Tribes sue Biden administration over permits for high-voltage transmission line

 Two Native American tribes and the Center for Biological Diversity sued the Biden administration over a high-voltage transmission plan they say violates federal laws protecting cultural sites.

In the lawsuit, the San Carlos Apache Tribe and the Tohono O’odham Nation called for Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approvals of permits for the SunZia high-voltage transmission line to be thrown out.

The plaintiffs filed the suit over the approvals issued last year in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. 

The tribes, joined by the Center and Archaeology Southwest, claimed the Interior Department issued the Limited Notices to Proceed for the transmission line in violation of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act. They allege the bureau did not properly analyze the SunZia project’s effects on sites of historic and cultural significance to the tribe, nor did they consult with tribal communities.

“The O’odham and our ancestors the Hohokam have deep cultural and historical connections to the San Pedro Valley, with many sites of great significance,” Tohono O’odham Nation Chairman Verlon Jose said in a statement. “We have made BLM and the Pattern Energy aware of this, but their disregard for the NHPA process has put these cultural sites in danger of irreparable harm. They must change course, immediately stop all ground clearing activity, and work with us to protect these sites as required by federal law.”

According to the lawsuit, BLM held brief consultations with tribal leaders after authorizing construction to begin but then allowed it to resume days later.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4426659-tribes-sue-biden-administration-over-permits-for-high-voltage-transmission-line/

Biden administration, tech giants partner for AI program

 The National Science Foundation is partnering with tech companies leading on artificial intelligence (AI) and nine other federal agencies to launch a pilot program aimed at creating a shared AI research infrastructure, the government announced Wednesday. 

The launch of the pilot program for the National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource (NAIRR) is part of a directive under the AI executive order President Biden signed at the end of October.  

Private companies partnering for the NAIRR pilot program include Amazon Web Services, Anthropic, Google, IBM, Meta, Microsoft, NVIDIA and OpenAI.  

Agencies partnering with the National Science Foundation on the pilot include the Department of Energy, NASA, the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Patent and Trade Office and the Department of Defense.  

“The NAIRR pilot is really needed because the resources needed to even begin participating in the ecosystem have become increasingly concentrated and inaccessible to many, many communities that are really essential for developing a healthy and responsible AI ecosystem,” said Katie Antypas, director of the National Science Foundation’s Office of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure.  

For example, through the program an AI professor at a community college could provide resources to their classroom, or a researcher studying extreme weather could have access to NASA data sets and advance new modeling, she said.  

 The pilot of the program will last for two years, Antypas said.  

The program will initially support AI research to advance “safe, secure and trustworthy AI,” and applications of AI to challenges in healthcare and sustainability, according to the National Science Foundation.  

Operations will be organized into four focus areas: NAIRR Open, to enable open AI research through access to diverse AI resources; NAIRR Secure, co-led by the NIH and the DOE to enable AI research requiring privacy and security-preserving resources; NAIRR Software, to investigate inter-operable use of AI software; and NAIRR Classroom, to reach communities through education and training.  

Researchers can apply for initial access to NAIR resources through a pilot portal online. The program will have a second broader call for proposals in the spring. 

In the initial launch this week, the pilot will likely support around 25 to 50 research projects. As more resources are brought online and capabilities are integrated by the spring, the program aims to support about 100 to 400 projects, Antypas said.  

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4426486-biden-administration-tech-giants-partner-for-ai-research-program/

Why are ‘charities’ funneling millions into climate change lawfare?

 Over the last several years, dozens of dubious climate change lawsuits have been brought by state and local governments against the oil and gas industry. They are bringing these cases with help from white-shoe law firms, funded by non-profit money from Big Philanthropy.

Such attempts at “legislation through litigation” represent yet another example of the deeply regrettable tendency toward the ends-justify-the-means rationalizations common in contemporary political activism. The millions in tax-exempt philanthropic dollars apparently underwriting this lawsuit campaign also raise serious questions about the proper relationship between charity, politics and the judicial system.

Citing recently released tax filings, Fox News reported that the New Venture Fund, a registered 501(c)(3) charity and the largest constituent member of the giant left-of-center political nonprofit network managed by Arabella Advisors, had granted $2.5 million to the for-profit law firm Sher Edling in 2022. This was after it had funneled $3 million to the firm last year.

