US & Philippines Kick Off Largest Ever Joint Drills On ‘China’s Doorstep’ Tensions are soaring in waters off China as the US and its close regional ally the Philippines launched expansive joint war drills Monday, not far from hotly disputed maritime areas. At over 16,000 troops, the exercises called the “Balikatan” drills (or “shoulder to shoulder”) mark the largest ever conducted between the two allies. “The 2024 iteration is not only the largest but the most complex,” Newsweek confirmed of the annual exercise. US Marine Corps image The joint exercises will focus on “seizing maritime terrain, HIMARS infiltrations, and coastal defense and maritime strike operations among others” — and are taking place around the the Philippine provinces of Palawan and Batanes, geographically near disputed China Sea areas as well as Taiwan. A US Marine Corps statement described Balikatan as a “cornerstone event between the US and the Philippines, directly supporting the refinement and understanding of our shared Mutual Defense Treaty obligations.” To be expected, Beijing has blasted the war games as a provocation, with Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian warning against the placement and deployment of US weapons systems “at China’s doorstep.” He further put the Philippines on notice, saying there will be “serious consequences of pandering to the United States.” He further said Manilla “should understand that drawing in countries outside the South China Sea to flex their muscles and stoke confrontation in the region will only intensify tensions and undermine regional stability.”  Russia’s Sputnik has the following details on the scope of the new drills: Some of the drills will also involve other countries, such as Australia and France, in secondary roles. 14 nations will reportedly act as observers, including India, Japan, as well as some ASEAN and European Union countries. In a first, six Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) vessels will participate in the drills in an active role. The drills will simulate seizing islands in the vicinity of Taiwan and South China Sea. For the first time, the exercises will be held at multiple Philippine locations, 12 nautical miles offshore, outside of the country’s territorial waters, near the disputed South China Sea – waters that are claimed by both China and the Philippines. The maiden deployment by the US military of the Mid-Range Capability missile system in the Philippines has been denounced as contributing to a regional arms race. Recently, rival Chinese and Philippine coast guard patrols have directly clashed over maritime territory and fishing rights. Often these involve the firing of water canons well as dangerous ramming situations. Washington and Manillas are defense treaty partners – meaning that if Philippine forces ever come under direct military attack, the United States is ‘obligated’ to intervene on their behalf. Tyler Durden Mon, 04/22/2024 – 23:20

Supreme Court Denies Bid To Expand No-Excuse Mail-In Ballots In Texas Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a legal challenge to a Texas law that requires voters under the age of 65 to provide justification to vote by mail, meaning that the Democrat-aligned attempt to sharply expand “no-excuse” mail-in ballots in the Lone Star state has failed, with implications for other states. Empty envelopes of opened vote-by-mail ballots for the presidential primary are stacked on a table at King County Elections in Renton, Washington, on March 10, 2020. (Jason Redmond/AFP) According to an April 22 order list, the high court denied petition for a writ of cetriorari in a case that stems from a federal lawsuit filed in 2020 on behalf of the Texas Democratic Party and several voters who requested that Texas lift its age-based limitations on no-excuse mail-in voting. Texas law only allows individuals to vote by mail without a qualifying excuse, like sickness, if they are 65 years or older. In their original complaint, which made its way through a number of lower courts before ending up before the Supreme Court, the petitioners alleged that the Texas voting law violates the 26th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits denying the right to vote due to age. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal means that the Texas law stays in place, delivering a win to election integrity advocates who argue that no-excuse mail-in voting is prone to fraud and makes elections less secure. At the same time, the high court’s decision to deny certiorari is a setback for groups who see laws like Texas’s age-based limits on no-excuse mail-in ballots as “voter suppression” or an unfair attempt to impose barriers to voting for certain groups, in this case younger voters. The high court’s decision not to hear the appeal has broader implications, however, since six other states–Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee–have similar laws on the books that let older voters to request absentee ballot without having to provide any justification. Public opinion in Texas over the issue of no-excuse mail-in voting is split, according to some polls. More Details In their initial petition filed in 2020 on behalf of the Texas Democratic Party and a group of voters amids the COVID-19 pandemic, the plaintiffs requested that Texas lift its age-based restrictions to no-excuse mail-in voting, citing public health risks related to the outbreak. A district court judge sided with the plaintiffs in May 2020, temporarily blocking the Texas law. Led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Texas officials then filed an appeal with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which paused the district court’s ruling while the appeal played out. The plaintiffs then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reimpose the district court’s decision to freeze enforcement of the age-based limits to no-excuse mail-in voting, or to take the case up for review, but the high court rejected both requests. Ultimately, the 5th Circuit voided the lower court’s May 2020 order in full. This led the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in the district court, this time asserting other claims, including ones of racial discrimination under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and arguing that the age limitations on mail-in ballots violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th and 26th Amendments. In a July 2022 order, the district court judge dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims, leading to another appeal before the 5th Circuit, which ultimately affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss. The plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court in December 2023, asking the high court to declare Texas’s age-based voting law unconstitutional. The court declined to review the plaintiffs’ appeal, leaving Texas’s age restrictions in place and denying a bid to expand no-excuse mail-in voting in the Lone Star state. The Epoch Times has reached out to counsel for both petitioners and respondents with a request for comment on the high court’s decision. Election Integrity or Voter Suppression? The Supreme Court ruling comes amid a broader fight between those who see election integrity efforts as “voter suppression” and those who believe that the security of U.S. elections is too lax and should be tightened. According to a running tally by the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice, expansive voting laws far outpaced restrictive ones in 2023. At least 53 expansive voting laws were introduced last year in at least 23 states, compared to 17 restrictive laws being passed in 14 states, suggesting that the election integrity movement is falling behind. Amid concerns over voter fraud, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich recently suggested that to win the presidential election in November, Republicans need to outvote Democrats by a significant margin. “Everybody who wants an honest election should know that in the long run, we need the French model: Everybody votes on the same day, everybody has a photo ID, everybody’s accounted as a person,” Mr. Gingrich said in a February interview on Fox News. “But until we get to that, if Republicans want to win this year, under the rules that exist this year, they need to outvote the Democrats by about 5 percent, which is a margin big enough that it can’t be stolen,” he said. Elsewhere, an election integrity monitor laid out over a dozen “critical” reforms that it believes are necessary in order to secure voter integrity in the 2024 election, including outlawing ranked choice voting and non-citizen voting, consolidating election dates, requiring voter ID, and safeguarding vulnerable mail ballots. Tyler Durden Mon, 04/22/2024 – 23:00

On Earth Day, Biden Administration Backs Rooftop Solar With $7 Billion Grant By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com U.S. President Joe Biden is announcing on Monday $7 billion in grants to help more than 900,000 low-income households install residential solar power, the White House said. President Biden will mark today’s Earth Day by traveling to Prince William Forest Park in Triangle, Virginia, and is expected to highlight the Administration’s progress “in tackling the climate crisis, cutting costs for everyday Americans, and creating good-paying jobs,” the White House said. The $7 billion in grants will come from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Solar for All grant competition, a key component of the Inflation Reduction Act’s $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.   The selectees under the competition are expected to deliver residential power to more than 900,000 households in low-income and disadvantaged communities, saving households more than $350 million in electricity costs annually, or about $400 per household, according to the White House. The rooftop solar program will also help avoid more than 30 million metric tons of carbon pollution over the next 25 years. EPA has received 150 applications, and 60 applicants were selected through a robust multistage review, Environmental Protection Agency Deputy Administrator Janet McCabe said in a call with reporters. U.S. solar installations surged in 2023, as solar accounted for over 50% of new electricity capacity added to the grid, for the first time in history, the annual solar market review of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and Wood Mackenzie showed earlier this year. However… …the biggest residential solar market in the U.S., California, has seen major policy changes in the way the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) will compensate rooftop solar customers for the excess energy they generate. This decision moved the state from retail rate “net metering” to a new “net billing” structure that cuts the value of rooftop solar credits by about 75%.   This, according to SEIA and WoodMac, is expected to crash California’s residential solar market in 2024, contributing to a projected 36% decline across all segments in the state. Tyler Durden Mon, 04/22/2024 – 22:20

BlackRock Triples Larry Fink’s Home Security As Anti-Woke Backlash Accelerates BlackRock chief executive Larry Fink’s efforts to push ‘wokesim’ or environmental, social, and governance policies across corporate America have been in reverse in recent years amid the backlash from Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill and 19 state attorneys general in conservative states, including Arizona and Texas, who have been fed up with ESG-related policies hurting the economy.  Supposedly, the backlash by anti-woke activists has forced BlackRock to triple Fink’s home security spending. Financial Times says the CEO has become “a target for anti-woke activists and conspiracy theorists.”  According to FT’s numbers, the $10.5 trillion money manager spent $563,513 to “upgrade the home security systems” at Fink’s residences during 2023, on top of $216,837 for bodyguards.  The ESG movement has been highly politicized. Vivek Ramaswamy, one of the Republican party’s presidential candidates before Donald Trump was nominated, called Fink “the king of the woke industrial complex [and] the ESG movement.” In December, Fink said his firm was unfairly targeted by candidates in the fourth Republican presidential debate, calling it a “sad commentary on the state of American politics.” Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has called BlackRock the “economic power” to instill a “left-wing agenda.”  Besides conservative lawmakers revolting against the world’s largest woke money manager at the state level and on Capitol Hill, UBS bankers on Wall Street are becoming increasingly frustrated with unrealistic climate goals. Here’s the note, “ESG Frustration And Backlash In The Banking Sector Continues.” It should be no surprise to our readers: we have been pointing out the demise of ESG for more than a year now. Earlier in March, we wrote how Exxon’s CEO had all but declared victory over the “woke” ESG lobby.   We noted that CEOs were ditching ESG lingo on conference calls in February. For some context, peak ESG and related synonyms, such as “climate change” and “clean energy” and green energy” and net zero,” among other terms, peaked at 28,000 mentions in the first quarter of 2022. Ever since, the number of mentions has plunged.  Fink’s beefing up security is a sign that the political ideology pushed by the asset manager does not align with actual investors and most Americans.  Tyler Durden Mon, 04/22/2024 – 22:00

“Not About Freedom Of Expression”: Aussie Politicians Unite Against Elon Musk’s X Authored by Monica O’Shea via The Epoch Times, Elon Musk’s X is facing strong criticism from both the centre-left Labor Party and the centre-right Liberal-National Coalition in Australia amid a legal challenge against the country’s online content tsar. