Mark Carney defeated conservative challenger Pierre Poilievre in Canada’s 2025 federal election to become the next Prime Minister of America’s 51st state. What exactly does he have planned for The Great White North?

Nine improvements Carney is bringing to a Canada near you:

1. Shorter wait times for assisted suicide: If you need a hip replacement, however, you might have to wait several years.

2. All parents will be required to trans their kids: There’s no better way to show solidarity with the trans community.

3. The means of maple syrup production will be seized for the proletariat: A classless society can only be established by the equitable redistribution of maple syrup reserves.

4. Change national anthem to “The Lumberjack Song” by Monty Python: Much more appropriate for modern Canada.

5. Double the size of Canada’s military to 12: It’s important for Canada to be ready in case Trump attacks.

6. Establish a war victory monument in case Canada ever wins a war: You never know.

7. More unnecessary “u”s will be added to words: In addition to “humour” and “colour,” we’ll also get “elevatour,” “authour,” and “dictatour.”

8. Will advance several exciting new hoaxes against the Catholic Church: What fun!

9. Will work closely with President Xi to bring Canada under the watchful protection of the glorious People’s Republic of China: Having a big brother is so comforting.

Wow! These are exciting. Maybe Canada is finally back.

Babylon Bee

Democrats: at least as bad as the Nazis or the Communists. With a far greater capacity for destruction. They control half the state and local governments in the country, nearly all of the media, key elements of the military, all of the Deep State agencies, and literally all of our government-subsidized education system. The Nazis, Communists and other enemies of America were homicidal. Democrats are suicidal-homicidal, and have both the power and the will to do it right to our faces. We had better step up the efforts to destroy this party, because if we don’t, the next time they seize power at the federal level, they will eradicate absolutely everything.

President Trump’s victory and subsequent efforts to “drain the swamp” are courageous and impressive, but the magnitude of the evil we are up against requires far more than DOGE or arresting a couple of low profile judges. Until or unless we treat the Obamas, Bidens, Soros family, Faucis and all the other top-level Democrats as the war criminals and traitors they literally are, I fear we are going to lose the war to save America. Don’t let it go.

*******

Big Dictator Putin vs Little Dictator Zelensky. Who the hell cares about either of them? Let them demoralize and (best case) destroy each other. President Trump is wasting his time trying to end this war. Our only obligation: Stop funding it. Translation: End the Biden gravy train (money laundering) and stop funding Zelensky’s wife’s shopping sprees.

*******

A reader reminded me of what I wrote in the spring of 2020:

“…Mandatory quarantines for the healthy is a bizarre and twisted concept. Immunologists and physicians outside the government swamp will tell you that. It’s really about self-sacrifice. Decimation of the entire world economy for the sake of a small number of sick people is not something we have done with any other illness, contagious or not…”

It was true in 2020 when almost nobody agreed with me, and it’s still true 5 years later, where only the truly dense and dishonest don’t see the truth.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Disrupter, firebrand, or provocateur – call him what you will – but in the first 100 days of his second and last term, President Donald Trump has shaken and stirred American progressives to their core. His commanding presence is not for the faint of heart, as he proceeds at breakneck speed to fulfill his campaign promises. Today (April 29), which marks the 100th day of his presidency, is cause for reflection. And unsurprisingly, satisfaction with his priorities, projects, and plans has fallen along party lines.

Tariffs, immigration, and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) headline the start of Trump’s second time around as commander-in-chief, and all three have caused hysteria on the left – and that’s not an exaggeration. Progressives have been reduced to firebombing Tesla dealerships, keying cars, assaulting Tesla owners, and more. The reason for this appears to be the leadership of billionaire Elon Musk, who stands at the helm of DOGE. The fact that Musk was a former darling of the left seems to be lost on them, as is the reality that their actions signal what — that they support government waste, fraud, and abuse?

At this writing, the website DOGE.gov reports $160 billion in savings from a “Combination of asset sales, contract/lease cancellations and renegotiations, fraud and improper payment deletion, grant cancellations, interest savings, programmatic changes, regulatory savings, and workforce reductions.” According to DOGE calculations, the bottom line is a saving of almost a thousand dollars per taxpayer. That the left finds this reason to protest is unfathomable.

