rwanda could opt at any time to return to their home country or to be resettled in Rwanda as refugees, but they could not return to Britain. The British government fought a series of legal challenges to its policy, but passage of the new law should clear the way for removal flights to Rwanda within weeks from now.

Sunak says he means business. “The only way to stop the boats is to eliminate the incentive to come, by making it clear that if you are here illegally, you will not be able to stay,” he said at a press conference. “We are ready. The plans are in place.”

The government has also set aside judges and courts on standby to handle the inevitable legal challenges.

The Rwanda plan is Britain’s attempt to regain control over its borders and national sovereignty.

The goal is to cut off the possibility of asylum from boat arrivals, thus both destroying the business model of maritime smugglers and saving lives. This past week, five people died when over 100 illegal migrants attempted to cross the English Channel in an overcrowded boat.

The Rwanda plan has many opponents. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees argues that if the UK is successful, it will set a “worrying precedent for dismantling asylum-related obligations that other countries, including in Europe, may be tempted to follow …” Perhaps so, but the alternative is to cede control over immigration to foreign actors in perpetuity.

The British hope to emulate the success of Australia, which in 2001, started turning back boats carrying illegal migrants. The idea was to give “no advantage” to asylum applicants arriving illegally by boat over those arriving by air.

Australia set up detention and asylum processing centers on the island nation of Nauru, and on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea. Eventually, Australia adopted a strict rule that no asylum-seeker arriving by boat and processed offshore would ever be resettled in Australia. The policy faced considerable political opposition but was highly effective in reducing demand.

The message was quickly understood by would-be boat migrants and migrant traffickers across Southeast Asia. “Arrival numbers went off a cliff once the Australians started to deport ... because ‘news spreads like wildfire among refugees,’” wrote Matthew Paris in the Spectator.

When a later Australian government closed the Manus and Nauru centers, illegal migration soared again. In 2012, more than 600 people drowned when boats carrying illegal migrants capsized. In response, Australia reopened the offshore centers and resumed sending back all illegal aliens who arrived or attempted to arrive in Australia by sea.

As before, the putative asylum applicants remained in the offshore centers for the entire time, pending the adjudication of their cases. The offshoring policy and an unbending Australian government destroyed the market for maritime migrant smugglers. For example, in 2014, only a single boat carrying migrants made it to Australia.

At its peak in 2014, Nauru’s camp had 1,233 asylum applicants living there. By June 2023, only three remained. Though the boat-borne illegal migration virtually stopped, a credible ability to restart offshore processing is vital to Australia maintaining its current control over seaborne illegal immigration. Therefore, Australia is paying the equivalent of $288,000 U.S. a year to Nauru to keep the detention/processing option open in reserve.

The United States does not have the advantage of being an island. But as recently as the Trump administration, we had Safe Third Country agreements in place with Central American countries and the Migrant Protection Protocols with Mexico. Under these agreements, any asylum applicant coming to the U.S. and first passing through a third safe country to get here would be sent back to that country if he or she had not applied for asylum in that country. For example, all those who crossed illegally into the U.S. from Mexico were returned there pending their case adjudication.

The United States needs to use all the economic and diplomatic leverage at our disposal to revive those agreements. Meanwhile, similar to the UK and Australia, we should prohibit asylum applications from those illegally crossing between ports of entry to discourage frivolous and fraudulent asylum claims.

*  *  *

Reprinted by permission from The Daily Signal, a publication of The Heritage Foundation.