XCR1250

Here are all of the allegations against Biden: Tara Reade alleged in April 2019 that Biden touched her in ways that made her feel uncomfortable while she worked in his Senate office in 1993. In March 2020, Reade alleged that Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993. Screenshot/YouTube Reade first alleged in April 2019 that Biden would repeatedly "put his hand on my shoulder and run his finger up my neck" while she was employed in his Senate office from December 1992 to August 1993. She also alleged that she was asked to serve drinks at a work event because Biden liked her legs. Reade said when she refused to serve the drinks, her work responsibilities were reduced and she left her job. In March 2020, Reade first publicly alleged that Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993, pressing her against a wall in a Capitol Hill corridor, reaching under her skirt, and digitally penetrating her. Reade said she filed a complaint with the Senate personnel office concerning Biden's alleged "sexual harassment and retaliation," but didn't mention the alleged assault. Lucy Flores alleged in March 2019 that Biden grasped her shoulders from behind and kissed the back of her head without her consent during a campaign event in 2014. Screenshot via CNN Flores, a Democratic politician from Nevada, made her allegations in an essay published in New York Magazine's The Cut in late March 2019. Flores said that while she was preparing to go onstage at a 2014 rally during her race for lieutenant governor, Biden came up behind her, put his hands on her shoulders, smelled her hair, and kissed the back of her head. "My brain couldn't process what was happening. I was embarrassed. I was shocked. I was confused," she wrote. "The vice-president of the United States of America had just touched me in an intimate way reserved for close friends, family, or romantic partners — and I felt powerless to do anything about it ... Even if his behavior wasn't violent or sexual, it was demeaning and disrespectful." Ally Coll, a former Democratic staffer, told The Washington Post in April 2019 that when she met Biden in 2008, he complimented her smile, squeezed her shoulders, and held her "for a beat too long." Screenshot/American Law Journal Coll initially brushed off the incident, but she told The Post that reflecting on it now, she believes Biden's actions were inappropriate. "There's been a lack of understanding about the way that power can turn something that might seem innocuous into something that can make somebody feel uncomfortable," Coll told The Post in April 2019. Sofie Karasek, a progressive organizer, was photographed holding hands and touching foreheads with Biden at the 2016 Academy Awards. Karasek said she felt Biden violated her personal space in that interaction. Paul Elias/AP Images Karasek was one of dozens of sexual-assault survivors who stood on stage while Lady Gaga performed, "Til It Happens To You," a song concerning rape and sexual assault, at the 2016 Academy Awards. A photograph from the event of the then-22 year old and Biden holding hands and touching foreheads went viral, but Karasek told The Washington Post in 2019 that she felt Biden had encroached on her personal space. She also said she didn't think Biden's 2019 apology video adequately addressed the allegations against him. Biden never explicitly apologized for his actions, and Karasek said he "didn't take ownership in the way that he needs to." "He emphasized that he wants to connect with people and, of course, that's important," she said. "But again, all of our interactions and friendships are a two-way street … Too often it doesn't matter how the woman feels about it or they just assume that they're fine with it." Amy Stokes Lappos alleges Biden pulled her face close to him during a 2009 political fundraiser. Screenshot/WTNH News 8 Lappos, a small business owner and Democratic political activist, told the Hartford Courant in April 2019 that Biden "put his hands behind my head and pulled me close and I thought, 'he's going to kiss me.'" Lappos said her interaction with Biden occurred at a Greenwich, Connecticut fundraiser for Democratic Rep. Jim Himes in 2009. Caitlyn Caruso said that after she shared her story of sexual assault at a University of Nevada event in 2016, Biden hugged her "just a little bit too long" and put his hand on her thigh. Democratic presidential candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden, speaks at the Poor People's Moral Action Congress presidential forum in Washington, Monday, June 17, 2019. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) Associated Press "It doesn't even really cross your mind that such a person would dare perpetuate harm like that," Caruso told The New York Times in April 2019. "These are supposed to be people you can trust." DJ Hill alleges Biden rested his hand on her shoulder and moved it down her back at a 2012 fundraising event in Minneapolis. Hill said the encounter made her "very uncomfortable." Screenshot/CBSN "Only he knows his intent," Hill told The New York Times in April 2019. "If something makes you feel uncomfortable, you have to feel able to say it." Vail Kohnert-Yount, a former White House intern, said when she met Biden in 2013, he "put his hand on the back of my head and pressed his forehead to my forehead." Kohnert-Yount also said Biden called her a "pretty girl." Democratic 2020 U.S. presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden. Reuters Kohnert-Yount told The Washington Post in April 2019 she was "so shocked" by her encounter with Biden that "it was hard to focus on what he was saying." She said she wouldn't classify Biden's actions as sexual misconduct, but added that it's "the kind of inappropriate behavior that makes many women feel uncomfortable and unequal in the workplace." In June 2019, Biden told the brothers of a 13-year-old girl to "keep the guys away" from her at a campaign event. Biden touches his head to a young girl's forehead as he greets guests after speaking during a campaign event with former President Barack Obama in 2012. SAUL LOEB/Getty Images The Boston Globe reported that the interaction occurred when Biden met a voter at a coffee shop before a campaign event in Iowa. When Biden met the voter's granddaughter, he asked her age. After she replied that she was 13 years old, Biden turned to her brothers and said, "You've got one job here, keep the guys away from your sister."

Is this another "imminent"?

The EV Advantage Has Been Vastly Overstated Toyota It is often touted that EVs have a big advantage over ICE vehicles because they are more environmentally friendly, but that's not necessarily true. EVs don't pollute while driving, but making and charging them is a dirty business. A lot more pollution is generated by manufacturing an EV than a gas-powered vehicle, and the electricity to charge them mostly comes from fossil fuel power plants. In a study, Reuters found an EV needs to be driven for about 12 years to break even with the carbon emissions required to build and charge it. The primary way to recycle EV batteries is called pyrometallurgy, which is a process of melting down the battery packs and burning off the plastic to extract the desirable metals within. It's an energy-intensive process that releases toxic gasses, which is decidedly not eco-friendly. It's also not something that's widespread as only around five percent of EV batteries get recycled, with the rest ending up in landfills, leaching poisons into the ground. Tying in with the affordability advantage of ICE vehicles, replacing an EV battery can get quite expensive. Getting a new battery pack installed on a Ford Mustang Mach-E costs $18,514 for the standard range and jumps to $23,648 for the extended range.

I never have, wouldn't even know how to.

Folks still use FB?

Supreme Court ruling on Trump ballot eligibility: What it means, what the justices said and how we got here The former president said he hopes the decision issued a day before Super Tuesday will "unify" the country. Kate Murphy and Dylan Stableford Updated Mon, March 4, 2024 at 12:29 PM CST·5 min read 26.4k Donald Trump speaks at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., on Monday. (Rebecca Blackwell/AP) Former President Donald Trump was handed a major victory on Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that he cannot be excluded from Colorado's primary election ballot over his actions surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. "BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!!" Trump posted on Truth Social, his social media platform, shortly after the ruling was handed down. Speaking to reporters at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., Trump said he hoped the ruling would "unify" the country in allowing him to continue his bid for the White House. "I think it will go a long way to bringing our country together, which our country needs," he said. The former president had appealed the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to disqualify him under the 14th Amendment's Section 3, the so-called insurrection clause of the U.S. Constitution. The unanimous decision came just one day before Colorado voters head to the polls on Super Tuesday. Here’s what to know about the ruling. 🔎 What the ruling said The Supreme Court is photographed on Feb. 28. (Jacquelyn Martin/AP) "Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse," the justices wrote. It’s the first time the Supreme Court has weighed in on the insurrection clause, as the post-Civil War era provision was enacted in 1868 to prevent former Confederates from becoming a member of Congress or being elected to other offices. It’s also the biggest case related to the presidential election that the high court has weighed in on since the 2000 election in Bush v. Gore. ↘ What the liberal justices said While the court's three liberal justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred with the judgment, they disagreed with the conservative majority's rationale, saying it was unnecessary and went too far: "The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment," Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson wrote. "In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment." 🏔️ What Colorado's secretary of state said Rioters clash with police outside the Capitol, Jan. 6, 2021. (Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images) "I am disappointed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision stripping states of the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for federal candidates," Jena Griswold wrote on X. "Colorado should be able to bar oath-breaking [insurrectionists] from our ballot." 🇺🇲 What the ruling means The highly anticipated ruling provides clarity as to who will appear on the ballot — not just for voters in Colorado on the eve they head to the polls on Super Tuesday, but also in Illinois and Maine, where voters had also petitioned for Trump to be disqualified from the ballot in those states, also citing the insurrection clause. “Nothing of this nature can go forward in any state, not Maine, not Illinois, not anywhere else,” Ned Foley, law professor and director of the election law program at Ohio State University, told Yahoo News. “That's one thing that's absolutely clear from today's ruling.” ➡️ How we got here The case, known as Trump v. Anderson, centers on a so-called insurrection clause of the U.S. Constitution, formally known as Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It prohibits officials who have previously sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution from holding government office if they engage in insurrection. Section 3 does not specifically mention the word “president” in a long list of government offices. Trump maintains that Section 3 doesn’t apply to him on two levels: because he did not engage in insurrection and the provision does not specify “president.” However, Colorado voters argued that Trump did engage in insurrection on Jan. 6 and therefore should be disqualified from holding office under Section 3. Trump, however, has not been explicitly charged with “insurrection” in any of the four criminal cases in which he has been indicted. ❓Unanswered questions During the Feb. 8 oral arguments of Trump v. Anderson before the Supreme Court, many questions arose as to whether Section 3 applies to Trump, like whether he is considered an insurrectionist due to his actions on Jan. 6, or if the presidency is an “office” of the United States. “Many of the issues that had to do with Section 3 and whether it actually applies to Trump, [the court] did not answer any of them one way or the other,” Foley told Yahoo News. Foley said perhaps the biggest lingering question is what Congressional members, like Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin who voted to impeach Trump twice for insurrection, will do if Trump is elected into the White House again. Foley said congressional members like Raskin could accept the will of the voters, or if some members feel that Trump shouldn’t be anywhere near the Oval Office, they could perhaps invoke Section 3. “It could get very ugly between November this year and January 2025 if the court hasn’t really settled Section 3,” Foley said.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-takes-idaho-gop-caucuses-015645594.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/michigan-gop-awards-39-more-224938153.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-wins-missouri-republican-caucuses-003434628.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/michigan-gop-holds-presidential-caucuses-150000080.html