Sher Edling is best known for representing state and local governments in a slew of lawsuits against oil and gas companies, accusing them of downplaying or otherwise misrepresenting the impact that their products have on the global climate. The governmental plaintiffs (which include the states of Rhode Island and Delaware, the cities of Charleston, South Carolina and Baltimore, the county of Anne Arundel, Maryland, and others) are suing to force “Big Oil” to pay them compensation for the vast costs that these governments claim they are incurring due to climate change.

None of the plaintiffs have yet prevailed on the merits, but the catch is they don’t necessarily need to. Activists hope that if just one case lands before “one judge in one state in one courtroom that sees a path to allowing these cases to go to trial,” discovery and the prospect of a jury trial could give them major leverage over the industry. The activists don’t necessarily need to win a verdict to achieve their ultimate objectives pertaining to future climate policy or legislation.

The money Sher Edling received from the New Venture Fund was apparently routed through one of the nonprofit’s countless fiscally-sponsored projects: the Collective Action Fund for Accountability, Resilience, and Adaptation. It has no website or other public profile, but grant descriptions explain that the fund’s purpose is to funnel charitable dollars to “enable cities, counties, and states hard hit by climate change to file high-impact climate damage and deception lawsuits represented by expert counsel.” This was formerly a project of a different 501(c)(3) called the Resources Legacy Fund, before switching its sponsorship to the New Venture Fund.

Notably, the Collective Action Fund has received significant support from Big Philanthropy. Major known funders include the MacArthur Foundation ($9 million since 2017) and the JPB Foundation ($3.3 million from 2020 to 2022, plus another $1.15 million approved for future payment), in addition to six-figure totals from the Hewlett Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

In an October 2023 letter responding to congressional inquiries, Sher Edling claimed that this philanthropic money does not underwrite specific lawsuits, but is instead used to support “the firm’s general operations in this area” — that is, climate litigation.

Because it would bypass the legislative process on a major issue of public policy, commentators have aptly labeled this whole phenomenon “legislation through litigation,” or even “lawfare.” They have raised important questions that more people should be asking. At least two overarching issues deserve particular mention.

The first concerns the nature of the lawsuits themselves. Climate change (and what should be done about it) is among the most contentious and consequential public policy issues of our time. The debate surrounding it involves major uncertainties and tradeoffs that carry with them direct personal ramifications for virtually every American. It is exactly the sort of issue that should be resolved though the political process, by voters and their elected representatives in Congress, not through a judicial process, by private lawyers and their ideologically motivated funders.

Moreover, it defies any notion of justice to hold the oil and gas industry civilly liable for producing and selling a product that is utterly essential to humanity’s survival — including these governmental plaintiffs’ own constituents. That is essentially what these lawsuits boil down to.

The second concern relates to the manner in which this litigation is evidently being at least partially financed. Big Philanthropy is routing millions of charitable dollars through a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit to a for-profit law firm, for the purpose of supporting a nationwide litigation campaign. Is there a point at which such an arrangement ceases to be “charitable,” in the sense that we collectively understand that term? If so, what should we do about that?

Government lawsuits against the oil and gas industry over the alleged impacts of climate change rest upon an entirely unjust theory of liability. They are an affront to both the civil justice system and the democratic legislative process.

That they are apparently being underwritten by giant private foundations is further evidence of just how far Big Philanthropy has moved away from what most Americans would consider “charity.”

Robert Stilson is special projects manager at Capital Research Center.

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/4422166-why-are-charities-funneling-millions-into-climate-change-lawfare/

First lady invites Texas woman who fled state for abortion care to State of the Union

 Kate Cox, a Dallas-area woman who sued for the right to terminate a nonviable pregnancy and then left Texas to get abortion care, will attend the State of the Union as a guest of first lady Jill Biden, the White House said Wednesday. 

The invitation comes as the Biden campaign focuses heavily on abortion rights as part of the reelection effort.  

The Biden campaign also featured Cox in a video released this week tying former President Trump to the end of Roe v. Wade. Campaign officials said Cox’s case is a perfect example of their main argument against Trump: That women’s rights will be under attack by a Trump-led government.

