Top Usa NEWS FEEDER

Soros Doubles Donations to Far-Left Group Seeking to Pack Supreme Court Far-left billionaire George Soros has increased his financial support for a radical group that is determined to pack the Supreme Court of the United States, continuing to wage a war in favor of a policy that is widely unpopular with the American people. As theWashington Free Beaconreports, Soros’ Open Society Foundation donated $4.5 million in 2021 to the group Demand Justice, which “supports policy advocacy on court reform.” Open Society had previously donated $2.5 million to the same group in 2018, the year Demand Justice was first created out of opposition to Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the high court. Demand Justice and other far-left judicial activist groups have suffered numerous defeats in recent years, with President Donald Trump successfully confirming three new justices to the Supreme Court, changing the court from an ideologically even body to a 6-3 conservative majority. Since then, the Supreme Court has made decisive rulings on gun rights and immigration, as well as a historic decision to overturnRoe v. Wadelast year. Following the initial leak of the decision inDobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, security was increased for the Supreme Court and the nine justices due to a sudden rise in protests and riots against the decision. But Brian Fallon, the executive director of Demand Justice, demanded that the Supreme Court remove the newly-installed protective fencing and reduce security for the justices, claiming that protesters and rioters should be allowed to provide “more accountability” by directly and physically confronting the justices. “SCOTUS leaks are good,”saidFallon on Twitter shortly after the illegal leak of the draft decision. “Rip the veil off.” The riots culminated in a failed assassination attempt against Justice Kavanaugh, when a California man traveled to Maryland and stopped just blocks away from Kavanaugh’s home with multiple weapons on his person, before he was arrested by police. He confessed that his intention was to kill Kavanaugh in order to stopRoe v. Wadefrom being overturned. Both before and after theDobbsdecision, there were numerous calls from far-left activists, including Demand Justice, to expand the size of the Supreme Court. A failed proposal by House Democrats, led by Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), called for adding an additional four justices to the Court, which would just be enough to put the conservatives in a new 6-7 minority in a 13-member court. Such proposals have failed to gain traction due to an overwhelming majority of the American people being opposed to such a drastic change to a longstanding institution.

Six Policies That Anti-Abortion Leaders Expect a Pro-Life House Majority to Prioritize A letter signed by leaders of more than 40 pro-life organizations has been sent to every Republicanmember of Congress, urging action on eight related bills. “We write to urge you to exercise Congress’s constitutional authority to legislate abortion policy at the federal level and pursue a robust pro-life agenda,” reads the letter to House and Senate Republicans authored by organizations ranging from March for Life andLive Actionto The Heritage Foundation. (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s multimedia news organization.) The letter from pro-life leaders, sent Tuesday, outlines six policy actions that Congress should take to move toward what the letter calls the ultimate goal of every person being“protected and welcomed in both life and law, from conception.” The authors call these policies “the floor, not the ceiling, of what we expect from a pro-life majority in the House of Representatives.” Timothy Goeglein, vice president of government and external relations at Focus on the Family,one of the organizations that signed on to the letter, called it a message of “unflinching clarity.” Goeglein called it “a kind of road map, setting out with our pro-life comrades and allies the major public policy priorities as the new Congress opens.” Following the Supreme Court’soverturning of Roe v. Wadein its ruling last June in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Goeglein said, Focus on the Family is“keen to be part of moving the pro-life issue forward with measurable momentum in the year ahead.” The organizations behind the letter to congressional Republicans include state pro-life groups such as the Minnesota Family Council and Family Policy Institute of Washington; policy organizations such as the Family Research Council and Heritage Action for America; and medical groups such asthe Catholic Health Care Leadership Alliance and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Their letter calls on Congress to pass the following pieces of legislation: 1. Heartbeat Protection Act The Heartbeat Protection Act wouldban abortionsafter a heartbeat is detected in an unborn baby, usually around the sixth week of pregnancy. 2. Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act Under the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, children born alive afterbatched abortionswould be required to receive the same medical attention as any other child. 3. Protecting Individuals With Down Syndrome Act Abortions based solely on a diagnosis of Down syndrome would be prohibited by the Protecting Individuals with Down Syndrome Act. 4. SAVE Moms and Babies Act The SAVE Moms and Babies Act would “limit the interstate flow of dangerousabortion drugs,” according to the letter, which it says is a necessary step given that chemical abortion pills “put women’s health and safety at risk.” 5. No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act, Protecting Life and Taxpayers Act “Congress must endtaxpayer funding for abortions—and the abortion industry, led by Planned Parenthood—once and for all,” the pro-life groups demand in the letter. The three pieces of legislation, if passed, would prevent taxpayers’ money to be used to fund abortion, the groups say. 6. Conscience Protection Act Doctors and other medical professionals who refuse to perform abortions would be given the legal authority to refuse to provide or assist with the procedure under the Conscience Protection Act. It also would ensure such medical professionals “have their day in court rather than being wholly at the mercy of bureaucrats in the federal government,” the letter explains.

Top Zelensky Adviser Rejects Peace Talks with Russia Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council Secretary Oleksiy Danilov this week rejected the idea that Kyiv would engage in peace talks with Moscow as the Russian invasion of Ukraine rages on. “There’s no way to have conversations with them; you can’t talk with terrorists,” hetoldNatSec Daily, adding that Ukraine would not end the war until it had reclaimed all of its territory, including Crimea.” “Everything will be linked once again, including Crimea,” he continued. “Not one meter will be left for the taking of the enemy. If any of our partners suggest that we should leave something behind or give it away, the Ukrainian people for sure will never accept that.” Russia currently occupies large swaths of Ukraine’s southern territories, including land in the Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson and Crimean regions. Crimea was under Russian control prior to the invasion. Though Kyiv was able to turn back the Russian assault on the capital and reclaim occupied territories in the Kherson and Kharkiv regions, the counteroffensive has stalled and the two armies are locked in a bitter struggle for the Donetsk city of Bakmut. Ukraine hasexpressed opennessto a peace negotiation through the United Nations, but set the precondition that Russia face a war crimes tribunal, a proposal that has thus far gone nowhere. Russia, for its part, asserts that it remains open to negotiations and has never refused to settle the dispute diplomatically but that the Kyiv government is unwilling to negotiate in good faith.

Commentary: Make Elections Normal Again Americans can’t seem to agree on much of anything anymore. We’re deeply divided on a wide range of issues: abortion, illegal immigration, gun rights, andso-called climate change, to name a few. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find a major political issue on which Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly agree. Political polarizationis nothing new:Many countriesexperience it at one point or another. In America, we once could put our differences aside and settle things at the ballot box. Our electoral system, when functioning as intended, transcends partisan politics. Things are different today, though. COVID-era voting policies need to be reversed in order to restore faith in our electoral process. The 2020 presidential election was chaotic, to say the least. In the run up to the election, many stateschangedtheir laws to allow greater access to absentee ballots. Not only were absentee ballots easier to obtain, they also were allowed to becountedwellafter the election. Quite a bit of weirdness followed. Poll watchers werepreventedfrom entering polling locations. Vote countssuddenly and overwhelmingly shot upfor Biden in several states.Voting machinesshowedirregularities. Overall, it was a mess. And while the mainstream media would have you believe that questioning the results was a sign of insanity, those who viewed the funny business that defined the 2020 election with suspicion were well in their right to do so. And to be frank, dismissing the concerns of half of the country is a surefire way to exacerbate existing political divisions. But such haughty condescension is what we’ve come to expect from ourruling classthese days. Given how chaotic the 2020 election proved to be, you would think that reverting to pre-COVID voting norms would be desirable for all parties. Sadly, that doesn’t appear to be the case. The Democratic Party has not only refused attempts to return to the pre-COVID election status quo—it has sought to make every election like 2020. The For the People Act (H.R. 1)passedin the House in March 2021 but, thankfully,stalled outin the Senate. It would have implemented many COVID-era voting policies—nationwide mail-in voting without ID requirements, ballot harvesting, and so forth—at the federal level, thereby preventing states from doing things the once-standard way. Fortunately, H.R. 1 is unlikely to make it out of the Senate, and 20 states wiselychangedsome voting laws to be more restrictive after the 2020 election (though some of these states changed other laws to be less restrictive). Florida, Georgia, and Texas enacted ID requirements, which render the absentee process more restrictive and secure. Texas also passed a law that criminalizes sending mail-in ballots to those who do not request them. Election officials who violate this law could face up to two years in jail. Such laws are hardly extreme. After all, restricting mail-in voting in most cases would revert a state to its pre-2020 election norms. Despite the efforts from some states to restore a bit of sanity to their elections,othersrefuse to budge. As such, it should come as no surprise that midterms were plagued by similar issues we saw in 2020. In Arizona, for example, the electionfeatureda number of oddities. Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake is currentlychallengingthose results in court, and a judge has allowed her lawsuit to proceed on two counts. We wish her the best. But it shouldn’t have to come to this. Americans need to be able to trust their elections. Partisan divides over key issues are normal, but the electoral process, at least ideally, shouldn’t further those divides. We’re in a bad spot if both sides can’t agree on how we elect our representatives. How else are we to settle our political disagreements in a civilized manner? Expecting half of the country to accept an electoral new normal that clearly existsonlyto benefit the other side is absurd. Those adamant that we conduct every election as if the coronavirus pandemic were still raging are responsible for politicizing our voting system. Meanwhile, the rest of us just want fair elections.

Commentary: The Coup We Never Knew Did someone or something seize control of the United States? What happened to the U.S. border? Where did it go? Who erased it? Why and how did 5 million people enter our country illegally? Did Congress secretly repeal our immigration laws? Did Joe Biden issue an executive orderallowing foreign nationals to walk across the border and reside in the United States as they pleased? Since when did money not have to be paid back? Who insisted that the more dollars the federal government printed, the more prosperity would follow? When did America embrace zero interest? Why do we believe $30 trillion in debt is no big deal? When did clean-burning, cheap, and abundant natural gas become the equivalent to dirty coal? How did prized natural gas that had granted America’s wishes of energy self-sufficiency, reduced pollution, and inexpensive electricity become almost overnight a pariah fuel whose extraction was a war against nature? Which lawmakers, which laws, which votes of the people declared natural gas development and pipelines near criminal? Was it not against federal law to swarm the homes of Supreme Court justices, to picket and to intimidate their households in efforts to affect their rulings? How then with impunity did bullies surround the homes ofJusticesBrett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett,Neil Gorsuch,John Roberts, and Clarence Thomas—furious over a court decision on abortion? How could these mobs so easily throng our justices’ homes, with placards declaring “Off with their d—s”? Since when did Americans create a government Ministry of Truth? And on whose orders did the FBI contract private news organizations to censor stories it did not like and writers whom it feared? How did we wake up one morning to new customs of impeaching a president over a phone call? Of the speaker of the House tearing up the State of the Union address on national television? Of barring congressional members from serving on their assigned congressional committees? When did we assume the FBI had the right to subvert the campaign of a candidate it disliked? Was it legal suddenly for one presidential candidate to hire a foreign ex-spy to subvert the campaign of her rival? Was some state or federal law passed that allowed biological males to compete in female sports? Did Congress enact such a law? Did the Supreme Court guarantee that biological male students could shower in gym locker rooms with biological women? Were women ever asked to redefine the very sports they had championed? When did the government pass a law depriving Americans of their freedom during a pandemic? In America can health officials simply cancel rental contracts or declare loan payments in suspension? How could it become illegal for mom-and-pop stores to sell flowers or shoes during a quarantine but not so for Walmart or Target? Since when did the people decide that 70 percent of voters would not cast their ballots on Election Day? Was this revolutionary change the subject of a national debate, a heated congressional session, or the votes of dozens of state legislatures? What happened to Election Night returns? Did the fact that Americans created more electronic ballots and computerized tallies make it take so much longer to tabulate the votes? When did the nation abruptly decide that theft is not a crime, assault not a felony? How can thieves walk out with bags of stolen goods, without the wrath of angry shoppers, much less fear of the law? Was there ever a national debate about the terrified flight from Afghanistan? Who planned it and why? What happened to the once trusted FBI? Why almost overnight did its directors decide to mislead Congress, to deceive judges with concocted tales from fake dossiers and with doctored writs? Did Congress pass a law that our federal leaders in the FBI or CIA could lie with impunity under oath? Who redefined our military and with whose consent? Who proclaimed that our chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff could call his Chinese Communist counterpart to warn him that America’s president was supposedly unstable? Was it always true that retired generals routinely libeled their commander-in-chief as a near Nazi, a Mussolini, an adherent of the tools of Auschwitz? Were Americans ever asked whether their universities could discriminate against their sons and daughters based on their race? How did it become physically dangerous to speak the truth on a campus? Whose idea was it to reboot racial segregation and bias as “theme houses,” “safe spaces,” and “diversity”? How did that happen in America? How did a virus cancel the Constitution? Did the lockdowns rob of us of our sanity? Or was it the woke hysteria that ignited our collective madness? We are beginning to wake up from a nightmare to a country we no longer recognize, and from a coup we never knew.

