Tag: taxes

25 State AGs Urge Defunding Of National Academies Of Sciences, Allege Bias On Climate Lawsuits

A coalition of 25 state attorneys general called on federal agencies and Congress to defund the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), charging that the organization had used taxpayer dollars to produce reports that supported plaintiffs in climate lawsuits against energy companies.

In an Aug. 27 letter, the state attorneys general urged the federal government to “end grants to an organization [NASEM] that uses taxpayer money to prop up litigation theories that have been rejected by courts from Maryland to Mississippi to California.”

Much of the conflict stems from a chapter on climate science in the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence for federal judges that was written by NASEM, together with the Federal Judicial Center (FJC).

This manual provides essential background and technical information for judges who are presiding over thousands of lawsuits in which states and cities across the United States are seeking billions of dollars in damages from energy companies as compensation for alleged harm from global warming.

Allegations of Bias

Critics allege that information NASEM produced for the manual supports the plaintiffs’ claims while ignoring contrary views that favor the defense.

President Donald Trump stated in a July 19 Truth Social post that NASEM had “published fraudulent, biased, and misleading Manuals on Climate Change” and that “taxpayers should not be funding Climate Fraud, and Judges should never have relied upon it.”

In January, Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, told the FJC in a letter that the manual appeared to include “biased programming” with the “underlying goal of predisposing federal judges in favor of plaintiffs who allege injuries from the manufacturing, marketing, use, or sale of fossil-fuel products.”

In response, the FJC removed the chapter from its manual. Initially, NASEM kept the chapter on its website but removed it on Aug. 7, pending an internal review.

“That chapter has received considerable scrutiny,” NASEM stated. “[NASEM] has determined that questions about the processes used to develop the chapter warrant an independent review, and the chapter will not appear on our website while that review is underway.”

However, attorneys general from the group of 25 states, led by Montana, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia, say they have concerns regarding that review process.

“Now, over five months later, after presidential criticism and increasing public scrutiny, NASEM has temporarily removed the chapter from its website for an ‘independent review’ of the ‘processes used to develop the chapter,'” the attorneys general wrote in their letter. “This review appears to be a sham, as demonstrated by NASEM’s secrecy around all aspects of the review process.”

The attorneys general charged that the chapter in the reference manual that NASEM helped write “materially misquotes the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], directly contradicts the manual’s statistics chapter, was apparently substantially ghost-written by climate plaintiffs’ attorney Michael Burger, and had funders, authors, and reviewers that included climate funders, activists, and litigation participants.”

One of the co-authors of the Reference Manual’s climate chapter, Columbia Law School professor Jessica Wentz, defended the work in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, stating that it had undergone a rigorous review process, that Michael Burger had not contributed to it, and that it was “objective and rooted in settled science.”

In addition to the chapter in the reference manual for judges, NASEM produced a report in July titled “Attribution of Extreme Weather and Climate Events and Their Impacts 2026,” which critics say bolstered plaintiffs’ arguments that harm from extreme weather events could be attributed to energy companies’ production of fossil fuels.

That NASEM report supported “extreme event attribution” (EEA), the legal theory underpinning climate lawsuits, which claims that damage from extreme weather can be attributed to fossil fuel emissions, as plaintiffs assert. NASEM stated in a summary of the report that “the scientific tools, observational datasets, and methods developed and used for EEA have advanced considerably over the past decade and increased the confidence in EEA results for some types of weather events.”

“[NASEM says] that these attribution studies have more prominence in the press and in legal proceeding and they say attribution methodology is getting better, but saying something is getting better is nowhere near the same as saying it’s any good,” Steven Koonin, physicist at Stanford University and former undersecretary for science under President Barack Obama, told The Epoch Times. “You would expect to see graphs throughout the report comparing the results of attribution with what the actual data is, and there is virtually none of that in the report.”

The NASEM report also provides a methodology and causal link between greenhouse gas emissions, changes in climate, extreme weather, physical impacts on communities, and societal and economic harm.

Among the climate lawsuit cases currently moving through the courts is a pending Supreme Court case, Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, which could set a precedent for many other similar cases.

Keep reading

Canada’s Tariff Strategy Designed To Interfere With U.S. Midterm Elections

Late last month, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney walked away from a trade deal with the United States. According to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Canada was “offered the best trade deal of any country on the globe,” but Carney abandoned the deal “at the last minute.”

According to the White House, “the U.S. offered Canada the most preferential market access of any country on Earth, with deep cuts on steel, aluminum, autos, lumber, and more. Instead of partnership, Canada chose unreasonable demands, walk-backs, and flat-out rejection.” Canada responded with retaliation rather than negotiation, becoming the only other country besides China to do so.

And the reason is that Canada is trying to influence the 2026 midterm elections in the United States.

After the trade negotiations failed, Canadian officials announced that tariffs of up to 50% will hit roughly 700 American products starting September 8, covering close to $20 billion in goods, about 7% of everything Canada imports from the United States. The rates range from 15% to 50%, and tariffs on American steel and aluminum will double from 25% to 50%. This was a targeted economic strike meant to hit key states before the midterm elections.

Ottawa has barely bothered to deny it. Canadian Industry Minister Mélanie Joly said the tariffs were built to apply political pressure on specific states, telling reporters: “We are also targeting products that can target specific states in the United States. We are being smart and strategic in order to apply political pressure, and I think it’s the right thing to do right now.”

Asked directly about the political intent by the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., Joly did not walk it back: “We are putting pressure clearly on different states and different people. We don’t want to do that. We don’t want this trade war. We didn’t start it.”

The target list reads like a midterm map. Cheese products from Wisconsin. Washers and dryers from Kentucky, where GE Appliances is a major employer. Steel, aluminum and auto parts from Michigan. The Wall Street Journal reported that Canadian officials designed the package to protect domestic industry and to “sting President Trump and his Republican Party” heading into November.

“The states that are most reliant on Canada as an export market are often the northern-tier states – Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Hampshire,” Ed Gresser told the Wall Street Journal. He argued that Canada is “trying to show the Republican party that there’s a systemic cost to doing this sort of thing.”

Trade consultant Eric Miller, who heads the Washington-based Rideau Potomac Strategy Group, said Canada picked targets with available substitutes, either domestic production or imports from Mexico and China, items like air conditioners and appliances, while simultaneously hitting producers in swing states and reliably Republican territory.

Nowhere was the targeting clearer than Maine, and nowhere did it collapse faster. Ottawa’s original list carried a 25% tariff on American lobster, set to bite during the fall season when roughly half of Maine’s catch goes to Canadian processors. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), facing re-election in November, had already warned that the trade war would hurt her state. The Maine Lobstermen’s Association warned on Aug. 26 that the duty would land at the worst possible moment for an industry running on thin margins.

Keep reading

Trump Floats Support for Renaming New Mexico ‘New America’

President Donald Trump said in a social media post on Sept. 7 that he loved the idea of renaming New Mexico “New America.”

“Many people suggested changing the name of New Mexico, one of the great vote-cheating states of all time, to NEW AMERICA. So much more prestigious and beautiful for the people of that potentially incredible State. Wow, I Love It!!!” Trump wrote.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham rejected the idea in a post on X.

“New Mexico’s name isn’t up for debate—it’s been ours since before the United States existed,” Grisham, a Democrat, wrote.

Trump cannot rename New Mexico through an executive order; it would require action likely to involve both Congress and the state itself.

Changing the state constitution would involve New Mexico’s own amendment process. Under Article XIX, proposed constitutional amendments generally must be approved by the Legislature and then submitted to the state’s voters for ratification.

Keep reading

Mapped: Lifetime Taxes in Every U.S. State

How much money do you have to pay in taxes over a lifetime?

This visualization maps the estimated lifetime tax bill for a single filer in every U.S. state, including federal and state income taxes, as well as sales, property, and vehicle taxes.

The data for this visualization comes from Self Financial, with estimates as of June 2026.

The analysis assumes a 45-year working life with constant earnings and tax rates, a life expectancy of 79.6 years, homeownership beginning at age 40, and ownership of five vehicles over a lifetime.

New Jersey Tops the Ranking

New Jersey has the highest estimated lifetime tax bill in the country at $1.36 million.

Massachusetts follows at nearly $1.30 million, while Connecticut ranks third at $1.25 million. New Hampshire and New York round out the top five, highlighting the Northeast’s strong presence near the top of the ranking.

Florida Has the Lowest Lifetime Tax Bill

At the other end of the ranking, Florida has the lowest estimated lifetime tax bill at $508,980.

Florida’s lower total is helped by the absence of a state individual income tax, reducing the tax burden that residents pay on their earnings over time.

South Dakota is next at $515,732, followed by Arkansas at $517,942 and Oklahoma at $526,333. Together, the four lowest-ranked states have estimated lifetime tax bills ranging from about $509,000 to $526,000.

States in the Middle of the Pack

Several large states fall closer to the middle of the ranking. Texas has an estimated lifetime tax bill of $615,932, while Georgia comes in at $655,532 and Arizona at $698,824. Pennsylvania ranks higher at $835,067, putting it well above these states but still below the million-dollar mark.

Having no state individual income tax does not necessarily translate into a low overall lifetime tax bill. Washington, for example, ranks 16th at $816,217, above many states that levy an individual income tax. The estimates also account for federal income, property, sales, and vehicle taxes.

Keep reading

Greens promise to nationalise 120 supermarkets, costing $2.8 billion

The Green Party is promising to nationalise 120 Woolworths and Foodstuffs supermarkets to create a new Government-owned supermarket, KiwiMart, if elected.

The Greens say the Parliamentary Library costed the policy at $2.8 billion, comprising the cost of nationalising 120 stores and two distribution centres at $1.3b, with a further $1.5b to capitalise KiwiMart as a commercially viable competitor. KiwiMart would have a mandate to prioritise affordability.

Green Party co-leaders Chlöe Swarbrick and Marama Davidson announced the policy this morning in Auckland, saying it would help break up the power of the supermarket duopoly. The Green Party would create its supermarket chain by forcing the sale of 120 stores to the Government.

“Two companies control what almost everyone in this country eats, and they take about a million dollars a day in excess profit out of our shopping baskets. That is money that should be in people’s pockets,” Swarbrick said.

“Everyone agrees we need competition in the grocery sector to drive down prices, but successive governments have failed to lure one. That’s why today we are announcing the real solution: a supermarket owned by all New Zealanders, for all New Zealanders.”

In 2021, the Commerce Commission’s market study into the grocery sector draft report suggested a Government-backed new supermarket chain might be an option to increase competition – although the final report, published a year later, did not recommend it.

Overseas, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who is a popular figure in the global progressive movement, ran on a platform of establishing publicly owned grocery stores in the city. The first stores are set to open late next year.

KiwiMart was one of several in the Greens’ wider policy targeting food affordability.

Other policies included a bill to ban excessive pricing at supermarkets, which could be extended to other sectors like energy and fuel; increasing funding for the Commerce Commission and hiking penalties for firms; a National Food strategy that would include legislating people’s right to “adequate and nutritious food”, establishing a $150 million a year “Fair Food Fund” for community foodbanks and expanding the school lunches programme, Ka Ora Ka Ako to 150,000 more children.

Co-leader Davidson said the Greens would also revert to the old school lunches model with locally made meals that had high nutritional value. The cost of expanding the programme and reverting to the old model would be $2.2b over the four-year forecast period.

“One in five children in this country live in a household that runs out of food. The Luxon Government’s response was to cut what it spends on a child’s lunch, hand the job to a handful of big companies, and destroy up to 2000 local jobs doing it,” Davidson said.

“Half of those lunches now fail to meet nutrition standards. Children who miss meals are two to four years behind their classmates in maths, reading and science. We will restore Ka Ora, Ka Ako, put it back in the hands of schools and local providers and expand it so 150,000 more tamariki [children] get a decent lunch every day,” she said.

The total cost over four years for the plan was about $6.2b.

Keep reading

You Can’t Make This Stuff Up – Ukraine Wants To Pay For Its Bombs With OnlyFans

Ukraine’s parliament is weighing a bill that would legalize pornography production so the state can tax OnlyFans creators and funnel the proceeds straight into the defense budget. The measure, co-authored by opposition lawmaker Yaroslav Zhelezniak, cleared its first reading in July and now sits awaiting a second vote. Fenix International, the parent company of OnlyFans, already handed Ukrainian tax authorities records showing 7,900 locals pulled in $131 million on the platform last year. Zhelezniak claims legalization could yield roughly $25 million annually, enough to buy about 30,000 drones.

That figure looks microscopic next to Ukraine’s stated annual defense requirement of $120 billion. The gap underscores how far the country has been reduced to scraping for loose change while the larger conflict grinds on. Current law still treats pornography as a criminal offense, with penalties reaching seven years in prison for production, distribution, or even possession. Tax officials, however, have been chasing the same creators for unpaid levies on their earnings. The result is a perfect trap: pay the taxes and risk prosecution for the underlying activity, or withhold the taxes and face charges for evasion, writes the Wall Street Journal.

One prominent creator, Svitlana Dvornikova, who claims over a million subscribers, has flown repeatedly to France and Spain to film content and says she has already remitted $900,000 in taxes. Police raided her home anyway, seizing electronics and $200,000 in cash she had set aside for further payments. She filed a petition to President Zelensky that gathered 25,000 signatures. Tax lawyer Lesia Mykhalenko, who has represented more than 100 OnlyFans models, notes that the existing statutes simply overload the courts at a moment when resources should be directed elsewhere. Separate reporting from Ukraine’s general prosecutor indicates police departments in three regions each collect over $20,000 a month in bribes tied to the adult industry.