100 Days of Immigration Reform

The first few months of the Trump presidency have demonstrated – beyond any reasonable doubt – that the United States was never in need of additional immigration legislation to defend US borders, but rather a chief executive who had the courage to enforce the laws already on the books. Many Americans intuitively knew this, but somehow it got drowned out by all the Swamp noise. So how has the president performed thus far?

Border Czar Tom Homan, not one to be trifled with, asserted yesterday, “Well, today as I’m standing here, we have the most secure border in the history of this nation and the numbers prove it.” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters in the White House briefing room yesterday that illegal immigration has been down 95% in March of this year compared to 2024. She also reported that more than 85 miles of a new “border barrier” is now in various stages of construction, with “75 additional miles of temporary barriers across the southern border.” Both Homan and Leavitt maintain this massive reduction in crossings has severely limited fentanyl distribution in the United States, and deaths of women and children trying to make their way across the southern border have been almost entirely eliminated.

The progressive response to the crackdown on illegal immigration has been the rabid defense of one suspected MS-13 gang member who lived in Maryland. This sparked a coalition of Democratic lawmakers to travel to El Salvador seeking the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Their chief aim was to return him to the United States. Yet another example of tone-deaf hysteria, considering roughly three-quarters of Americans support the removal of illegal gang members from US shores.

Tick-Tock, It’s Tariff Time

Perhaps the most controversial move in his first 100 days has been Trump’s ratcheting up US tariffs worldwide. It’s a policy in its early stages that needs time to play out. And this is what has many so jittery, especially on Wall Street. Still, the president is moving forward with renegotiating long-standing unfair trade deals one country at a time. Where this change in policy lands could be Trump’s most significant victory or his most agonizing defeat. However, it is a necessary move for the future of US economic stability and the one systemic economic problem that no other president has been able to rectify. The simple truth is that the United States is bathed in red ink, mired in an untenable situation that cannot last much longer.

The economy, immigration, and government spending make up the trifecta of Trump’s first 100 days in office. Changes are coming fast and furious, and the chaos of such large-scale shifts in US policy has reduced the left to ironic and, many maintain, laughable actions. The legacy media still stands athwart these presidential priorities, bashing them daily with front-page headlines and negative political analysis.

Remarkably, the president does not seem to care. He’s acting very much like a man on a mission who will not be diverted from what he believes is right for the United States and what he contends Americans voted for when they put him back into the Oval Office against all odds. But, above all, President Trump’s first 100 days have been a wild ride, and if the past is prologue, tough days lie ahead for the status quo and those who support it.

Leesa Donner, Liberty Nation

Peaceful solution to America’s civil war? I don’t think so. Speaking for myself: I will not live peacefully under the rule of these people. They do not seek peace; they want mass coercion. They want COVID fascism times 1,000 — forever. Applied to every aspect of human life … control, control, control. By woke, crazy, always leftist totalitarians. They do not want to leave anyone alone. They want to impose their ideas of socialism, gender psychosis, racial supremacy and censorship on the rest of us. Millions of us will never, ever give in. But I know the ruthlessness of their leaders and the sickness of their minds will never quit. Looking beyond Trump, I see no solution here. Our differences are irreconcilable — and unsustainable.

Every single Trump policy is being overturned by a leftist lower court judge. Does this mean when Gavin Newsom or AOC become President that a Trump appointed judge may repeal open borders, 90 percent tax rates, censorship, state-run genital mutilation of children and gun confiscation? Of course not. The Democratic Party is not Constitutionalist. It’s a raw, unhampered dictatorship movement. Leftists lack rule of law, objective arguments or any sense of justice. We know it; and they know we know it. They simply do not care. That’s why Democrats should not be permitted to hold office. They swear to uphold the Constitution and in practice they obliterate every part of it — laughing while they do so. This should disqualify them for any office. If New York and California wish to secede, fine — let them go. If “democracy” means the right to vote away the inalienable rights guaranteed you by your Constitution, then how can you uphold the right of open totalitarians to hold office?

Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Charleston SC). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on X at @MichaelJHurd1, drmichaelhurd on Instagram, @DrHurd on TruthSocial. Dr. Hurd is also now a Newsmax Insider!

The free trade brigade obsesses over economic minutiae—they cry that tariffs will raise the cost of plastic spatulas by 50 cents! What a disaster!