“On Sunday, the president and the first lady spoke to Kate Cox, who was forced to go to court to seek permission for the care she needed for a nonviable pregnancy that threatened her life. They thanked her for her courage in sharing her story. And speaking out about the impact of the extreme abortion ban in Texas,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said.

Cox was more than 20 weeks pregnant with a fetus that had been diagnosed with trisomy 18, a chromosomal anomaly that leads to miscarriage, stillbirth or the death of the infant within hours, days or weeks after birth.

Doctors told her that carrying the pregnancy to term would likely jeopardize her fertility, and she and her husband said they wanted more children. But her doctors were afraid of prosecution or losing their medical licenses under the state’s near-total ban and refused to provide an abortion until the fetus died.  

So Cox sued in what is believed to be the first attempt by an individual woman to challenge a state’s abortion ban.   

A district court granted her permission, but the state Supreme Court paused the ruling the next day. Cox’s attorneys said she couldn’t afford to wait, and she ended up leaving the state to get an abortion before the court ultimately ruled against her. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4427020-jill-biden-invites-woman-sued-texas-abortion-care-state-union/

IL-76 Shootdown By A US Patriot Missile Could Lead To Zaluzhny's Replacement With Budanov

by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

All things considered, blaming Zaluzhny – perhaps by claiming that he should have verified alleged intelligence about the IL-76’s cargo before shooting it down in order to make this seem like an unfortunate accident – is the most politically convenient option at Zelensky and his US patron’s disposal. It could shift the blame from them to him and facilitate Zaluzhny’s replacement with the much more politically reliable Budanov without much resistance from the armed forces or civil society. 

Kiev shot down a Russian Il-76 military transport plane carrying 65 Ukrainian POWs as it was flying over the border region of Belgorod on Wednesday. Patriot missiles were reportedly used during the attack, which was carried out with the aid of American instructors. The regime was informed of the flight ahead of time and was aware that it was carrying its detained troops. The planned swap has now been called off and questions are swirling about why Kiev would kill its own POWs.

CNN ridiculously suggested that it might have been a case of friendly fire by drawing attention to a prior air alert and drone interception an hour before the incident, while some Ukrainian sources circulated the conspiracy theory that the plane was allegedly carrying only S-300 air defense missiles onboard. The first narrative is meant to smear the reputation of the Russian Armed Forces while the second is a “face-saving” deflection from Kiev’s culpability for what happened.

A more realistic interpretation is that American proxy war tactics are shifting as the conflict began to wind down late last year after Kiev was pushed back on the defensive following its failed counteroffensive. That theory also has its faults, however, since five Russian military aircraft were reportedly shot down by Patriot missiles over the border region of Bryansk last May so there isn’t anything new this time except that 65 Ukrainian POWs were killed after Kiev knew they were on board.

The specifics of this incident therefore lead to suspicion that these detained troops were deliberately targeted by those American-advised Ukrainian air defense controllers who were operating the Patriot air defense systems on Wednesday for the reasons that will now be explained. The backdrop to what happened was that Russia’s foreign spy agency predicted an impending bureaucratic reshuffle on Monday a day before a former Pentagon official reported on rumors that Zelensky might oust Zaluzhny.

Stephen Bryen, who served as staff director of the Near East Subcommittee of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as deputy undersecretary of defense for policy and is currently a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy and Yorktown Institute, published the article on his Substack. According to him, the Ukrainian leader wants to replace the Commander-in-Chief with military intelligence head Budanov, and he’s planning to do so by blaming Zaluzhny for recent battlefield losses near Avdeevka.

Zelensky’s top rival commands immense respect among the armed forces and civil society, the first of which are growing so angry with their leadership’s military plans that there was even a whiff of mutiny in the New York Times’ report last month about the Kyrnki debacle. Aware of how much Ukraine’s already fragile military-political dynamics had been destabilized by the failed counteroffensive, an expert from the influential Atlantic Council called on Zelensky to form a “government of national unity” a month ago.   