Former waitress Iryna Mosiychuk now runs Beezone, a company registered as a consulting firm that actually operates webcam studios outside Lviv serving mostly American clients. Models there reportedly clear $2,000 to $7,000 a month. The arrangement illustrates the parallel economy that has taken root while official policy remains frozen in contradiction. As the Wall Street Journal documented, these arrangements persist precisely because the legal framework offers creators no safe path forward.

Keep reading

James Talarico Called Out During Interview for Voting Against Ending State Income Taxes, Called Bill Banning Income Tax “Government Overreach at its Worst”

Democratic Texas Senate Nominee James Talarico was called out for his 2019 vote against a bill banning income taxes in Texas during an interview with CBS Texas, where he collapsed and lied about his stances. 

CBS Texas’s Jack Fink noted that Republicans are attacking him for voting against banning the Texas state income tax as a state legislator in 2019, asking, “Why did you do that?”

When Talarico tried to claim that he voted against it because it was “already banned,” Fink fired back, reminding him, “This would have banned it permanently.”

The proposal in question, which raised the bar by requiring a two-thirds majority in both legislative chambers to impose an income tax, was passed by the Texas House and Senate and then approved by voters on the November 2019 ballot.

Talarico then scrambled, giving a word-salad answer, calling the Republicans’ push to codify the existing legislation “duplicative government overreach at its worst,” further accusing Republicans of “trying to grandstand on an issue.” According to Talarico, lowering taxes is “government overreach” now.

He went on to claim that the legislation “did nothing” and that he has “always” been against income taxes, despite voting against ending income tax. “I’m against an income tax in Texas, always have been. But I’m going to be against any lawmaker in any party who’s just trying to do a stunt on the floor instead of solving problems.”

Keep reading

Tetris Fires Off Warning to White House Over Parody, Implies Trump’s ‘Build the Wall’ Arcade Game Looks Like Copyright Infringement

The company that owns Tetris has publicly threatened the White House over a game that plays like the classic block-stacker, saying it takes copyright infringement “very seriously.”

The Trump administration launched an online arcade of MAGA-themed retro games on Thursday, including a Tetris-style “Build the Wall,” subtitled “Zombie Border Siege.”

In the game, players stack falling blocks into a southern-border barrier and try to keep cartoon zombies and other figures from crossing.

If the stack hits the top, the screen reads “BORDER BREACHED.”

The White House X account plugged the launch with the line “Build the wall. Deport. Fill a Trump Account.”

Naturally, leftists were outraged by the game.

Keep reading

Democrats Invite Women To Freeze Their Eggs So They Can Go Fight Wars

The military has announced plans to cover costs for sperm and egg freezing for service members, expanding a negligent “reproductive” effort to the detriment of military personnel and their families.

The pilot program, launching Sept. 14 under the Veteran Families Health Services Act of 2025, will run for three years and reimburse costs of sperm freezing up to $500 and egg cryopreservation up to $10,000 for service members who meet deployment or separation requirements.

The program fulfills a longtime Democrat-backed effort to disassociate military women from maternal family roles; increases dissonance in already strained military families, further divorces procreation from spousal stability, and ensures mothers can be separated from their children.

The Sexes Are Not Equal in Combat
Women have supported the armed forces in non-combat roles since the development of the Army Nurse Corps in 1901, with increased but limited access to positions until 2013. At that time, then-President Barack Obama supported a lifting of the ban by former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. By 2016, gender specific roles in the military were effectively eliminated.

The exclusion of women from serving in combat roles has been justified. Combat poses the direct and imminent risk of injury and death, as well as placing soldiers in tactical locations that cannot adequately accommodate gender separation. Forward operating bases and outposts offer little to no separate housing or privacy barriers between the sexes. Experiential hardships can extend well beyond privacy, encompassing lack of food and sleep that disproportionately harm women.

A small-scale study of Army rangers claiming that women are less physiologically affected by rigorous training than men, does not match up with any large-scale studies of women exposed to extreme physical hardship. The study presents an insufficient apples-to-oranges comparison and should not be utilized as an argument to place excessive physical strain on women in the military.

The Biological Clock
Soon after the military opened doors to place women in hazardous duty stations, Democrat-led efforts for IVF-related services began. Building on that effort, in 2018 Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., called IVF the “most effective form of assisted reproductive technology” for service members whose fertility was affected by their service. Rather than improving health and safety for women, the costly, unethical, and dangerous technology was promoted.

Ten years after so-called integration, women who entered combat in their peak fertility years are now aging out of childbearing, or at least edging closer to the end of their fertile years. The possibility of deployment has likely affected the many military women choosing to begin families after age 35, further decreasing their likelihood of conceiving naturally.

As infertility continues to disproportionately plague women in service, IVF serves as an expensive, politically driven distraction.

Keep reading