The reality is that trade with China is not in America’s interests because it funds our greatest rival. Here’s how America funded China’s rise, and why tariffs will help keep America safe and free.

A Dragon Fed: How America Funded China’s Rise

Economists say freer trade benefits everyone—even trade with China. America gets cheap goods and China gets money. Win-win.

Even if we assume America benefits, which is a false assumption as proven in my book Reshore, China has clearly benefited more. For example, China’s economy has grown by an average of 8.12% since joining the World Trade Organization in 2001—about four times greater than America’s. China and America benefited asymmetrically from trade.

Asymmetry may not be a problem economically, but it is a problem politically. Why? Power is zero-sum. The stronger China grows, the weaker America becomes relative to China. As such, trade with China is also a political issue. The question we should be asking ourselves is whether cheap goods are worth surrendering America’s political dominance.

To be clear, trade is not the only way that America has funded China’s rise. There are three primary ways that America enriches and empowers China: investment, trade, and theft.

First, America invested directly in China by building factories—offshoring 60,000 factories does not come cheap. The total value of American investment in China is unknown. According to China’s Ministry of Commerce, cumulative foreign direct investment (“FDI”) totalled $2.7 trillion in 2023. Just 2.1% of this investment was categorized as American.

The reason that this amount is so low is because American investment is usually routed through intermediaries, mostly Hong Kong, Singapore, and the British Virgin Islands. This is why Hong Kong—a city smaller than Shanghai—owns 68% of FDI in China.

Not coincidentally, Hong Kong is a major recipient of FDI from the U.S. and from the British Virgin Islands—a tiny banking archipelago that is itself capitalized by the U.S. and the City of London. Because of this shell game, we cannot know the actual amount American companies have invested in China, but if we assume that FDI correlates with the relative size of China’s trade surpluses, then America’s investments total $972 billion.

This estimate is probably low. Why? China runs trade surpluses with countries that clearly contributed no investment, such as most countries in Africa and the Middle East. Given the level of economic integration, I would hazard an estimate that most FDI ultimately originated in America or the City of London, funneled through their banking havens.

Second, America indirectly funded China’s rise through the trade deficit, buying more Chinese goods than we sold. The cumulative trade deficit with China since 2001 is roughly $6 trillion, after accounting for inflation. Not only were the Chinese able to spend these profits, but they were also able to borrow against the revenue, greatly multiplying their access to capital.

Third, China has stolen an almost unquantifiable amount of American technology. In 2017, the Office of the United States Trade Representative estimated that China steals intellectual property worth between $225 and $600 billion per year, more than the value of the annual trade deficit. If we use the low estimate and do not adjust for inflation, the value of stolen technology would be at least $5.4 trillion.

Interestingly, the above numbers actually undervalue the quantity of this theft. Why?

The other vector is through Sino-American corporate partnerships. Basically, American companies that build factories in China are forced to partner with a local Chinese company, a corporate clone. The plant is staffed by Chinese workers, who are taught America’s industrial processes and how to replicate American technology.

Providing China access to American technology is actually the price to enter China’s market—American companies cannot operate in China without giving up their technological and industrial secrets. Yet they do it anyways because the Chinese make it worth their while.

In my view, the value of America’s stolen technology was priceless.

Remember, mainland China’s economy was largely preindustrial—about as productive and technologically advanced as the Thirteen Colonies during the American Revolution. Now, China has reached technological parity with the U.S. Theft allowed China to skip 200 years of technological and economic development.

America funded China’s rise. This has not only impoverished America, but it has also ended America’s superpower era. We now live in a multipolar world, bought and paid for by America’s corrupt politicians and Wall Street.

Spencer P. Morrison, American Greatneess

No University Is Above the Law 

“Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness?,'” President Donald Trump posted on his Truth Social platform very recently.

“Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!”

By last Wednesday, reports suggested that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which determines tax-exempt status by administrative protocol, was already studying Harvard’s tax-exempt status with an eye toward revoking it.

Higher education is wavering between fear and defiance as the Trump administration employs governmental power to withhold federal funds from institutions found to have violated civil rights laws.

Over the last month, multiple government agencies have paused or cancelled billions of dollars in federal grants and contracts.