Adrian Karatnycky’s demand was made through his article for Politico and sold as the best way to preemptively avert potentially forthcoming protests with the innuendo being that it could also neutralize any possibly impending plans for a military coup that could occur independently of those protests. The dilemma that Zelensky found himself in is that complying with Karatnycky’s proposal could signal weakness and lead to the end of his political career while removing Zaluzhny could lead to a mutiny.

Delaying any action also has its detriments too since grassroots and military pressure could reach uncontrollable proportions in the coming future, further worsening the strategic situation that he found himself in. Russia’s foreign spy agency didn’t mention any military reshuffle plans in their statement earlier this week, however, which might be because they were unaware of them or wagered that it’s better not to comment since doing so could influence the process in ways adverse to their interests.  

In any case, the sequence of events from mid-December up until Wednesday’s IL-76 incident – especially the aforementioned statement that preceded Bryen’s report about Zelensky’s plans to replace Zaluzhny with the much more politically reliable Budanov by a single day – suggested deepening intrigue in Kiev.

After what just happened following Kiev’s downing of a plane full of Ukrainian POWs by American-advised air defense operators, the public pretext has now been created for replacing him if he wants to.

That’s not to say that Zelensky will certainly do so since any such a move is fraught with the very real risk of blowback due to how popular Zaluzhny is among the armed forces and civil society, but both categories of his supporters might only put up mild resistance if he’s blamed for this incident. It’s not implausible that Zelensky will either directly blame him or do so via media surrogates since he himself wants to eschew responsibility and he definitely doesn’t want anyone pointing fingers at America.

All things considered, blaming Zaluzhny – perhaps by claiming that he should have verified alleged intelligence about the IL-76’s cargo before shooting it down in order to make this seem like an unfortunate accident – is the most politically convenient option at Zelensky and his US patron’s disposal. It could shift the blame from them to him and facilitate Zaluzhny’s replacement with Budanov without much resistance from the armed forces or civil society.

As for why the US might want him to go, it could be that he’s deemed more amendable to the peace talks that America’s leading liberal-globalist policymaking faction is still reluctant to relaunch, in which case they could fear that a possible coup would stop their proxy war plans and doom Biden’s re-election. They might of course also calculate that the risk of a coup, which could possibly be preceded by large-scale protests across the country in his support, would spike with his removal and thus call it off.

Whatever ultimately ends up happening, it’s important for observers not to extend credence to CNN and Ukraine’s conspiracy theories about Russia accidentally shooting down its own plane and it supposedly only carrying S-300s respectively, since Kiev definitely knew that there were POWs on board.

It therefore remains to be seen why its American-advised air defense operators still shot it down, but more clarity is expected as time passes and the military and/or political consequences of this incident become known.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/il-76-shootdown-us-patriot-missile-could-lead-zaluzhnys-replacement-budanov

What's Going On With Genmab

 Monday, in a significant legal update for Genmab A/S 

GMAB-1.54%

Get Free Report

, an appeal arbitrator has dismissed the biotech company’s bid for additional milestone and royalty payments related to Darzalex (daratumumab). 

In an SEC filing, Genmab announced that the appeal arbitrator in its second arbitration arising under its license agreement with Janssen Biotech Inc, Johnson & Johnson’s 

JNJ-0.81%

Get Free Report

 unit, for daratumumab had denied Genmab’s appeal. 

As a result, the dismissal of Genmab’s claims in the second arbitration is now concluded. Genmab had appealed the tribunal’s two-to-one decision dismissing Genmab’s claims because the claims should have been brought in the prior arbitration between Genmab and Janssen.  

Genmab’s claims were based upon its position that the subcutaneous formulation of daratumumab (SC daratumumab), marketed as Darzalex Faspro in the U.S., is a new licensed product under the license agreement.

The claims included a claim for milestone payments concerning SC daratumumab and a new 13-year royalty term on a country-by-country basis from the date of the first commercial sale of SC daratumumab in each such country.

The decision in the arbitration appeal will not affect Genmab’s upcoming financial guidance for 2024.

William Blair writes that it did not have any expectations for the original decision to be overturned, so this does not change its view that investors remain focused on Genmab’s pipeline opportunities.

Genmab’s diverse revenue sources, such as royalty agreements for drugs like Darzalex and Kesimpta, are expected to contribute to strong growth and support the company’s current valuation. 

However, the limited commercial potential of Tivdak and epcoritamab suggests that their impact on revenue may be restrained initially. Despite these programs having long-term potential in larger indications, their success will take time. 

Genmab’s successful DuoBody platform will likely sustain a robust research and development pipeline, incorporating new antibody platforms. Nevertheless, considering the current valuation and short-term prospects, William Blair keeps a Market Perform rating.

https://www.benzinga.com/analyst-ratings/analyst-color/24/01/36743877/whats-going-on-with-danish-healthcare-firm-genmab-stock

Dems letting migrants fly without ID are playing Russian roulette with our safety

 If you’re rushing to the airport and forget your photo ID, good luck being allowed on the plane.

But many migrants without “an acceptable form of identification,” according to airport signs, don’t need a photo.

They get special treatment.

Migrants who have entered the country using President Biden’s new CBP (Customs and Border Protection) One app — at least 422,000 — can fly domestically without photo ID. 

A sign posted in Miami International Airport tells migrants, “1. Notify the TSA officer that you are a migrant. 2. The TSA officer will take a photo (optional). 3. If requested, provide your alien identification number or biographic information.”

Taking a photo would allow the Transportation Security Administration officer to confirm the person boarding matches the person pictured in the CBP app.

But the airport sign repeats, “Photo capture is voluntary.”

The migrant trying to board could be anybody.

Americans without photo ID will likely be grilled for more than an hour and patted down, and TSA will go over their luggage inch by inch while their plane takes off without them.

Businessman Connor Esraelian, who was flying from San Francisco to his home in Chicago, forgot his wallet with his photo ID.

He filmed the 75-minute ordeal to get on the plane, posting it on TikTok.

He called it “a nightmare.” 

He didn’t get an EZ pass, but migrants do.

This is our government kowtowing to the immigration lobby and putting Americans second. Safety be damned.

Even worse is the 16-year delay in implementing the Real ID Act, passed in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks, to prevent illegals from using lax forms of ID to get on planes.

Most of the hijackers used driver’s licenses issued by states with lax requirements to get on the planes. 

They were in the country illegally.

Following the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation, Congress enacted Real ID, barring TSA from accepting state driver’s licenses or other IDs that don’t require proof of being in the United States legally.

Real ID was supposed to go into effect in 2008, but it’s been repeatedly delayed.

Now the official start date is May 2025. Don’t hold your breath.

All 50 states provide Real ID licenses to legal residents who request them. 

But blue states like New York and Illinois are normalizing being illegal.

Illinois used to issue a license for illegals with a purple stripe across the top and the words “not valid for identification.”

But Illinois discontinued it in June, in Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s words, “decreasing stigma and creating more equitable systems for all.”

Illinois’ secretary of state said the purple stripe had become “the ‘Scarlet Letter’ of someone’s immigration status.”

Now legal and illegal Illinois residents will qualify for the same “standard license” that says “Federal Limits Apply,” a fuzzy reference to the May 2025 deadline.

In the meantime, illegals are boarding planes.

Same is true in New York, which issues a “standard” license available to everyone, including illegals.

It carries a vague notation “not for federal purposes,” which applies only after May 2025.

The state Department of Motor Vehicles is barred from even asking a customer about citizenship status.

New York City’s ID program also blurs the distinction between legals and illegals.

It’s advertised as one ID for all New Yorkers, regardless of immigration status.

The card looks like a state driver license, and nothing — not one word — alerts the viewer otherwise.

It’s unlikely to work on a plane but likely to allow anybody to get past security and into the elevator in an office tower. 

An open southern border flooded with millions of migrants from more than 100 countries, some hostile to America, puts our nation at risk.

Most migrants are just desperately seeking economic opportunity.

But it only took a handful of sinister actors with misleading IDs to bring down the World Trade Center and cost 3,000 Americans their lives.

Allowing migrants — or anyone — to board airplanes without photo ID and promoting ID cards that blur the lines between legal and illegal sabotage us. 

Don’t let Biden and the hard left play Russian roulette with our lives.

Remember 9/11.

Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York.

https://nypost.com/2024/01/23/opinion/dems-letting-migrants-fly-without-id-play-russian-roulette-with-our-safety/