After the Friday large-scale US strikes on Iranian proxy positions in Iraq and Syria, and following the Saturday and Sunday Western coalition attacks on Houthi positions in Yemen, China on Monday issued a blistering condemnation of what is sees as aggression against sovereign countries
China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said in a press briefing, "Syria and Iraq are sovereign countries" and thus “China opposes any act that violates the UN Charter and infringes upon other countries’ territorial sovereignty and security."
"The current situation in the Middle East is highly complex and sensitive," Wenbin added. "China urges relevant parties to earnestly observe the international law, remain calm, exercise restraint, and prevent the tensions in the region from escalating or even spiraling out of control."
Beijing's critiques of this latest round of Western military intervention related to ongoing spillover from the Gaza war echo that of Russia's rhetoric. Russia soon after Biden's Friday airstrikes on Iraq and Syria called for an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council to address the crisis.
The Kremlin has gone so far as to accuse the US of stoking a great power confrontation and larger war for the Middle East.
"It is clear that the airstrikes were specifically intended to further escalate the conflict," Russia’s foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said. "By relentlessly attacking the facilities of allegedly pro-Iranian groups in Iraq and Syria, the United States has been purposefully attempting to draw the largest countries in the region into the conflict."
Meanwhile, Yemen's Houthis have continued to give Chinese and Russian commercial shipping a free pass in the Red Sea, while attacking US, UK, Israeli-linked and other shipping vessels.
Still, as VOA reports, "China's navy has started escorting Chinese cargo ships through the Red Sea, according to a shipping company and Chinese state media reports." Most major shipping companies are choosing to avoid the passage altogether.
Massachusetts will no longer require a college degree for a large majority of government jobs due to a new state executive order intended to make the commonwealth more “inclusive.”
Governor Maura Healey signed the order, titled “Instituting Skill-Based Hiring Practices,” on Jan 25. The document asserts that “skills-based hiring practices will strengthen the Commonwealth’s workforce, increase access to quality jobs for nontraditional candidates with varied backgrounds and work experiences, and reduce structural barriers that result in inequities in pay and access to employment.”
It also contends that such practices will build a “workforce that is representative of the diversity of the state.”
The guideline directs hiring managers to “consider the full set of competencies that candidates bring to the job beyond traditional education.”
It prohibits a minimum level of education from being included in job listings “unless the Human Resources Division determines that a particular level of education is necessary to perform the job after completing a job analysis.”
Candidates will now be assessed based on “their skills from real-world experience, military service, apprenticeship and certificate programs, internships, and other on-the-job programs.”
“This Executive Order directs our administration to focus on applicants’ skills and experiences, rather than college credentials,” Healey said in an address announcing the new guidelines. “It will expand our applicant pool and help us build a more inclusive and skilled workforce than ever before.”
Several state labor and education leaders issued statements in support of the order.
Massachusetts AFL-CIO President and CEO Chrissy Lynch applauded the governor for what she called an “inclusive workforce strategy.”
Western New England University President Robert Johnson stated that the order will help in “breaking down unnecessary barriers and creating equal opportunities” and will build “a more inclusive workforce.”
Campus Reform contacted Governor Healey for comment. This article will be updated accordingly.
It's important for Americans to understand that the Democrat Party of today has abandoned all pretenses of traditional political engagement. Yes, there is a long history of brinksmanship in US politics, but we haven't seen this level of thirst for internal conflict since the Civil War. Leftists have deliberately created an environment in which any opposition to their policies is labeled “insurrection” and a “threat to democracy.” They have adopted a zero tolerance mindset, justified in their own imaginations by a cult-like ideology of globalism and wokeness.
The way in which Democrats operate is highly reminiscent of communist regimes of the past. Honest debates about facts and logic are long gone. Their goal is to win at any cost, and winning means they become the de facto social and governmental arbiters of all they survey. Winning for them means the end of western civilization as we know it.
It's clear that their strategy is to use crisis events as leverage to negotiate more power and influence. They tried this method during the covid lockdowns. They tried it with the January 6th protests. They do it every time there's a debate over the debt ceiling. And now, they're trying to find a way to exploit the border crisis they created.
In the past three years, Joe Biden has overseen the biggest explosion in mass illegal immigration in the history of the US. Trump era measures such as Title 42 slowed border encounters to a trickle, but Biden ended them all and offered greater incentives for illegals to trespass.
Democrats argue that the only reason there is a border threat is because Republicans refuse to accept the measures included in their immigration “reform” legislation. Pass the bill, they say, and all these problems go away.
As many conservatives have rightly pointed out, there's no need for immigration reform or a new migrant bill – The laws that are already in place simply need to be enforced. But there is a more insidious tactic being applied that needs to be addressed; namely, that Democrats are trying to establish a precedent that border security is something to be “negotiated” through legislative chicanery.
What is it that Democrats want in exchange for a secure border? Well, they want an open border, of course.
Democrat immigration reform under discussion right now will allow up to 1.8 million illegals to enter the US every year (5000 migrants per day) under asylum and refugee status. In other words, 1.8 million migrants apprehended at the border will be released into the US by federal agencies. There are no provisions to end “catch and release” policies. This number doesn't include the millions of “gotaways” that avoid detection every year.
The legislation is also designed to fast track amnesty for millions of illegals already in the US, and it continues to increase access to subsidies and welfare programs for non-citizens. Reform does nothing to solve the basic problem of incentives – In fact, it encourages a larger crisis over time when foreigners realize a certain measure of illegal immigration is now codified into law.
Leftists are setting the precedent that conservatives will have to sacrifice certain hard line stances to get the security they call for. In this way they are suggesting that border security is a negotiable matter. It shouldn't be.
“Want a secure border? Better give us 1.8 million new illegals per year. Better than 3 million a year, right?”
“Want a secure border? Better give us fast track amnesty for the millions of illegals already in the US so we can secure a voting super-majority.”
“Want a secure border? Stop interfering with our plans for a perpetual proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. Give us our billions or the floodgates stay open.”
It's very similar to a protection racket run by the mob: “Nice country. It would be a shame if something bad happened to it. Don't worry, give us what we want and we'll make sure you stay safe...”
There is no need for immigration reform. There is no need for new legislation. There is no need for a bipartisan bill. There is no need for negotiation. The state of Texas has already shown us what needs to be done, and with over 1200 miles of southern border they're going to need help.
If Democrats are really interested in stopping mass illegal immigration, they should help southern states build border fencing with components like razor wire, as Texas is doing. They should end welfare incentives which 60% of illegals take as soon as they enter the country (illegal immigrants cost American taxpayers over $180 billion per year in welfare, and they only pay around $30 billion in taxes). They should end catch and release policies and asylum. And sanctuary cities should admit they were wrong and stop preventing immigration agencies from doing their job.
So far, the Dems have shown no interest in supporting any of these measures. In fact, they have done everything in their power to obstruct such measures from being implemented.
Stopping this invasion is not difficult at all when you remove Democrat interference from the equation. Let's be honest, they are the real threat to the country. Illegal immigration is only a symptom of a greater disease.
Parts of Pennsyvania's Courts' website went down on Sunday due to a denial of service cyberattack,according to 6ABC.
PA Systems like PACFile, the use of online docket sheets, PAePay, and the Guardianship Tracking System were all affected, the report says.
"At this time, there is no indication that any court data was compromised, and the courts will remain open and accessible to the public," the court said in an obligatorily reassuring sounding statement over the week.
As 6ABC noted, a denial of service attacks works by flooding a network with traffic until a server is either unusable or crashes altogether.
Chief Justice of Pennsylvania Debra Todd told ABC: "Our court information technology and executive team is working closely with law enforcement, including the CISA, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the F.B.I to investigate the incident."
ABC National News reported later in the weekend that the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts had not yet disclosed the identities of the assailants or their possible motivations.
There was no confirmation regarding the effectiveness of their cybersecurity protocols, nor have there been any reports indicating whether the attackers sought financial demands or a ransom.
The state's courts remained open, multiple sources, including NBC, said.
A bipartisan group of 50 US lawmakers have requested that Attorney General Merrick Garland provide information on illegal marijuana grow operations in the US that are linked to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Led by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), Jared Golden (D-ME), David Valadao (R-CA), Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) and Sen. Angus King (I-ME), the lawmakers penned a Friday letter to Garland expressing their concerns.
"Chinese nationals—including those with potential ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)—are reportedly operating thousands of illicit marijuana farms across the country," they wrote. "The thousands of illicit Chinese marijuana growing operations pose a direct threat to public safety, human rights, national security, and the addiction crisis gripping our nation."
According to the lawmakers, Chinese grow operations have been identified in California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington.
"In some cases, the grow operators were also engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, drug trafficking, and violent crime," the letter continues. "These farms are most commonly in states with legal marijuana programs where illicit growers try to disguise their operations in communities where law-abiding Americans live and work."
The letter cites a 2023 DHS memo which said that 270 suspected China-linked illegal grow operations in Maine alone were generating more than $4.3 billion in revenue.
In Oklahoma, over 2,000 marijuana farmers "are linked to China," according to the letter. "Investigators in Oklahoma discovered illicit marijuana growers engaged in human trafficking, sex trafficking, ketamine trafficking, illegal gambling, and international money laundering."
"Experts believe there is substantial evidence implicating the CCP in directly supporting illicit marijuana grow operations across the United States," the lawmakers wrote. "Whether located in retrofitted residential homes or on farmland, state regulatory and law enforcement entities appear unable to address these potentially CCP supported grow operations despite their significant threat to local communities across the country."
As the Epoch Timesnotes further, in September last year, a group of Chinese immigrants filed a lawsuit alleging that they were lured to northern New Mexico under false pretenses and then forced to work 14 hours a day on an illegal marijuana farm.
“Allowing illicit marijuana farms tied to the CCP is a continued threat to national security, public safety, and human rights,” the lawmakers concluded.
At the end of the letter, the lawmakers wanted Mr. Garland to answer multiple questions before Feb 23, including the number of CCP-affiliated marijuana farms in the United States, and whether state legalization of marijuana has “ affected the proliferation of CCP-affiliated marijuana farms.”
“How many CCP-affiliated marijuana farms have obtained state-issued licenses to grow marijuana, either directly or through a shell company?” the lawmakers asked in the letter.
On Jan. 18, a federal grand jury convicted two Chinese nationals—Jeff Weng of Brooklyn, New York, and Chinese national Tong Lin—of a drug trafficking conspiracy involving about 28 tons of black-market marijuana shipped from Oklahoma City.
According to the Justice Department, Mr. Weng managed a marijuana-growing operation in Wetumka, Oklahoma, from December 2022 to May 2023. The pair drove delivery vans, including one disguised as an Amazon van, to transport marijuana from Wetumka to a stash house in Oklahoma City. From there, they transported a total of over 56,000 pounds of marijuana to the East Coast via semi-truck trailer.
Local law enforcement discovered 19,661 marijuana plants, more than $100,000 of vacuum-sealed cash, and a firearm during a raid of Mr. Weng’s facility in May 2023.
Last month, Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.), and Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas), sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Administrator Anne Milgram, requesting a briefing over Chinese-operated marijuana farms across the country.
“Many of these illicit grow operations work in conjunction with transnational criminal organizations,” they wrote. “Illicit marijuana farms provide unregulated access for consumers to Schedule 1 substances and help provide additional revenue sources to transnational criminal organizations.”
A bill that would have allowed people to take children from parents to get transgender procedures in Maine was killed in committee.
Late in January, Maine’s House judiciary committee unanimously voted down the bill, with one member absent.
This unanimous vote likely indicates Democrats weren’t willing to debate the bill in the House, Maine state Rep. Katrina Smith, a Republican, told The Epoch Times.
“If it was a divided report, then there could be a chance,” Ms. Smith said. “They’ve done this a lot to us.”
“The bill was 100 percent, maybe I'll say 99 percent, killed because of the public outcry,” Ms. Smith said. “We got an incredible amount of media attention.”
In an election year, people notice bills like this one and their likely consequences, and the politicians who supported it may face consequences in November, Ms. Smith said.
She expects Democrats will continue to introduce similar bills, “if they’re in the majority.”
“If they’re in the minority, it will have no chance and will be crushed,” she said. However, Democrats currently control Maine’s state house, state senate, and governor’s office.
Ms. Smith said the bill would have violated parental rights, increased the number of child gender transitions, and likely have resulted in a flood of lawsuits from parents whose children were taken away to Maine for child gender transition.
It is almost certain Democratic Maine legislators will brave those hazards at a later date, she said.
Many Maine Democrats see allowing child gender transition as a moral issue on par with ending segregation, Ms. Smith said.
“They certainly do believe that,” she said.
The Epoch Times contacted the bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Laurie Osher, a Democrat, but received no comment by publication time.
Ms. Osher provided written testimony supporting the bill, in which she says there’s “a coordinated national attack on gender-affirming care.”
“For transgender and non-binary young people, the most important thing the adults in their lives can do is to be supportive,” Ms. Osher said, advocating for parents to support medical and surgical interventions in their children.
Maine Mother
Alicia Lawson, a Maine mother whose daughter briefly identified as transgender. (Courtesy of Alicia Lawson)
The bill would have allowed Maine to take transgender-identifying children from parents within the state.
It also allowed anyone to take a child from a state that banned child gender transition medical procedures into Maine. Maine wouldn’t consider this action to be child kidnapping under the bill.
Maine mother Alicia Lawson believes the state would have been able to take Ms. Lawson’s child from her under the proposed bill.
She said the pediatrician could have called up the Department of Health and Human Services and said, “'This mom is not allowing her child to have this care that she needs.”
In 2020, Ms. Lawson’s teenage daughter identified as transgender.
“She wanted to get on hormones,” Ms. Lawson told The Epoch Times. “While she wanted top surgery, she didn’t want bottom surgery.”
She talked extensively with her daughter about the transgender feelings, and in a few years, her child grew out of them, Ms. Lawson said.
These feelings were complicated because her daughter is autistic, she said.
To navigate this topic, Ms. Lawson took her daughter to a pediatrician, who said signing her daughter up for gender transition surgery now would help her get through the long wait list for the procedure.
“By the time she’s 18 to make her own choice, then she won’t have to wait on the waitlist,” the pediatrician said. Ms. Lawson said she refused this offer.
Today, her daughter no longer wonders if she is a man, Ms. Lawson said.
Transgender Industry
There are also major financial reasons for Democrats to support bills that would allow gender transition surgeries on children in Maine, according to Heather Sprague, a Maine conservative activist.
“I believe the bottom line is the money,” she said. “They profit off the money from these surgeries.”
Heather Sprague, a Maine conservative activist. (Courtesy of Heather Sprague)
Groups such as Planned Parenthood support and provide transgender procedures and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, supports many Democrat campaigns nationwide.
Maine Health, a not-for-profit integrated group of hospitals and health services, supports child gender transition, according to its website.
“The Gender Clinic is dedicated to supporting the health and well-being of transgender, gender diverse, and questioning people across Northern New England,” the group’s online page on transgender services states.
“We offer treatment to patients of all ages with both pediatric and adult services.”
Some of Maine Health’s medical treatments include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormone use, and surgery to make people appear like the opposite sex.
Many transgender surgeries are expensive. Transgender breast amputation or creation surgery costs between $10,000 and $20,000. Genital transgender surgery can cost up to $150,000.
Costs vary widely for facial feminization or masculinization surgery. Cross-sex hormones can cost between $30 to $100 per month.
The upcoming impeachment vote on Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has caused a deep rift even among his critics, including some Republican members of Congress.
Many view Mayorkas as an unmitigated disaster as Homeland secretary. The massive numbers of migrants crossing the border has become a growing economic and security threat to the entire nation.
I have previously expressed my disagreement with the two articles of impeachment, which present their own inherent dangers to the underlying constitutional standards. But whatever happens in the House, the real crisis is not the employment status of Mayorkas. It is what brought the House to seriously consider this extreme remedy in the first place.