The Big Change Between the 2020 and 2024 Races: Biden Is Unpopular Nate Cohn Sat, March 2, 2024 at 10:39 AM CST·4 min read 1.9k A debate watch party hosted by the Trump campaign Lititz, Pa., Sept. 29, 2020. (Mark Makela/The New York Times) Let’s just say it: Joe Biden should be expected to win this election. He’s an incumbent president running for reelection with a reasonably healthy economy against an unpopular opponent accused of multiple federal crimes. And yet Biden is not winning, at least not now. Polls show him trailing in states worth well over 270 electoral votes, and he lags behind Donald Trump in our newest New York Times/Siena College national poll by 5 percentage points among registered voters, 48% to 43%. Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times That’s the largest lead Trump has ever had in a Times/Siena national poll. In fact, it’s the largest lead Trump has held in a Times/Siena or Times/CBS poll since first running for president in 2015. Why is Biden losing? There are many possible reasons, including his age, the war in the Gaza Strip, the border and lingering concerns over inflation. But ultimately, they add up to something very simple: Biden is very unpopular. He’s so unpopular that he’s now even less popular than Trump, who remains every bit as unpopular as he was four years ago. Biden’s unpopularity has flipped the expected dynamic of this election. It has turned what looked like a seemingly predictable rematch into a race with no resemblance to the 2020 election, when Biden was a broadly appealing candidate who was acceptable to the ideologically diverse group of voters who disapproved of Trump. Instead, many voters will apparently agonize between two candidates they dislike. It’s exactly what Democrats sought to avoid when they nominated Biden in 2020. It’s what Democrats largely avoided in the 2018 and 2022 midterm elections, when they mostly nominated acceptable candidates or ran incumbents against right-wing opponents. And it’s exactly what led to the election of Trump in 2016. Overall, 19% of registered voters in the Times/Siena survey have an unfavorable view of both candidates — a group sometimes referred to as “double haters.” These voters say they backed Biden by a 3-to-1 margin among those who voted in 2020, but now he holds the support of less than half. Every vote counts, but these voters will undoubtedly be pivotal in deciding the November election. The double haters might ultimately return to Biden’s side. There are still eight months left until November, and it’s not as if these voters like Trump. If they do come back to Biden, perhaps their return will have seemed inevitable in retrospect. But from today’s vantage point, we can’t know what will happen. What we know is that the choice for these voters is much more difficult for them than it was four years ago, when they said they liked Biden. They don’t today. It creates the conditions for a volatile race, and it might just be enough to flip their preference for president as well. A few other items of note: — In our last poll in December, Biden led by 2 points among likely voters, even though he trailed by 2 among the wider set of registered voters. But in this poll, Trump holds a 4-point lead among likely voters. That’s still better for Biden than his 5-point deficit among registered voters, and it continues a pattern of unusual Biden strength among the likeliest voters, but the difference is no longer enough to give Biden the lead. Biden’s strength remains relatively concentrated among the most regular voters, as he holds a 46-45 lead among those who have voted in a midterm or a primary. He trails by only 2 points among those “almost certain to vote.” But many other voters will turn out in a general election, and at least in this particular poll, they’re enough to give Trump a modest lead. — The poll found Trump leading Nikki Haley in the Republican primary, 77-20. That’s pretty good for Trump, of course, but it’s actually Haley’s best result in a month. And according to our poll, there’s a simple reason for her strength: Biden voters, who now make up 15% of those who say they will probably vote in the Republican primary. In fact, a near majority of Haley’s supporters (48-31) say they voted for Biden in the last election instead of Trump. — Biden’s support among nonwhite voters keeps sinking. He held just a 49-39 lead among the group, even though nonwhite respondents who voted in the 2020 election said they backed Biden, 69-21. — Despite the positive economic news over the last few months, 51% of voters still said the economy was “poor.” In a strange way, perhaps that’s good news for Biden: Maybe his standing will improve if or when voters begin to gain confidence that the economy has turned the corner. — Even at this late stage, Democrats are still divided over whether Biden should be the nominee, with 46% saying he should be and 45% saying he shouldn’t. We didn’t ask whether Biden should drop out of the race. We considered it — in fact, we discussed it for days — but many respondents may not know the complications involved in a contested convention. c.2024 The New York Times Company

