North Korea missile launch seen as signal over Iran war

 

North Korea fired ballistic missiles into the sea on Sunday in a move some analysts linked directly to the war over Iran, with one former South Korean presidential security adviser saying the launches may have been intended to show that, “unlike Iran,” Pyongyang has self-defense capabilities.

The launch came as the seven-week US-Israeli war against Iran continues, with curbing Tehran’s nuclear program one of its stated aims. Experts and former South Korean officials say the conflict could further reinforce North Korea’s own nuclear ambitions.

“The missile launches may be a way of showing that - unlike Iran - we have self-defense capabilities,” Kim Ki-jung said.

He added that Pyongyang also appeared to be applying pressure and showing force ahead of any possible dialogue with the United States and South Korea.

It was North Korea’s fourth such launch this month and seventh of the year. South Korea’s military said the missiles were fired from near Sinpo on the country’s east coast at around 6:10 a.m. local time and flew about 140 km.

https://www.iranintl.com/en/liveblog/202604194357

Iran to restore international internet access gradually, starting with professors

 

Mehdi Abtahi, deputy minister of science, research and technology, said access to the international internet for Iran’s academic community would be restored gradually, starting with university professors.

He said the ministry had already taken steps to provide professors with access based on an existing list, and that the measure would gradually be extended to all faculty members.

Abtahi added that the information of all professors had been passed to the communications ministry and that researchers’ access would generally begin through university faculty before expanding to research institutes and other centers.

https://www.iranintl.com/en/liveblog/202604194357

Spanberger Signs Unconstitutional Bill To Strip Confederacy-Linked Groups Of Tax Exempt Status

 by Jonathan Turley,

There has been growing criticism (and falling poll numbers) of Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger after she ran as a moderate and then immediately veered to the far left after her election.  Once in power, Spanberger and the Democrats unleashed a slew of tax increases, moved to eliminate all but one Republican district in the purple state, passed an array of anti-gun laws, and enacted other controversial measures. One of these measures is a clearly unconstitutional effort to strip pro-Confederate groups of their tax exemption.

This week, Spanberger signed HB167, the law that eliminated the tax exemption for various confederacy-linked groups, including the Virginia Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, the General Organization of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, the Confederate Memorial Literary Society, the Stonewall Jackson Memorial, Incorporated, the Virginia Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, and the J.E.B. Stuart Birthplace Preservation Trust, Inc.

Notably, as soon as they came into power, Democrats also passed House Bill 1377 to move against the Virginia Military Institute, including appointing a task force that could effectively close the historic school. Many Democrats have previoulsy sought to close VMI despite its unique and inspiring history in training some of our most famous military leaders, including General George Marshall. Liberals want to close the school due to its history from the Civil War.

Spanberger recently expressed support for the effort but returned the bill with suggestions to use the board of directors to carry out the review.

Spanberger’s substitute eliminates that task force entirely and instead directs VMI’s own board of visitors to carry out the review.

The board would be empowered to carry out a fairly hostile and open-ended agenda, including to “distance [VMI] from the Lost Cause narrative, foster an inclusive environment, and address any other concerns.” Spanberger has appointed 27 new board members, including former Gov. Ralph Northam, who is viewed as hostile to VMI.

The New York Times explained that the Democrats wanted to “distance Virginia from its Confederate past.” However, they also want to use a content-based law to discriminate against groups with which they disagree. The law clearly violates the First Amendment, but neither Spanberger nor the Virginia Democrats appear to care.

In Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), the Court struck down a signage regulation because”restrictions … that apply to any given sign [depend] entirely on the communicative content of the sign.” Likewise, Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 116 (1991), the Court stressed that the government’s ability to impose content-based burdens on speech raises the specter that the government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace.

From taxes to trademarks, content-based discrimination runs afoul of our free speech values. In Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017), the Court cited Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes decision in United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929), that “the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.'” 

Over 30 years ago, I wrote about the collision between anti-discrimination laws and the free exercise of religion. I have been critical of the use of the tax code to effectively punish organizations that do not comport with the IRS’s view of good public policy.

That prior work was critical of the 1982 decision involving Bob Jones University, in which the Supreme Court upheld the denial of tax-exempt status. In the case of Bob Jones, the university was engaged in reprehensible racial discrimination. However, I wrote how the actual standard is far more vague and could potentially be used more broadly.

Virginia is an example of precisely that problem in the use of tax exemptions to engage in viewpoint discrimination.

I have opposed such moves with a variety of organizations with which I have long-standing objections. That includes the Administration’s threat to revoke Harvard University’s tax-exempt status.

Tax exemption should not be a status bestowed upon those adhering to the demands of whatever party is in power. Free speech and associational rights are fostered by granting this status.

Virginia will now spend additional money to defend this unconstitutional action and fight for the right to discriminate against those who have opposing views in the state.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/spanberger-signs-unconstitutional-bill-strip-confederacy-linked-groups-tax-exempt-status

'Money Laundering'? Newsom Used Donations To Inflate Book Sales

 by Luis Cornelio via HeadlineUSA,

California Gov. Gavin Newsom and his allies spent weeks boasting that his book, Young Man in a Hurry, became a “best-seller” within hours of its March release. However, a new report found those sales were largely driven by Newsom’s own super PAC using donor funds.

FILE - California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a press conference in Los Angeles, Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2024. (AP Photo/Eric Thayer, File)

The book, published March 10 and centered on Newsom’s upbringing in California, has reportedly sold 97,400 copies since its release. Of those, 67,000 were purchased by Newsom’s Campaign for Democracy Committee through a donation-for-book scheme,

The leftist New York Times reported Friday that the PAC urged supporters to make donations in exchange for a copy of the book, effectively turning each contribution into a guaranteed sale.

Critics described the setup as a potential money-laundering scheme, with the super PAC purchasing copies from its publisher Porchlight Book Company for every donation, regardless of the amount.

“Make a contribution of ANY AMOUNT today and I will send you a copy,” Newsom reportedly wrote in an email pitch.

In total, Newsom’s PAC spent $1,561,875 on the effort.

Defending the arrangement, Newsom spokesperson Nathan Click said the governor did not receive royalties from those purchases.

“Our goal was to deepen the relationship between him and the millions of folks who have already expressed support for Governor Newsom’s work. And as it turns out, the tactic more than paid for itself,” Click claimed.

Critics questioned the ethics of the program, with some suggesting it may have influenced Porchlight Book Company’s advance for Newsom’s 2026 book.

It remains unclear how much Newsom received as part of that advance. In 2019, however, he was paid $125,000 by Penguin Random House for Ben and Emma’s Big Hit, a children’s book.

A spokesperson for Newsom did not immediately respond to Headline USA’s request for comment regarding the advance for his latest book.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/money-laundering-newsom-used-donations-inflate-book-sales

New York’s race-based STEM programs face constitutional challenges

 For nearly 40 years, New York State’s Science and Technology Entry Program or STEP has offered middle and high school students extra preparation for college and careers in science, technology and health fields. About 11,000 students participate statewide each year.

But STEP’s admissions rules did something shocking: They imposed stricter income eligibility standards on white and Asian-American students than on other applicants, effectively using race to determine who qualified for help.

The result is perverse. An African-American student from an upper-middle-class family could qualify automatically, whereas a less-privileged white or Asian-American student would have to clear additional hurdles.

Last year, a federal lawsuit prompted an important shift. After Asian American families challenged the policy as discriminatory, New York officials issued guidance encouraging STEP schools to stop using race-based eligibility rules. Although these rules remain on the books, and not all schools have complied, the move signaled growing recognition that the program’s racial criteria are legally problematic.

Unfortunately, STEP is hardly unique. Across the country, education officials have adopted policies that sort students by race in the name of diversity or equity — even when doing so means treating children differently because of their skin color. A sister program in New York, the Collegiate Science and Technology Entry Program, still violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection by enforcing racial preferences.

The courts have made it clear that such policies are unconstitutional. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard that race-based college admissions violate the Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection. Subjecting students to different standards because of their race conflicts with the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

To be sure, while recent court precedents have reinforced the argument that race-based eligibility schemes are unconstitutional, many education bureaucrats have sought to work around court rulings by using alternative selection criteria as a proxy for racial classifications. For example, in Boston, a new federal lawsuit challenges the city’s admissions plan for its elite exam schools. The plan replaces merit-based admissions with a tier system based on neighborhood income levels — a structure critics say was designed to achieve a predetermined racial balance. New York’s STEP program raises a similar concern.

The lawsuit was brought by Yiatin Chu, an Asian-American mother in Queens, whose middle-school daughter has a strong interest in STEM learning. Chu believed STEP could provide valuable academic opportunities. Instead, she discovered that her daughter faced extra admission requirements simply because of her race.

Chu filed her federal lawsuit in January 2024, represented by our organization and the Equal Protection Project. She and her co-plaintiffs argue that STEP’s eligibility rules violate the Constitution by discriminating on the basis of race. Chu simply wants her daughter and other students like her to be judged as individuals, based on their talents, effort and achievements.

Her case represents more than a dispute over one program. It is part of a broader effort to ensure that education policy treats students fairly and respects the Constitution’s promise of equal protection.

Education leaders should stop trying to engineer outcomes based on racial categories and instead focus on what truly helps students succeed: opportunity, hard work and academic excellence. The legal challenge to STEP is an important step toward restoring those principles.

Erin Wilcox is a senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation and represents the plaintiffs in Chu v. Rosa.

https://thehill.com/opinion/education/5836700-race-based-admissions-lawsuit/

Sunday talkies: Hilton, Waltz, Mamdani, Wright, Stefanik, Rick Scott, Al Hashimy, Pahlavi, Dhillon

 NewsNation’s “The Hill Sunday”: California gubernatorial candidate Matt Mahan (D), California gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton (R)

CBS News’s “Face the Nation”: Former Attorney General Eric Holder, former U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Energy Resources Amos Hochstein, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz

NBC’s “Meet the Press“: U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D), entrepreneur Emma Grede

CNN’s “State of the Union”: Energy Secretary Chris Wright, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.)

Fox News’s “Fox News Sunday“: Energy Secretary Chris Wright, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Kentucky Senate candidate Daniel Cameron (R)

ABC’s “This Week“: United Arab Emirates Minister of State for International Cooperation Reem Al Hashimy, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)
 
Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures”: Exiled Crown Prince of Iran Reza Pahlavi, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon, Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas)

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/5838036-trump-iran-negotiations-ceasefire/

‘Anchor babies’ reach nearly 10% of all US births: new data

 Nearly 10% of US births in 2023 came from illegal immigrant mothers, according to newly published research.

Pew Research Center revealed that 320,000 of the 3.6 million babies born in the US that year were anchor babies who would not qualify for birthright citizenship if President Trump’s executive order is upheld by the Supreme Court.

“Under the current erroneous birthright citizenship interpretation, these children automatically become citizens and unlock food stamps, welfare, specialized schooling for English education, and eventually college aid,” Brandy Perez Carbaugh of the Heritage Foundation told The Post.

A pregnant asylum seeking migrant rests in the shelter at Annunciation House in El Paso, Texas on May 18, 2022.New York Post

Of those 320,000, the center said 245,000 were born to parents who were illegal immigrants.

Another 15,000 babies were born to mothers who had temporary legal status, while the fathers were not citizens or lawful permanent residents.

The remaining 60,000 were born to illegal alien mothers while the child’s father was a citizen or lawful permanent resident.

The massive number of US anchor baby births in 2023 is the highest total since 2010, when 325,000 babies were born to illegal immigrant parents, according to Pew data.

The number of anchor baby births in the US has increased for three consecutive years.

Immigration hawks warn illegal aliens will continue to abuse the generous laws in the Land of the Free while legal US citizens foot the bill.

“High volumes of illegal and temporary aliens are having children in the US because they are exploiting the decades-old erroneous interpretation that such children are US citizens,” said Carbaugh. 

“Emergency Medicaid loopholes allow illegal aliens to qualify for free labor, delivery, and often prenatal care in some states, so taxpayers pay for these ‘anchor babies,’” said the expert.

“This has brought alien parents both a claimed shield against deportation and financial benefits through the eligible child. Americans cover the cost as they struggle to provide for their own families,” she said.

The Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments April 1 in Trump v. Barbara, a landmark challenge to the president’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship, which has been a right enshrined in the 14th Amendment since 1868.

https://nypost.com/2026/04/18/us-news/anchor-babies-reach-nearly-10-of-all-us-births-new-data/