The seeds of this disaster were planted by the Supreme Court over a decade ago, in Arizona v. U.S., if not earlier. In that case, a 5-3 majority ruled against a state seeking to enforce immigration laws in light of what it described as a vacuum of federal action. The court declared that the states were preempted or barred from taking such action. While giving the state a small victory in allowing state officers to investigate the immigration status of a suspect with reasonable suspicion, it left little room for independent state action in the area.
Despite President Obama’s orders giving some migrants effective immunity from enforcement (such as the youths that came to be known as “DREAMers”), he actually deported a significant number of illegal migrants. At the time, many of us asked where the line would be drawn in the future, often raising the hypothetical of a president who abandons enforcement entirely or to a large extent.
It took a decade, but that hypothetical seems dangerously close to reality. Mayorkas is carrying out the policies of President Biden, who continues to praise his work and the worst record of enforcement in history. One of the first things that Biden did when coming into office was to seek to shut down policies and construction used to deter unlawful migration. At the same time, both Biden and Mayorkas were widely viewed as supportive of those crossing the border as many Democratic cities declared themselves sanctuaries for undocumented migrants pursued by ICE.
For the states, desperate times call for desperate measures. For example, Texas recently declared that it was acting unilaterally under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution. That provision reserves the right of self-defense for a state that is “actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.”
The current crisis is a practical invasion, overwhelming towns and cities across the country. No state faces a greater danger than Texas. However, “invasion” was clearly meant in the traditional sense of a foreign power or army. Similarly, “such imminent danger” was referencing “such” an invasion.
The southern border in 2024 is, constitutionally, suffering no more an “invasion” than the Capitol riot in 2021 was an “insurrection.” There is a difference between the colloquial and constitutional meaning of such terms.
States have also tried to go to court to enforce these laws in cases like Arizona v. United States and, most recently, in U.S. v. Texas. They have often found the courts closed to them. The courts have denied standing to sue in many cases or else granted sweeping authority (and preemption) over immigration.
That has left many in Congress or the states with few meaningful ways to compel enforcement of the law. This includes provisions written as mandatory “shall” obligations, which have been effectively ignored by the federal government.
The result is that many now see impeachment as the only viable option to force change. However, given Biden’s support for his actions, it is difficult to see how Mayorkas’s removal would alter policies or practices in any respect.
Congress is not blameless in any of this. The court has virtually invited Congress to pass laws giving people greater standing to sue the government. It could also apply more stringent conditions on spending and block confirmations.
Yet this crisis is the result of decades of court rulings expanding executive powers while limiting the ability to challenge those policies. The court’s decisions narrowing standing have been deleterious, limiting those who can challenge unlawful or unconstitutional acts by the federal government.
States such as Texas are absolutely correct that this is a breach of the original understanding with the federal government. The combination of the sweeping preemption by the courts and diminishing enforcement by the agencies has left states as mere observers to their own destruction. It is like watching your house burn down as the fire department works primarily to prevent anyone else from putting it out.
The Biden fire department is claiming that, just as it has the authority to put out fires, it has the authority to let them burn.
The question is whether states have finally reached a point of near-total disempowerment, becoming effective nullities or nonentities in dealing with this overwhelming influx across their own borders. While they can patrol the border, they are powerless to exercise inherent powers to protect their citizens and society. It runs counter to the original federalism guarantees used to secure ratification of the Constitution. States were viewed as partners in our federalism system, not mere pedestrians.
One can see why this looks like a bait-and-switch for states, who were offered something very different when they agreed to abandon the Articles of Confederation. They understood the need for a stronger federal government and that states could not act as separate sovereign powers. States yielded authority to the central government, including interstate matters.
Yet, the Constitution would have likely failed in ratification if they had been told of the degree to which they would become dependent on federal authority within their states.
Clearly, the federal government will continue to determine who enters the country. However, Congress has repeatedly tried to impose limits on such actions through express legislative mandates.
That brings us back to the courts. Members of Congress have been told that they cannot sue to enforce mandatory provisions, while states are told that they cannot sue to secure their own borders. It reduces our system to a mere Potemkin Village, a facade of constitutional powers with little ability to protect them.
The combination of open borders and closed courts will continue to fuel this crisis. If the justices will not allow states to close their borders, they can at least open the courts to allow them greater ability to be heard.