Michigan’s Stabenow Won’t Seek Re-Election to U.S. Senate in 2024 Democratic U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow on Thursday said she won’t seek reelection to the office she’s held since Jan. 3, 2001. Her current term ends Jan. 3, 2025. Stabenow, 72, said she’s stepping down to “pass the torch” to a younger generation of Democrats. “Inspired by a new generation of leaders, I have decided to pass the torch in the U.S. Senate,” Stabenow said in a release. Stabenow began her political career by serving in the Michigan House of Representatives from 1979 to 1990, the year she was elected to the Michigan Senate. In 1996, she was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. As a U.S. senator, Stabenow recently served on the Joint Committee on Taxation; the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry (chairwoman); Senate Committee on Budget; Committee on Environment and Public Works; Committee on Finance, including chairing the Health Care and Taxation, and IRS Oversight subcommittees. The senator has voted consistently with her fellow Democrats on both measures to impeach former President Donald Trump, as well as massive spending bills, including the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021. Stabenow was born in Gladwin, and attended Clare Public Schools. She received her bachelor’s degree and a graduate degree from Michigan State University.

Ex-Capitol Police Boss Says Politics Hampered January 6 Security Under Pelosi: ‘Recipe for Disaster’ The Capitol Police chief who handled the Jan. 6 riot says political bureaucracy under Speaker Nancy Pelosi put optics over safety and hampered his department from crafting an appropriate security plan to protect the home of Congress that fateful day. Steven Sund, who resigned as the head of the $600 million a year Capitol Police Department after the tragedy, told the “Just the News, No Noise” television show on Wednesday that significant lapses occurred inside his department, inside the political leadership of Congress and across federal law enforcement and security agencies in the days before the Capitol riot. Sund warned that the Capitol still remains vulnerable to future attacks because it has not addressed the core intelligence and security failures exposed that day or streamlined the political bureaucracy that governs his former force. The interview was part of Sund’s tour topromote his new book “Courage under Fire.” “I point out in the book how politicized security on Capitol [Hill] is, and that hasn’t changed. It’s still the same,” he said. “You still have way too much politics playing a role in security. All the oversight over the police department is all politically aligned. And anytime you have oversight that reports to a certain political party, it’s a recipe for disaster.” Sund said that as chief he could not make major decisions about security planning for events like Jan. 6 without getting approval of the Capitol Police Board or alerting the House and Senate sergeants at arms. He directly challenged Pelosi’s claim in a February 2021 news conference that her Speaker’s office played no role in Capitol security, noting he communicated with Pelosi through then-House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving, who resigned along with Sund. “A lot of people think okay, I’m the Chief,” he said. “So I’m at the top of the pyramid as far as security at the Capitol. I’m actually at the bottom … You’ve got the Capitol Police Board, and the Capitol Police Board has communications with the House and Senate leadership. So the line of communications between me and leadership would be through the respective sergeant at arms. “So in the case of Speaker Pelosi, it would be through Paul Irving, for any of that direct line communications back and forth. So if there is intelligence going up, or intelligence coming down, it would go through Paul Irving to the respective leadership.” Sund confirmed an anecdote in a report released by House Republicans last month andreported by Just the Newsthat a top aide in Pelosi’s office was involved enough in security discussions to have even edited a security plan for Jan. 6 that was communicated to lawmakers. Some of the ‘Dear Colleagues’ letters [talk] about some of the security that’s in place — parking, directing people which entrances to use, stuff like that, and it was no secret that they would want to have the leadership’s position, whether it’s the House or Senate, they would want to know what communications were being put out across the campus,” he explained. “So they did have a review and often edited these.” Sund also confirmed earlier reporting by Just the News on the events that led to National Guard troops not being deployed to the Capitol ahead of Jan. 6. Capitol Police documents reviewed by Just the News show the TrumpPentagon first offered National Guard troops to Sund’s department on Jan. 2, 2021,four full days ahead of the tragedy. The department initially declined the help but quickly changed course and asked for permission to deploy troops, only to be turned down. Sund said he first requested National Guard troops be deployed on the morning of Jan. 3, 2021, but was turned down because political leaders did not like the optics of troops carrying weapons and guarding the Capitol. “So it was I believe at 9:34 in the morning when I first went and asked for it and was denied because of the concern for optics, the look of the National Guard,” he said. “The first one I asked, Paul Irving, for the National Guard, he used the term ‘optics,'” Sund recalled, adding that a military general later used the same term in expressing reservations about sending the Guard to the Capitol. “I’ll never forget it,” said Sund quoting the general saying, “I’m concerned of the optics of the military standing in line with the Capitol in the background.” “So here they are both using the exact same term,” he continued. “I point that out in the book that I really don’t find it a coincidence. And I tend to wonder what communications went on outside my knowledge. But there’s a concern for optics that is over the concern for my men and women being beaten, which has been shown on national TV.” Sund said he was never fully briefed on a vast pool of intelligence that came in from the FBI, the Homeland Security Department, the U.S. Marshals Service and the Washington D.C. police department as early as Dec. 21, 2020 that warned that extremists were discussing specific plans to attack the Capitol, storm the joint session of Congress that was certifying the 2022 election, invade the tunnels used by lawmakers to travel back and forth to the Capitol or bring weapons to the event that eventually turned violent. You can read one of those intelligence reports here. Sund said some of the blame should fall on the federal agencies who failed to make a bigger deal of the level of threat that was being picked up in raw intelligence. “Intelligence was treated completely different on Jan. 6 than it usually was for major events in Washington, D.C.” he said. “I’ve handled numerous national special events, special security events, numerous demonstrations. “Anytime we had an event that had a even a minute amount of the intelligence string that we’re seeing associated with Jan. 6 now coming in, the FBI would do executive briefings, a conference call with the area leaders, or what we call a JIB, a joint intelligence bulletin with the Department of Homeland Security — none of that was done January 6,and when you see the level of intelligence now that was out there, you’re just dumbfounded by it — that didn’t occur.” The costs of failure to share intelligence and threat assessments across bureaucratic and institutional lines “were lessons that we should have learned from September 11 that we still haven’t learned by January 6,” Sund lamented. Sund acknowledges some fault also lies with his own department’s intelligence division, where analysts were deeply concerned that threat information had not been shared with decision-makers,documents now made public by whistleblowers reveal. “I see there’s significant intelligence coming into my intelligence unit that’s not being reported up,” he said. “We do a total of four intelligence assessments … The first three say it’s going to all be like the previous ones. Even the fourth one said it’s going to be like the previous two MAGA events and that people weren’t going to march, they’re going to stay in their designated areas — with a single paragraph at the end that talks a little bit about it could be dangerous for law enforcement, could have violence, people may show up with weapons, things that we’ve seen in the first two MAGA events.” “But the very next day, that same intelligence unit puts out another intelligence bulletin saying low probability of arrest or civil disobedience. The very next day they do it again. And on Jan. 6, they put out another one saying low probability of civil disobedience. So there’s just so much confusion going on. None of that high level of intelligence that we know now existed within DHS, FBI and, to a certain point, within my own intelligence unit, got up to the necessary people to do the planning and do the coordination for security for Jan. 6.”

South Carolina Supreme Court Axes State’s Abortion Ban South Carolina’s Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the state law restricting abortions at around six weeks, finding that it violated the state constitution. Republican South Carolina Gov. Henry McMastersigneda bill into law in February 2021 barringabortionsafter a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which can happen at around six weeks into a pregnancy. The state can limit a woman’s privacy rights with regard to abortion decisions, but only after she’s been given “reasonable” time to pursue an abortion legally, the courtfound. “We hold that our state constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman’s decision to have an abortion,” Justice Kaye Hearn wrote in the majority opinion. “The State unquestionably has the authority to limit the right of privacy that protects women from state interference with her decision, but any such limitation must be reasonable and it must be meaningful in that the time frames imposed must afford a woman sufficient time to determine she is pregnant and to take reasonable steps to terminate that pregnancy. Six weeks is, quite simply, not a reasonable period of time for these two things to occur.” Justice George James dissented from the majority opinion, arguing that the court was wrongly interpreting the right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment to apply to abortions rather than unlawful searches and seizures by law enforcement. “We must consider the intent of the framers and the voters,” he wrote. “It is clear the framers did not intend to create a full panoply of privacy rights, much less the right to bodily autonomy or the right to have an abortion.” The Supreme CourtoverturnedRoe v. Wade June 24, clearing the way for states to implementabortionrestrictions in the first two trimesters of pregnancy, which had generally been considered unconstitutional under Roe. Now that South Carolina’s heartbeat law has been struck down, the state does not restrict abortions until 20 weeks, or about five months, into a pregnancy.

Biden Announces Border Visit, Expands Legal Immigration President Joe Biden said Thursday that he will visit the southern border Sunday. The announcement came in a speech on illegal immigration, where Biden promised more border security and pushed for increased legal immigration. Biden said he would visit the border in El Paso, where the mayor declared a state of emergency in December because of the thousands of migrants flowing through the city. “Our problems at the border didn’t arise overnight, and they are not going to be solved overnight,” Biden said. “It’s a difficult problem.” The speech comes as Biden faces growing political pressure from the crisis at the southern border, where illegal immigration has surged to record levels. The White House released a list of “border enforcement actions” Thursday, which include “expanding legal pathways” including the parole process for Venezuelans to Nicaraguans, Haitians, and Cubans” and “tripling refugee resettlement from the Western Hemisphere.” Those measures also include $23 million in additional humanitarian aid in Mexico and Central America, which Biden said would improve the conditions there so people no longer want to leave for the U.S. “The Administration is also announcing that it is surging additional resources to the border and the region, scaling up its anti-smuggling operations and expanding coordination and support for border cities and non-governmental organizations,” the White House said in a statement. “Importantly, the actions announced today are being implemented in close partnership with Mexico and governments across the Western Hemisphere.” The rest of the plan involved “surging resources” to the border and organizing efforts there but lacked details. “These actions alone are not going to fix our entire immigration system, but they can help us a good deal in better managing what is a difficult challenge,” Biden said as he appeared with Vice President Kamala Harris. Biden pointed to an immigration legislative framework he touted to Congress at the beginning of his term as well as additional funding requests he sent lawmakers for border personnel. He attacked Republicans several times throughout the remarks. “We have a patchwork system that simply doesn’t work as it should,” he added, pointing to a lack of staff and judges. Illegal immigration has soared since Biden took office, breaking records and straining border towns. As The Center Square previouslyreported, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents apprehended at least 226,050 people and reported at least 87,631 who avoided detainment by law enforcement in December. Combined, that totals at least 313,681 – a slight increase from November’s already record-breaking figure of 306,069. Cartel activity and fentanyl smuggling have made the situation more dire. Fentanyl overdoses have skyrocketed. As the crisis has grown worse, Biden has taken fire for doing little to address it. This would be his first trip to the border since becoming president. Biden’s speech comes after he told reporters Wednesday his “intention” is to visit the border next week. That news sparked a flurry of speculation and criticism. “Now Biden says his ‘intent’ is to visit the border next week,” U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, said after the initial reports of the visit. “Too little, too late. But at least he’d get to see the crisis he created.” This visit comes on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court suspending the expiration of Title 42 until justices can make a ruling on the policy. Title 42 is a Trump-era immigration policy that allows border agents to expedite expulsion of migrants in the name of preventing the spread of COVID-19 into the U.S. Biden took a shot at that policy in his speech Thursday, but some Republicans have argued it is one of the only policies helping slow the flood of migration in the face of ongoing border dysfunction. Republicans also blasted Biden after the announcement of his visit, saying it was overdue.

Social Media Use in Children Linked to Significant Brain Changes A new study from the University of North Carolina shows children and teens who frequently check social media may become more sensitive in the long term to “social feedback” in the form of “likes” and “dislikes” at a time when the brain is experiencing significant developmental changes. In the study, published at the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Pediatrics, researchers Maria Maza, et al, investigated whether the frequency with which middle-school age children check their Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat social media accounts is associated with long-term changes in brain development as they mature further into adolescence. Researchers explained the study “aimed to examine whether social media use is associated with longitudinal changes in functional brain development across adolescence, a developmental period characterized by peak social media use and heightened neural sensitivity to social feedback from peers.” Investigators introduced their study by noting the significant place social media has assumed in the lives of adolescents: In the span of a generation, social media has dramatically changed the landscape of adolescent development, providing unprecedented opportunities for social interactions around the clock. Social media provides a constant and unpredictable stream of social inputs to adolescents during a critical developmental period when the brain becomes especially sensitive to social rewards and punishments. Motivated by the anticipation of this social feedback, adolescents’ constant, habitual checking of social media may alter neurodevelopment, significantly changing the ways in which the adolescent brain responds to its environment. The researchers studied the magnetic resonance images (MRIs) of 169 sixth- and seventh-grade North Carolina public school students during a three-year period. Students self-reported the number of times per day they checked each of their social media platforms. Results of the study showed students who checked their social media accounts habitually showed significant changes to the brain in areas that respond to anticipation of social rewards and punishments compared with those students whose social media checking behavior was nonhabitual. “Our findings suggest that checking behaviors on social media in early adolescence may tune the brain’s sensitivity to potential social rewards and punishments,” the researchers observed. “Whereas individuals with habitual checking behaviors showed initial hypoactivation but increasing sensitivity to potential social cues over time, those with nonhabitual checking behaviors showed initial hyperactivation and decreasing sensitivity over time.” “These results suggest that habitual checking of social media in early adolescence may be longitudinally associated with changes in neural sensitivity to anticipation of social rewards and punishments, which could have implications for psychological adjustment,” they explained, pointing out that social media platforms offer children and adolescents “unprecedented opportunities for social interactions during a critical developmental period when the brain is especially sensitive to social feedback.” “Adolescents who engaged in high (habitual) checking behaviors showed distinct neural trajectories when anticipating social feedback compared with those who engaged in moderate or low (nonhabitual) checking behaviors,” the authors concluded, “suggesting that habitual social media checking early in adolescence is associated with divergent brain development over time.”

Lawmakers Profit from Sending Billions in Aid to Ukraine Members of Congress raked in profits from defense contractor stocks after voting to send billions in military aid to Ukraine, according to financial disclosures and voting records reviewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation. Congress approved more than $20 billion worth of military aid to Ukraine between Jan. 24, a month before Russia invaded, and Nov. 20, including $12.7 billion in direct drawdowns from existing U.S. weapons stocks,accordingto data compiled by the Council on Foreign Relations. To make up for that aid,top defense companieshaveboostedproduction, and lawmakers trading on company stocks saw a financial windfall as a result, according to publicly available stock trading data. Overall, Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer (picture above, middle) of Oregon netted the highest average returns on defense company stocks since 2021 at 40%, accordingto a chart published Tuesday by Unusual Whales, a siteknownforexposinghow members of Congressprofit from trading related to legislative issues. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (pictured above, right) of Georgia, who has voted against Ukraine aid, was the top Republican at 35.5%. While unforeseen demand has left top weapons makers, like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Technologies and Northrop Grumman, scramblingto meet production targets, defense stocks are performing well overall,accordingto Investopedia. Republican Florida Rep. John Rutherford (pictured above, left) and Blumenauer each boughtup to $15,000 in Raytheon stock the day of Russia’s invasion on Feb. 24. Rutherford claimed in his disclosure that his advisers erroneously purchased the stock, and it was sold on March 14 for a 3% gain, according to Unusual Whales. Rutherford, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, and Blumenauer voted for a $40 billion supplemental military and humanitarian aid package for Ukraine passed in May, the Congressional Recordshows. Former Democratic Rep. Cindy Axne of Iowa sold Lockheed Martin stock for a profit in November, after voting in favor not only of the May supplemental package, but also for a September emergencyfundingbill thatauthorizedan additional $12 billion for Ukraine and the omnibus spending bill passed in December, which includes an additional $45 billion in Ukraine aid, according to the Congressional Record. Lawmakersvotedwith the majority of their party on those measures, with all Democratssupportingthe continuing resolution in September and all but one voting yea on the omnibus bill, Business Insiderreported. Democratic Rep. Dwight Evans of Pennsylvania alsoreporteda Raytheon sale in November from stock purchased before the war, meaning he voted for the funding bills while having a stake in a top-selling defense company. Republican West Virginia Rep. Carol Miller’s spouseboughtGeneral Dynamics stock in July 2021 and has not disclosed a sale, so Miller’s spouse may have held that stock while the representative voted in favor of the May package. Republican Utah Rep. John Curtis, who also voted to send more aid, has not disclosed a sale since purchasing up to $15,000 in Raytheon in June 2021. Democratic Virginia Rep. Gerald Connolly, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC),soldup to $50,000 in assets from defense information technology firm Leidos in August 2022 after slowlyoffloadingstocks throughout 2021. Connollyco-sponsoreda House initiative to send military aid to Ukraine days after Russia invaded, meaning he held Leidos stocks while advocating to supersize U.S. military support abroad. HFAC member and Democratic North Carolina Rep. Kathy Manning’s spouse heldLockheed Martinstocks while she supported that same resolution, and later in 2022 sherevealedthat either she or her husband held stock in Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and defense IT company L3Harris. Manning’s spousesoldRaytheon stock on Oct. 12 after Manning voted in favor of the September continuing resolution. Democratic Florida Rep. Lois FrankelpurchasedNorthrop Grumman stock twice in 2021 andsoldit on March 9, 2022 at a profit. Republican Nebraska Sen. Deb Fischersoldup to $100,000 in Lockheed Martin stock in June of 2022. Republican Utah Rep. Blake Moore likelyholdsstock in several major defense companies and voted for the $40 billion assistance in May. Senate Armed Services Committee member Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama purchased up to $15,000 in Northrop Grumman stocks on March 30 and sold them on Oct. 5 for a 6.9% gain, Unusual Whales found. Tubervillevotedagainst the May package. Tuberville “has long had financial advisors who actively manage his portfolio without his day-to-day involvement,” a spokesperson for the senator told the DCNF. Greenepurchasedup to $15,000 in Lockheed Martin stocks two days prior to Russia’s invasion. “War and rumors of war is incredibly profitable and convenient,” sheremarkedthe following day. “Just like that, the media now has a lie to use as the reason for our shattered economy and out of control inflation.” However, Greene hasemergedas one of the strongest voices against Congress’ plans tooffermountains of financial support to Ukraine and voted with Tuberville against the May package. Republican Rep. Kevin Hern of Oklahoma purchased Raytheon and Lockheed Martin stocks twice in 2022, filingsshow,although he also voted against Ukraine aid. Hern does not have day-to-day control over his stock trading, a spokesperson told the DCNF. The offices of Blumenauer, Connolly, Curtis, Evans, Fischer, Frankel, Greene, Manning, Miller, Moore and Rutherford did not respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment. Axne could not be reached for comment.

Number of young children eating marijuana edibles skyrocket More young children are getting sick from unintentionally eating marijuana edibles than ever before, according to a study published in journal Pediatrics on Tuesday. The study showed that calls to poison control due to kids 5 and under consuming edibles containing THC rose from 207 in 2017 to 3,054 in 2021. That is a record 1,375% increase over the span of four years. According to the study, 97% of children had found and consumed the edibles at home. The findings were based on more than 7,000 pediatric cases reported in the National Poison Data System. Dr. Antonia Nemanich, an assistant professor of Emergency Medicine and Toxicology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, looked into the study. She said that this is a result of a combination of both more states legalizing recreational marijuana, and the Coronavirus pandemic, which resulted in more children staying at home with their parents. Since edibles are usually packaged like sweets and candies, children unclear on what it is they are actually consuming, usually eat several at a time. Over half the reported cases concerned 2-and 3-year-olds. Eating too much of these products can cause serious health problems for young children. These can include confusion, hallucinations, fast heart rate, and vomiting. In severe cases children can have trouble breathing and even comas can occur. Nearly a quarter of the reported cases had been admitted to the hospital with a little over 8% of which had needed intensive care. According Dr. Kevin Osterhoudt, the Medical Director of the Poison Control Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, manufacturers are increasing the dosage of THC in their edible products. This could lead to even more incidents where children are getting sick, and possibly worse results due to the increase of THC. Dr. Sam Wang, an emergency medicine physician and pediatrician at Children’s Hospital Colorado Is calling on regulations of how marijuana manufacturers can advertise their products. She also says that regulations are also required to make sure that their advertising does not appeal to children. “There’s no reason that people can’t enjoy these products,” she said. “We just want kids to be safe.”

“An absolute miracle” 4 survived in a Tesla A Tesla plunged off a cliff in northern California. All 4 passengers, including two children of 4 and 9, were rescued by the local fire department. The Tesla sedan crashed into the water after driving off the Pacific Coast Highway at Devil’s Slide, south of the Tom Lantos tunnel. The steep, rocky, and winding coastline region is roughly 15 miles south of San Francisco between Pacifica and Montara. Over the last 50 years, the cliff has seen several fatalities with rare survivors. Robin Johnson, a witness, had seen the accident and called 911. Approximately 30 to 50 rescuers arrived at the location immediately and attempted to reach the electric car. According to Battalion Chief for Coastside Fire Protection District/CalFire Brian Pottenger, the car had flipped several times before coming to rest on its wheels. The firefighters got view of the sedan through binoculars. Movement out of the front windshield gave them a sign that at least one person was still alive. The adults victims had traumatic injuries and had to be helicoptered up the cliff. The children, however, were in car seats that had “saved their lives.” They were taken up the cliff by hand in a rescue basket after being taken out of the back window. The entire family was promptly rushed to Stanford Medical Center with musculoskeletal injuries. “We go there all the time for cars over the cliff and they never live. This was an absolute miracle. We were actually very shocked when we found survivable victims in the vehicle. So, that actually was a really hopeful Based on the investigation of California Highway Patrol Officer Mark Andrews, he said that he does not believe that the Tesla was operating in Autopilot or Full Self-Driving mode at the time of the incident.

Twitter Files: FBI’s Belly Button In this latest release of the Twitter Files, reporter Matt Taibbi revealed how the State Department attempted to go to the media with information about suspect Twitter accounts. Twitter executives were under pressure from a a fledgling analytic/intelligence arms of the State Department to follow their requests. By 2020, Twitter executives were facing the problem of public and private agencies going straight to the media with lists of suspicious accounts from Twitter. In February of that year, as COVID was breaking out, the Global Engagement Center (GEC), an intelligence arm of the State Department went to the media with a report called “Russian Disinformation Apparatus Taking Advantage of Coronavirus Concerns.” The GEC had flagged accounts that were saying that the Coronavirus was an engineered bioweapon. As well as accounts blaming the Wuhan Institute for the research conducted there and the CIA for the appearance of the virus. Accounts were flagged for retweeting news from the U.S. ZeroHedge which had been banned on Twitter, but had done reports about possible lab origins of the virus. The GEC had still gone directly to news stories with headlines like the AFP’s “Russia-linked disinformation campaign led to Coronavirus alarm, U.S. [United States] says.” Clemson’s Media Forensics Hub complained that Twitter had not “made a Russia attribution” in a period of time, Yoel Roth pointed out that it was “revelatory of their motives.” He then tried to convince outsider researchers like Clemson lab to work with them instead of going straight to the media. At the same time, Twitter was doing what it can to limit the number of outside agencies that had access to Roth. The State Department/GEC wanted to publicize a list of 5,500 accounts it claimed “amplify[ed] Chinese propaganda and disinformation.” These accounts were a sample size of the bigger nearly 250,000 list of accounts that were listed by the GEC which included Canadian officials and a CNN account. They claimed that these accounts “display inorganic behavior and follow two or more of the 36 Chinese diplomatic twitter accounts that we have identified in the report.” This move was seen as the GEC’s attempt to use intel from other agencies to enter the “content moderation club.” This “club” included Twitter, Facebook, the FBI, and the DHS among others. The GEC finally agreed to work with Twitter before going public. The tactic they were using to do this was one that was used before to box in the social media platform. This led to one of the few public disagreements between Twitter and state officials. When the FBI came forward and told Twitter that the GEC wanted to be included in the “industry calls” between various social media companies and government agencies, executives pushed back. Executives from Twitter, Google, and Facebook fought back against the GEC’s involvement. The reason for the resistance was because Roth thought that the GEC was political unlike other agencies. After years of accepting agency requests, the social media platform was suddenly defiant. Roth explained that the reason they were doing this was because with the election approaching, it would pose “major risks” to bring in the GEC. Eventually the FBI went to Facebook and argued that other agencies could participate in the calls, but the FBI and DHS would be the sole “Conduits.” Roth voiced his concerns and wanted to keep the “circle of trust small.” FBI agent Elvis Chan addressed Roth’s concerns and said that “State/GEC, NSA and CIA have expressed interest in being allowed on in listen mode only.”

First female president pro tempore of the Senate Washington Democrat Patty Murray has become the first woman appointed President Pro Tempore on Tuesday. The Senator has outlasted almost all of her male colleagues from the time when she was elected in 1992. “It’s changed a lot since I’ve been here,” Murray said in an interview on Tuesday. “When I first came here, the men were like, oh my God, there’s a woman, what are we going to do? And we had to prove that we were just like them.” The 72-year-old Democrat said that she sees her ascension to this post as an example of the slow and steady progress of women in the Senate. She had ran her campaign as the first “mom in tennis shoes,” which she says she still wears to this day as a grandmother. She was voted into her new post after former Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy retired following an almost five-decade long career in the Senate. The President Pro Tempura is a Latin term meaning “for the time being.” This role is specified in the Constitution as a replacement for the Vice President, who also serves as President of the Senate when the Vice President is not available. This role comes with a host of new security and security protocols due to its proximity to the presidency. The Democrat said that the security is different but is not a hinderance. “It’s different,” Murray said, “But I’ve been through a lot of changes in my life, and I tend to just focus on what I need to do.” Murray will also become Chairwoman of the Senate Appropriation Committee later this year, along with Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), becoming the top Republican on the panel. She said she is hoping to work with Collins to scale back the massive spending bills that happen in the last minutes before the deadlines, like the Omnibus bill that was passed at the end of the year. President Joe Biden had been her colleague in the Senate for years. He tweeted out his congratulations and that he is looking forward to working with her moving forward.

Accused Idaho killer declines extradition Idaho quadruple murder suspect Bryan Kohberger waived his extradition hearing in court on Tuesday and will be returned across the country in the following ten days. Kohberger is a PhD student in the Criminal Justice and Criminology Department at Washington State University. The 28-year-old, wore handcuffs and a red jumpsuit as he was escorted by police into a Monroe County Court. He will now be returned to Moscow, Idaho, to face murder charges for the deaths of University of Idaho students Kaylee Goncalves, Ethan Chapin, Xana Kernodle and Madison Mogen. Kohberger was arrested Friday in Pennsylvania, almost seven weeks after the murder. Kohberger responded to multiple questions from the judge throughout the hearing and stated that he did not have any mental health issues. In addition, Kohberger stated that he understood what it meant to waive extradition before signing the waiver. Shortly after, Pennsylvania State Police conducted a news conference where they made their first public comments regarding the matter. According to Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, the sealed probable cause document outlining his alleged crimes won’t be released until after he returns to Idaho and is served with the arrest warrant. The Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Robert Evanchick voiced his grief for the victims as plans were being made to transfer Kohberger to Idaho. “My heart goes out to the families of the victims, their friends, the community of Moscow and the University of Idaho,” Evanchick said. “No words can heal the pain associated with the loss of a child. Their young lives were ended far too soon.” Kohberger’s attorney, Jason LaBar, told NBC in an interview that Kohberger was “shocked a little bit,” on the charges on him. He iterated that the suspect has been “very easy to talk to,” is “in a calm demeanor” and understands the proceedings, including what to expect concerning his transport to Idaho and when he gets there. According to LaBar, the accused killer “believes he’s going to be exonerated.” The Warden of the Monroe County Correctional Facility corroborated Kohberger’s supposed “good behavior” with saying that Kohberger had been a “model prisoner” since his capture.

AOC’s proposal draws fire Rep. Jeff Van Drew, a former Democrat who turned Republican, fired back at Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Crotez over her “coalition government” proposal. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said on Tuesday that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) does not have the support to become Speaker of the House. “I believe that a lot of the opposition to him is very personal. I believe his leadership style is incompatible with a lot of Republican members and certainly the Democratic Caucus.” Ocasio-Cortez said. The New Yorker then proposed the idea of a coalition government in order to get McCarthy the support he needs. “So the question is, is there anyone in their caucus that can build that consensus? If there isn’t, McCarthy’s team may have to come to the Democratic Party? And, if that’s the case, then what would that even look like. It’s rather unprecedented? Could it result in a potential coalition government?” Ocasio-Cortez asked. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) ridiculed the idea, and said that the Republicans were elected so save America and they need to deliver on that promise. “Republicans need to pick a Speaker and we will, but it will absolutely not be a Democrat,” Van Drew said on Wednesday. “The American people elected Republicans to the majority of the House to save the America we know and love, so we must deliver on all the promises we made.” “If Democrats want a coalition government, then they should have won the majority.” He went on to say, further criticizing the proposal. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) also spoke against AOC’s idea. “We’ve got big plans for this Congress, and they don’t involve any woke agendas,” he said. McCarthy is currently facing stiff opposition from within his own party in the House led by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.).

Donald Trump on Speaker of the House Former President Donald Trump has said that the chaos surrounding the Speaker of the House voting has to stop. Trump said that the Republican lawmakers that have been voting against House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) as Speaker of the House are playing a “dangerous game.” He expressed his support once again for the GOP leader and said that he is against letting the situation continue in the House. The former president urged the House Republicans who are blocking McCarthy to work together and stop the resistance. “Let’s get this thing over with,” Trump said. “The problem is, there is a big downside to this game that is being played. I think it is a dangerous game, and, frankly, if they are not happy with him, they can do something about it at a later date.” Posting on Truth Social, Trump called on all “GREAT Republican House Members” to “VOTE FOR KEVIN, CLOSE THE DEAL.” McCarthy had failed to get the majority vote in all three ballots on Tuesday. He managed to receive only 203 votes in the first ballot, 169 in the second and 202 in the third. Wednesday morning came with another defeat for the Republican, with only receiving 201 votes. Another who was nominated, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), had received 20 votes. The standout Republicans include Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) who said that Trump’s endorsement of McCarthy does not change his vote. Gaetz and 19 other Republicans argued that McCarthy is not conservative enough, and has failed to make certain assurances about rule changes within the House. Democrats on the other hand had been united in their votes for Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, (D-N.Y.) in every ballot. Voting on Speaker of the House will continue until a majority is decided.

Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis took office for a second term Ron DeSantis took the oath of office to serve a second term as governor of Florida on Tuesday. DeSantis (R-Fla.) took his oath in front of the State’s historic Capitol. For the day, the main street through the city was renamed as the Ron DeSantis Way. He was accompanied by his wife Casey DeSantis and their children Mason, Madison, and Mamie. Following his inauguration, DeSantis speech mentioned nothing about his potential presidential bid. According to many of his critics, DeSantis’ address was intended to advance his presidential campaign. Democratic House Leader Fentrice Driskell (D-Fla.) stated that DeSantis’ speech was more focused on advancing his political career than it was on solving the state’s problems. “This is probably the first Florida governor to give an inaugural speech not speaking to the people of our great state and the challenges we all face, but directed at GOP primary voters and billionaire donors,” Driskell said. “Any time he wants to distract from his own failed record, he creates a new fake ‘woke’ boogeyman to battle.” The 46th Governor of Florida promoted the plans from his first term for his administration. He focused on promoting his approach to the pandemic, educational changes, and increases in law enforcement. DeSantis also condemned Democratic activities on each of the three fronts and referred to his home state as the place where “woke goes to die.” He responded to the loud applause. “We reject this woke ideology. We seek normalcy, not philosophical lunacy, we will never surrender to the woke mob. Florida is where the woke goes to die,” DeSantis said. Every decision DeSantis has taken has been clouded by his cross-state competition with former President Donald Trump. As speculation about 2024 increased in recent months, the two became more at odds. Trump criticized DeSantis before and after the midterm elections, calling him a “average governor” and jokingly nicknaming him “Ron DeSanctimonious.” However, the criticism has been minimized by DeSantis, who called it as “simply noise.” A senior aide to DeSantis told CNN that the governor is not in a haste to run for office in 2024 and has not made any clear decisions on his future. He further stated that any potential announcements will not likely happen until the Florida legislative session concludes in May, at the earliest.

Abortion pills coming to retail pharmacies The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced that it will allow retail pharmacies in the United States to sell abortion pills. This announcement comes as more states are seeking to ban medication abortion. Since the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision last year, more than a dozen states now have abortion laws in place, some of which specifically target the drug Mifepristone. “Today’s news is a step in the right direction for health equity,” Planned Parenthood President Alexis McGill Johnson said. The regulatory change under Biden’s administration will allow pharmacies to dispense the prescription directly to its patients, as long as it is from a certified prescriber. The modifications included the permanent removal of limitations on the delivery of the medications by mail order and their prescription by telehealth. After reviewing supplemental applications from Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro, the two companies that manufacture the drug in the United States, the FDA finalized the changes on Tuesday. “Under the Mifepristone REMS Program, as modified, Mifeprex and its approved generic can be dispensed by certified pharmacies or by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber,” the agency said on its website. The brand-name form of Mifepristone, known as Mifeprex, induces an abortion up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy when combined with a second drug, Misoprostol, which has a number of purposes, including the management of miscarriages. The modifications had been first introduced in December 2021. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life organization SBA Pro-Life America, claimed that the most recent FDA action puts both women’s safety and the lives of unborn children in peril. “State lawmakers and Congress must stand as a bulwark against the Biden administration’s pro-abortion extremism,” she said.

A “bomb cyclone” and further flooding in California California is being battered by another winter storm that will bring severe winds and lots of rain. The storm’s grave predictions have warned of potential “loss of life.” California has declared a state of emergency as it is dealing with a potentially fatal bomb cyclone. The powerful atmospheric river known as the “Pineapple Express,” which has its origins in Hawaii, will carry a considerable amount of moisture to California. There is a chance of flooding throughout California because to the bomb cyclone and “Pineapple Express.” According to forecasters, it is likely to be one of the most significant storms to hit the state in recent years. For some neighborhoods with a significant risk of flooding, emergency officials ordered forced evacuations. The National Weather Service has issued flash flood watches, strong wind warnings, winter storm warnings, and other alerts for much of the state.California Governor Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) has said the coordination measures are in place to set up sandbagging spots and shelters and deploy paramedic strike teams. The state’s emergency operations center is at its highest degree of urgency. Winds and tornadoes may hit cities like Tallahassee, Charlotte, Virginia Beach, Atlanta, Raleigh, and Norfolk. In some areas of the Southeast, flash flooding might also be caused by heavy rains. The Bay Area and Northern California will be hit the hardest on Wednesday and Thursday.

Transgender prisoner executed The Missouri Department of Corrections has carried out its execution of transgender inmate Amber McLaughlin. The inmate was formerly known as Scott McLaughlin prior to the transitioning. McLaughlin is the first transgender woman executed in the United States. The execution was carried out at 6:39 p.m. at the Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center in Bonne Terre, Missouri on Tuesday. The act was administered via lethal injection and McLaughlin was declared dead by 6:51 p.m. McLaughlin had been delivered a final meal of a cheeseburger, fries, strawberry milkshake, and peanut M&Ms. “I am sorry for what I did. I am a loving and caring person.” read the final statement of the 49-year-old that was submitted to the DOC on January 1st. McLaughlin was convicted and sentenced to death for the 2003 brutal rape and murder of Beverly Guenther. Governor Mike Parson had rejected her request for clemency even though the jury was never told about McLaughlin’s horrific childhood or the mental health problems she faced, during her trial. According to the petition when she was a toddler, her foster dad had put feces in her face and her adoptive father had tasered her. It also mentioned extreme depression that led to numerous attempts at suicide as a child and an adult. Following the execution, Governor Mike Parson (R-Miss.) issued a statement, choosing to utilize McLaughlin’s deceased name. “Today, the State of Missouri carried out Scott McLaughlin’s sentence as ordered by the Missouri Supreme Court,” he said. “McLaughlin terrorized Ms. Guenther in the final years of her life, but we hope her family and loved ones may finally have some peace.” Annie Wedepohl along with her husband Al, were the only two witnesses present for the execution. The two were Guenther’s younger brother and sister-in-law respectively. Wedepohl, a nurse by profession stated that she broke into pieces as she was thinking about Guenther. “To me, it was unremarkable. It was a very humane way. I think, to me, it was too humane.” She further described the process as “quick and peaceful,” similar to seeing a family member sedated for surgery. According to state officials, McLaughlin had a spiritual advisor, the Rev. Lauren Bennett, by his side during the execution.

Last surviving Apollo 7 astronaut has died Walter Cunningham, the last surviving astronaut from the 1968’s Apollo 7 mission died at the age of 90 on Tuesday. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) confirmed his death in Houston in a press release. “NASA will always remember his contributions to our nation’s space program and sends our condolences to the Cunningham family,” NASA’s administrator Bill Nelson said in a statement. His family released a statement as well honoring the late astronaut, and expressing their pride and gratitude for the life that Cunningham had led. “The world has lost another true hero, and we will miss him dearly.” Cunningham was one of the three astronauts that were part of the first successful crewed space mission in 1968. The Apollo 7 mission lasted around 11 days and paved the way for humans to land on the Moon for the first time. He had joined the Navy in 1951 and was on active duty with the U.S. Marine Corps before making his way up to the rank of colonel. He had also worked as a fighter pilot in Korea, accumulating more than 4,500 hours of flying prior to joining NASA in 1963. The late astronaut had graduated from the University of California with a Bachelor of Arts with honors in physics in 1960 along with a Master of Arts with distinction in physics in 1961. He went on to receive his doctorate in physics from the Harvard Graduate School of Business. Cunningham had retired from NASA in 1971 and proceeded to serve in the private sector as an executive, consultant entrepreneur, and radio talk show host. In an interview in 1999 he recalled his career path and the mindset that he had throughout. “I’m one of those people that never really looked back. I only recall that when someone asked me after I became an astronaut,” Cunningham said. “All I remember is just kind of keeping my nose to the grindstone and wanting to do the best I could as — I didn’t realize at the time, but that was because I always wanted to be better prepared for the next step. I’ve always been looking to the future. I don’t live in the past.” Cunningham died after complications from a fall.

Political advertising on Twitter Twitter will lift its ban on political advertising ”in the coming weeks”. The platform revealed that it would be ”relaxing its ads policy for cause-based ads” in a Tuesday, adding that it would expand on which political advertising it would permit in the coming weeks. This comes after Twitter banned political ads three-years-ago with then CEO Jack Dorsey asserting that political ads ”bring significant risk to politics”. The move puts Twitter in-line with social media platforms like Facebook and YouTube which both allow the practice. The decision is believed to have been made in order to raise the revenue for Twitter which has faced significant fiscal and organizational challenges since Elon Musk’s takeover.

Driver of Tesla who drove off cliff to face attempted murder charges A California doctor faces multiple charges, including attempted murder and child abuse, after he allegedly drove his Tesla, with three other passengers inside, off of a cliff in Northern California on Monday. The Tesla was heading south on Highway 1 just south of the Tom Lantos Tunnel, between Pacifica and Montara in Northern California, when it swerved off the road on Monday morning. All four passengers survived but were transported to the hospital with serious injuries after the 250 foot fall. According to the California Highway Patrol (CHP), Dharmesh A. Patel was driving the car along the coastal road at the time when it had overturned at the Devil’s Slide. The report showed that Patel was accompanied by his wife and two children who were 7 and 4 years of age. The 41-year-old, who has been accused of intentionally driving off a cliff has been arrested but is still undergoing treatment for his injuries. Once he is released from the hospital, he is set to be taken to the San Mateo Jail. “CHP investigators worked throughout the night interviewing witnesses and gathering evidence from the scene. Based on the evidence collected, investigators developed probable cause to believe this incident was an intentional act.” The CHP staid in a statement. The authorities also stated that the electric vehicle had both an automatic (self-driving), and a manual feature. But regardless of the driving mode that the vehicle was in at the time, authorities claimed that it “does not appear to be a contributing factor in this event.” According to the California Highway Patrol, this is an ongoing investigation and no further details are being released at the this time.