Joe Biden’s disapproval rating reaches new high, according to new poll EDWARD HELMORE March 2, 2024 at 11:07 AM Biden’s approval rating came in at 38%, with Trump at 44%.Photograph: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Strong voter disapproval of Joe Biden’s job performance has reached 47% – the highest negative polling number at any point in his presidency, according to a survey published on Saturday. Related: Michigan primary a test for Biden as key voters turn away over Gaza war The Siena College-conducted poll, commissioned by the New York Times, showed that Biden currently lags behind likely Republican candidate Donald Trump 43% to 48% in registered voters nationally. The survey found that just one in four voters (24%) think the country is moving in the right direction – a key question in the run-up to a national election – and more than twice as many voters said that Biden’s policies had personally hurt them than those who said they had helped. Of the two-thirds of the country that feels the nation is headed in the wrong direction, the poll found that 63% said they would vote for Trump. Conducted at the end of February, these results come as the Biden re-election campaign attempts to change the narrative on voter concerns about the Democrat candidate’s age and mental acuity and his handling of foreign policy and the economy. A majority of voters think the economy is in poor condition, the polling showed. The survey is only the latest to reveal the depths of voter dissatisfaction with the president. Last week, a Bloomberg News poll found Biden trailing Trump in several critical states, including Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada and Wisconsin. In the Bloomberg survey, a large share of the respondents voiced concerns with Biden’s age and a significant percentage said Trump was dangerous, and suggested the number of “double haters”, as pollsters call voters who approve of neither candidate, is significant. Those findings were broadly repeated in Saturday’s Times poll. Biden’s approval rating came in at 38%, with Trump faring better with a 44% favorable rating. Nineteen per cent of voters said they disapproved of both men, but among them Biden is slightly less hated, with a spread of 7% between Biden (38%) and Trump (45%). That spread, according to the Times, is significant: the candidate less disliked by “double haters” has won the last two presidential elections. Those findings may bolster what Democrat and Republican pollsters drew from recent primary voting. In South Carolina last week, the number of primary voters who backed Republican contender Nikki Haley but said they would never vote for Trump is perceived to represent the margin that will ensure Trump’s defeat to Biden in November. But the New York Times poll provides an array of red warning lights for the Biden campaign, including signals that the Democratic party coalition of female, Black and Latino voters is fraying. Among working-class, non-university-educated voters of color, Biden is only narrowly leading, 47% to Trump’s 41%, the poll found. Four years ago, Biden held a 50-point lead. Last week, Trump suggested that his legal problems has won him support among Black voters. “I got indicted for nothing, for something that is nothing,” he told the Black Conservative Federation gala in South Carolina. “A lot of people said that’s why the Black people like me, because they have been hurt so badly and discriminated against, and they actually viewed me as I’m being discriminated against.”

New Supplement Reverses Aging in Dogs, Study Shows Published Feb 29, 2024 at 4:41 PM ESTUpdated Mar 01, 2024 at 12:00 PM EST By Rachel Dobkin Weekend Reporter FOLLOW Anew supplement called "LeapYears" from animal health company Animal Biosciences, Inc., is shown to reverse aging in dogs, according to a clinical study. The demand for supplements for your furry friends may be more than you expect. The global pet supplement market was worth about $1.3 billion to $2.5 billion in 2023, which is expected to increase by over 5 percent annually. Animal Biosciences, Inc., based in Boston, Massachusetts, announced the breakthrough on Thursday in a press release. The new study "shows the first clinical evidence that it is possible to reverse age-related decline in dogs," the release said. How does "LeapYears" work? The soft chew supplement "significantly improves owner-assessed cognitive function and may have broader effects on frailty, activity and happiness as reported by owners," according to the study. It is important to note that the study has been published on a preprint server known as BioRxiv. Preprint servers contain early version works that have yet to be peer-reviewed. Animal Biosciences told Newsweek via email on Thursday: "It has been submitted to scientific reports for peer review." The supplement is a combination NAD+ precursor and senolytic. Dr. Ginny Rentko, the chief veterinary medical officer at Animal Biosciences, Inc. who worked on the study with Sinclair, explained the science behind the supplement in an email to Newsweek: "It works at the cellular level to restore your dog's health by enhancing NAD+ production and clearing out damaged cells. Senescent cells consume increased amounts of NAD+, depleting cellular reserves. "LeapYears supports the natural clearance of cells that no longer function properly, leaving room for healthier ones to utilize NAD+ more efficiently. It is the only dog supplement that targets and removes aged, damaged cells to help dogs age better." Dr. David A. Sinclair, Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of Animal Biosciences said in the press release, "I am very proud of the teams at NCSU and Animal Biosciences, who, after years of collaborative research and a clinical trial, have developed the first supplement proven to reverse aging in dogs." The supplement "preserves healthy brain function, keeping an older dog mentally sharp, alert and more engaged. Dogs have shown increased focus and engagement in family activities," Rentko told Newsweek. Seniors or puppies; who benefits? Rentko said that "LeapYears" can be used in older dogs once the signs of aging are apparent or as a preventative measure for younger, mature dogs. "Cellular aging is at the root of many of the diseases of older dogs. Older dogs receive the most obvious benefit from Leap Years. However, it is in middle age when NAD concentrations start to wane. Stock image of older man petting dog with glasses. Animal Biosciences told Newsweek via email on Thursday that their report on the reversal of dog aging with a supplement has been submitted to scientific reports... MoreHALFPOINT/GETTY IMAGES "There are dogs for whom it would be beneficial to start LeapYears earlier than this, depending on a dog's particular medical conditions which negatively impact aging. Many pet parents proactively start their dog on LeapYears once their dog reaches maturity to address the underlying cause of aging in dogs as early as possible," Rentko said. While "LeapYears" is still in clinical trials, with any dog supplement, it is important for owners to talk to their veterinarian before giving the supplement to their dogs. The American Kennel Club warned in an article on their website from November 2023 that supplements could have a "harmful effect" if your dog is on medication. The American Kennel Club also said that there have been some "successful results" of using dog supplements. "There has been minimal research on their [dog supplements] long-term effects, but some studies and anecdotal evidence have shown successful results, whether in the form of a shinier coat, peppier step, better digestion, or improved cognitive function." When buying supplements for your furry friend, the American Kennel Club advises owners to look for a reputable brand that has conducted clinical studies or earned certification from an independent organization. A Great Dane relaxes on the artificial grass in a park popular with pet owners San Antonio, Texas. A new supplement called "LeapYears" from animal health company Animal Biosciences, Inc., is shown to reverse aging...

Some have the Jab and are safe now.. Vaccine Trial.mp4

Nope, still here.

The American revolt against green energy has begun David Blackmon Fri, March 1, 2024 at 10:24 AM CST·4 min read 287 A wind turbine falls apart after catching fire. US county governments are increasingly refusing to host renewable energy industries - EPA-EFE/Shutterstock In a story filled with all the standard climate alarmist narratives, USA Today recently reported on the rising movement by local governments in the United States to refuse to permit unwanted wind and solar industrial sites in their jurisdictions. After setting the stage by parroting the Biden administration goals of “100 per cent clean energy by 2035, a goal that depends on the building of large-scale solar and wind,” USA Today points to the reality that such big, intrusive, ugly, and destructive industrial sites have been rejected by twice as many county governments as approved them. The writers complain that the rejections come about by some combination of “outright bans, moratoriums, construction impediments and other conditions that make green energy difficult to build,” but don’t go on to describe why the rejections are taking place. Simply put, these huge industrial sites – we simply must stop using the friendly-sounding term “farms” to describe them – create all manner of negative consequences for local communities. Consequences like loud noise from wind turbines, hundreds of dead birds and bats sprinkled across the countryside, thousands of acres of productive farm or ranchlands taken out of production for many years if not permanently, spoiled views, enormous “graveyards” filled with 150-foot blades and solar panels popping up all over the place, and impacts to local wind and weather patterns that are only now beginning to be understood. Those consequences and more have become increasingly clear as time has progressed, and that is making it harder for developers to gain acceptance from the communities that would serve as hosts. Such pushback is likely to grow more strident in the coming years as it becomes clear to citizens that their state governments have failed to enact effective regulatory structures requiring timely and full retirement and remediation of these industrial sites when their useful life has expired. By that time, these sites will most likely have been sold off by the big developers who built them to smaller companies that will be unlikely to be able to bear the enormous costs involved in full removal and remediation. But by then, it will be too late for the communities to protect their rights. The only real way to protect a city or county from these myriad impacts is to refuse to allow them to be built. Fortunately, the US legal system has been built in a way that protects the rights of all stakeholders to any industrial development. Those stakeholders include local citizens, their businesses, their local infrastructure, their archeological sites, and their government entities – those are givens. But US society has seen fit over the decades to extend similar protections to animals, plants, the water, and the air as well. Whenever we hear developers of energy or any other industrial projects complain of lengthy and complex permitting processes with which they must comply, we must remember that almost all the hurdles they must overcome to obtain their permits relate to regulations designed to protect these stakeholder rights. In the US, those regulations relate to major environmental statutes like the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and others, like the Antiquities Act. The term “streamlining permitting” is in fact code for scaling back on those stakeholder protections. This is the clear trade-off with which the US and other western democracies must grapple if they are to achieve their climate goals. We must recognize that essentially every “solution” that has been advanced by the climate alarmist community and the globalist elites pushing their agenda requires the implementation of authoritarian policies designed to scale back stakeholder rights, pick winners and losers in the marketplace, and force reluctant consumers to pay the price. These kinds of forced solutions are in fact incompatible with the maintenance of a free society that protects the rights of all stakeholders. That reality is the central conundrum of this forced, heavily subsidized energy transition – which is not, in fact, a transition at all – and it is the reason why so many local governments are rejecting these proposed industrial sites. The climate alarmists understand this, which is why their rhetoric has grown more shrill and heated over time. In democracies, we decide major issues like this through elections. So long as we ensure those elections are conducted freely and fairly, it seems unlikely voters will be willing to surrender their rights in favor of achieving nebulous climate goals.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/the-cdc-has-dropped-its-5-day-covid-isolation-guidelines-heres-why--and-whats-changed-182024664.html

New York rentals average $3,350 for a studio rental to $7,495 for a 4-bedroom rental. The median price of all currently available listings is $4,158, or roughly $6 per square feet. For the apartment units and housing in February 2024, median rents have been roughly unchanged over the last year.

https://nypost.com/2024/02/28/business/donald-trump-on-verge-of-4-billion-windfall-despite-legal-problems/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AltaVista

IMMINENT

You forget who you're addressing here? LOL

Imminent?

https://newatlas.com/outdoors/vidde-alfa-electric-snowmobile/ LOL

https://www.carscoops.com/2023/03/toyota-to-continue-hydrogen-development-despite-shifting-main-focus-to-evs/

https://www.thedrive.com/news/toyotas-hydrogen-dreams-are-attracting-major-ice-tech-suppliers

who's running the country.MOV

Look it up, autos & pickups too.