Those federal grants and contracts were bound for institutions with questionable records on civil rights enforcement, including measures to protect Jews and women, disestablish DEI programs, curb pro-terrorist activism, and abandon the use of race in admissions.

So far, almost all affected schools have entered into discussions with the relevant agencies to recover their funds.

On April 14, Harvard University, the largest federal grantee in higher education, formally refused to meet government requirements.

Upon its refusal, it was deprived of $2.26 billion in federal funds (about $7 billion more, which is granted to institutional partners of Harvard but not the university itself, is on the line but has not been cancelled), or just over one-third of its 2024 operating budget.

That’s a sizeable number, and reports indicate that Harvard has been seeking high-value financing and considering other options to make up the difference — even if simply obeying federal civil rights laws appears to be off the table.

According to some calculations, the unrestricted portion of Harvard’s $53.2 billion endowment — or about 20% of the total — could easily cover the lost federal funds and leave some $8.4 billion for future purposes.

A glance at Harvard’s most recently available tax returns reveals administrative bloat and soaring executive compensation that could be trimmed.

Does a university really need 11 vice presidents, nine of whom are paid over $500,000 per year?

Lawsuits filed on the behalf of Harvard faculty members by the American Association of University Professors, and this week by Harvard itself, could at least temporarily halt the cuts if they come before the right judges.

Even if those strategies work, however, Harvard’s tax-exempt status could prove an Achilles’ heel, not only there but at any non-compliant university.

Tax-exempt status, granted under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, allows organizations with a non-profit and non-partisan charitable purpose to operate without paying taxes on income, property, or purchases.

It further allows donors to claim an unlimited amount in deductions from their own federal income tax obligations.

Harvard’s losing its tax-exempt status would make it liable for taxes on par with any for-profit corporation while also disincentivizing donations, which would no longer convey any tax benefit.

Can it be done?

Certainly.

As President Trump correctly noted in his post, the test for tax exemption is conditional and rests on the IRS’s determination of whether an entity’s purpose and operations are in the public interest, confer “public benefit,” and support public policy.

As the Internal Revenue Code makes clear, discriminatory policies “cannot be viewed as conferring a public benefit within the ‘charitable’ concept” of the common law” or “within the Congressional intent” in establishing tax-exempt categories under federal law.

In the foundational case of Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574, (1983), the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the IRS that “government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating . . . discrimination in education” and that this public interest “substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places” on an offending institution.

The high court found that this applied even to First Amendment rights, to which both Bob Jones University and Harvard appealed to justify their policies.

Bob Jones’s loss of tax-exempt status was accordingly upheld and only restored after the university abolished its discriminatory policies in full.

In subsequent cases, authorities denied or removed tax-exempt status from multiple organizations that had discriminatory membership policies, operated racist missions, conducted activities intended to undermine public order, or showed partisan political bias.

In Bob Jones, moreover, the Supreme Court purposely left the scope of violations broad, to the extent that having just one discriminatory program or policy among many, even at a large and complex institution, is sufficient to merit disqualification from tax-exempt status.

Earlier this month, the American Alliance for Equal Rights, a Texas-based non-profit that monitors the public sphere for instances of unlawful discrimination, filed a complaint with the IRS against the Gates Foundation, which reportedly holds over $75 billion in assets, because one of its scholarship programs was closed to whites.

Very soon after AAER’s president Ed Blum publicized the complaint and the legal theory behind it in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, the Gates Foundation opened eligibility to all races, likely saving its tax-exempt status.

But as Harvard may well find out, the threat to its tax-exempt status is all too clear and can readily be used against it.

No university is above the law.

Paul du Quenoy is President of the Palm Beach Freedom Institute. Read Paul du Quenoy’s Reports — More Here. 

The race to select the next UN Secretary-General of the United Nations is well underway. All the frontrunners are women, and they are well-known abortion advocates.

Western-backed feminist organizations are lobbying countries to select a woman to the lead the United Nations when the term of the current UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres ends next year. At the recent UN Commission on the Status of Women, forty-five member states agreed that the UN Security Council should “consider nominating women as candidates.” The final candidate must then be approved by the General Assembly.

Here is a quick look at the top three candidates the UN Security Council is being asked to consider for the position and where they stand on abortion and gender ideology.

The undisputed front-runner for the UN’s top job is Michelle Bachelet, a two-term president of Chile who led the UN agency for Women as well as the UN human rights office. She is a known champion of abortion rights and gender ideology and has been described as the Hillary Clinton of Latin America.

As president of Chile, she successfully shepherded a multi-year campaign to legalize abortion in Chile. As head of UN Women and the highest UN human rights official she streamlined abortion promotion in the UN bureaucracy as well as the promotion of transgender rights, including self-identification.

She issued a scathing attack against the U.S. Supreme Court after the 2022 Dobbs decision. In that case the court declared abortion was an issue that each American state should legislate democratically and not a constitutional right. Bachelet called the decision a “huge blow to women’s human rights and gender equality” and said that “abortion is firmly rooted in international human rights law and is at the core of women and girls’ autonomy.”

Given her track-record Bachelet is the preferred candidate of the feminist left. Bachelet has failed to address human rights abuses in China, likely a calculated move necessary to avoid a veto from China in the Security Council. Even leftwing supporters called her work there “whitewashing.”

The runner-up is Mia Mottley, the current prime minister of Barbados. Barbados is one of the few countries in the Caribbean that allows abortion. She has expressed support for LGBT issues and her government is working with EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen to expand access to reproductive health commodities, including abortion and contraception, in the Caribbean and Africa.

Another significant candidate with experience promoting abortion through the United Nations is Rebecca Grynspan. The former vice-president of Costa Rica has held several leadership positions in the UN bureaucracy. As assistant UN Secretary-General she interfered in the internal political debates about abortion in Nicaragua. She openly opposed a law to protect children in the womb under all circumstances.

The candidates are being discussed earlier than in previous campaigns for Secretary-General. This is by design. A vote on the next Secretary General is not expected in the General Assembly until October 2026. Feminists have openly said they want to put pressure on the Security Council to nominate a woman. Formal and informal interviews in the Security Council and General Assembly will likely take place next spring.

The Secretary General is picked by region. It is now Latin America’s turn to choose.

Given her track-record Bachelet is the preferred candidate of the feminist left. Bachelet has failed to address human rights abuses in China, likely a calculated move necessary to avoid a veto from China in the Security Council. Even leftwing supporters called her work there “whitewashing.”

The runner-up is Mia Mottley, the current prime minister of Barbados. Barbados is one of the few countries in the Caribbean that allows abortion. She has expressed support for LGBT issues and her government is working with EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen to expand access to reproductive health commodities, including abortion and contraception, in the Caribbean and Africa.

Another significant candidate with experience promoting abortion through the United Nations is Rebecca Grynspan. The former vice-president of Costa Rica has held several leadership positions in the UN bureaucracy. As assistant UN Secretary-General she interfered in the internal political debates about abortion in Nicaragua. She openly opposed a law to protect children in the womb under all circumstances.

The candidates are being discussed earlier than in previous campaigns for Secretary-General. This is by design. A vote on the next Secretary General is not expected in the General Assembly until October 2026. Feminists have openly said they want to put pressure on the Security Council to nominate a woman. Formal and informal interviews in the Security Council and General Assembly will likely take place next spring.

The Secretary General is picked by region. It is now Latin America’s turn to choose.

Given her track-record Bachelet is the preferred candidate of the feminist left. Bachelet has failed to address human rights abuses in China, likely a calculated move necessary to avoid a veto from China in the Security Council. Even leftwing supporters called her work there “whitewashing.”

The runner-up is Mia Mottley, the current prime minister of Barbados. Barbados is one of the few countries in the Caribbean that allows abortion. She has expressed support for LGBT issues and her government is working with EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen to expand access to reproductive health commodities, including abortion and contraception, in the Caribbean and Africa.

Another significant candidate with experience promoting abortion through the United Nations is Rebecca Grynspan. The former vice-president of Costa Rica has held several leadership positions in the UN bureaucracy. As assistant UN Secretary-General she interfered in the internal political debates about abortion in Nicaragua. She openly opposed a law to protect children in the womb under all circumstances.

The candidates are being discussed earlier than in previous campaigns for Secretary-General. This is by design. A vote on the next Secretary General is not expected in the General Assembly until October 2026. Feminists have openly said they want to put pressure on the Security Council to nominate a woman. Formal and informal interviews in the Security Council and General Assembly will likely take place next spring.

The Secretary General is picked by region. It is now Latin America’s turn to choose.

Given her track-record Bachelet is the preferred candidate of the feminist left. Bachelet has failed to address human rights abuses in China, likely a calculated move necessary to avoid a veto from China in the Security Council. Even leftwing supporters called her work there “whitewashing.”

The runner-up is Mia Mottley, the current prime minister of Barbados. Barbados is one of the few countries in the Caribbean that allows abortion. She has expressed support for LGBT issues and her government is working with EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen to expand access to reproductive health commodities, including abortion and contraception, in the Caribbean and Africa.

Another significant candidate with experience promoting abortion through the United Nations is Rebecca Grynspan. The former vice-president of Costa Rica has held several leadership positions in the UN bureaucracy. As assistant UN Secretary-General she interfered in the internal political debates about abortion in Nicaragua. She openly opposed a law to protect children in the womb under all circumstances.

The candidates are being discussed earlier than in previous campaigns for Secretary-General. This is by design. A vote on the next Secretary General is not expected in the General Assembly until October 2026. Feminists have openly said they want to put pressure on the Security Council to nominate a woman. Formal and informal interviews in the Security Council and General Assembly will likely take place next spring.

The Secretary General is picked by region. It is now Latin America’s turn to choose.

Former Presidential advisor, Jim Rickards is out with a stunning new interview.

“For over a century,” he says, “America has been sitting on a $150 trillion fortune.”

This ‘national inheritance’ has been locked away since 1872, when the 42nd Congress established a special trust for the American people.

To give you an idea, it’s now…

• 53 times bigger than Norway’s sovereign wealth fund
• 115 times larger than China’s
• 161 times greater than Saudi Arabia’s

Play Now!

In fact, it exceeds EVERY sovereign wealth fund in the world, combined!

And now, thanks to a landmark Supreme Court decision and Executive Order #14196, this wealth could be released soon – for the first time ever.

If Rickards is right, thousands of investors will reap a fortune during this term and beyond. For the full story, click here.

ARMONK, N.Y., April 28, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — Today IBM (NYSE: IBM) announced plans to invest $150 billion in America over the next five years to fuel the economy and to accelerate its role as the global leader in computing. This includes an investment of more than $30 billion in research and development to advance and continue IBM’s American manufacturing of mainframe and quantum computers.

“Technology doesn’t just build the future — it defines it,” said Arvind Krishna, IBM chairman, president and chief executive officer. “We have been focused on American jobs and manufacturing since our founding 114 years ago, and with this investment and manufacturing commitment we are ensuring that IBM remains the epicenter of the world’s most advanced computing and AI capabilities.”

IBM is one of the nation’s largest technology employers and has ushered in innovations that include the data processing systems that enabled the U.S. social security system, the Apollo Program that put a man on the moon, and power businesses in every industry.

That legacy continues in Poughkeepsie, New York, where we manufacture the cutting-edge mainframes that are the technology backbone of the American and global economies. More than 70% of the entire world’s transactions by value run through the IBM mainframes that are manufactured right here in America.

IBM also operates the world’s largest fleet of quantum computer systems, and will continue to design, build and assemble quantum computers in America. Quantum computing represents one of the biggest technology platform shifts and economic opportunities in decades and will solve problems that today’s conventional computers cannot solve. Enabling these solutions will not only help us better understand the fundamentals of how the world works but are projected to transform American competitiveness, jobs, and national security. IBM’s Quantum Network provides access to IBM’s quantum systems for nearly 300 Fortune 500 companies, academic institutions, national laboratories, and startups and is accessed by over 600,000 active users.

Today’s announcement reaffirms IBM’s unwavering commitment to the future of American innovation, igniting new economic opportunity in the United States and around the world.

About IBM

IBM is a leading provider of global hybrid cloud and AI, and consulting expertise. We help clients in more than 175 countries capitalize on insights from their data, streamline business processes, reduce costs, and gain a competitive edge in their industries. Thousands of governments and corporate entities in critical infrastructure areas such as financial services, telecommunications and healthcare rely on IBM’s hybrid cloud platform and Red Hat OpenShift to affect their digital transformations quickly, efficiently, and securely. IBM’s breakthrough innovations in AI, quantum computing, industry-specific cloud solutions and consulting deliver open and flexible options to our clients. All of this is backed by IBM’s long-standing commitment to trust, transparency, responsibility, inclusivity, and service. Visit http://www.ibm.com for more information.

Media Contact:

Ashley Bright IBM brighta@us.ibm.com

SOURCE IBM

IBM-Quantum-System-Two New-IBM-z17-Mainframe

On April 14, I recorded a podcast with Tom Nelson. He has since posted a slightly edited version on his YouTube site. Go to this link if you would like to watch it — about an hour long. The main subject is the sordid history of EPA’s Endangerment Finding and efforts of people including myself to get it rescinded.

The good news on the Endangerment Finding front is that EPA under new Administrator Lee Zeldin is very much on the job of eliminating the EF. Of course, once it has been rescinded it will face a blizzard of legal challenges. I hope and expect that Zeldin and his team are up to the job of carrying out a rescission that will stick. I offered my suggestions for how to do a rescission that will stand up to challenge in this post from January 26.

Separately, Nelson has made a thing out of compiling a growing list of “Signs That The Climate Scam Is Collapsing.” That list is now up to some 33 items and counting. The current version can be found here. Readers of this blog are likely already familiar with many of the items on Tom’s list. However, today I would like to feature a couple of items from Tom’s list that are important but may be less well known.

Item 3 on Tom’s list is that the funding of something called “NASA GISS” is likely to be terminated as part of the DOGE cost-cutting efforts. GISS is the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. For some unknown reason, GISS is part of NASA, and is located, of all place, in Manhattan, in an office building on upper Broadway near Columbia University. GISS is mainly known for producing a world temperature time series known as GISTEMP, which is systematically massaged and altered in ways to enhance the narrative of climate alarm. For more details than you will ever want to know about the data tampering, go to my 30+ part series “The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time.”

Tom calls NASA GISS a “climate alarm shop,” which is accurate. For many years it was headed by crazed alarmist James Hansen, until his retirement in 2013. Since then the head has been Gavin Schmidt, who has proved to be Hansen’s equal in spreading alarm. GISS is best known for its regular press releases proclaiming the most recent month or year to be the “warmest ever.” Indeed, GISS’s most recent press release, from January 10, has the headline “2024 Was the Warmest Year on Record.” Since January 20 GISS has not issued any further press releases, which hopefully represents some message control getting exerted by the Trump administration.

Following Nelson’s links, it is not clear to me that the information about the impending defunding of GISS is completely definitive. One link goes to this Wall Street Journal piece from March 29, with the following quote:

It is at NASA, though, where Musk is making the biggest shift in an agency’s priorities to align them with his own—both financially and personally. He is working to recast its programs, reallocate federal spending and install loyalists to aid his decadeslong goal of sending people to Mars.

The Juliana case was brought way back in 2012 in the federal District of Oregon. The plaintiffs asserted a “constitutional right” to a clean and healthy environment, and sought as a remedy that the court impose a plan to “phase out” all use of fossil fuels. My April 9, 2024 piece included a fairly lengthy summary of the proceedings to that time, which had included three visits to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. After the Ninth Circuit had found a lack of standing for the plaintiffs in a 2020 decision, it had remanded the case back to the District Court with instructions to dismiss; but the District Court instead had given the plaintiffs another chance to amend the complaint so District Court was starting to get the case ready for trial. So after four more years of getting jerked around in the District Court, the government was back in the Ninth Circuit with a mandamus petition when I wrote that post a year ago.

The latest news is that the Ninth Circuit granted the mandamus petition, and now, finally, the Supreme Court has denied a petition for certiorari from the plaintiffs. From Reuters, March 24, 2025:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a bid by 21 young people to revive a novel lawsuit claiming the U.S. government’s energy policies violate their rights to be protected from climate change. The justices denied a request by the youth activists to hear their appeal of a decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals directing a federal judge in Oregon to dismiss the case after holding they lacked legal standing to sue.

So this one case is definitively over. The bad news is that there are many other similar and/or copycat cases out there kicking around in the courts. It will be a long time before they are all killed off, but at least this one is a start.

Check out Tom’s list for plenty more examples of the continuing, if painfully slow, demise of the climate scam.

Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian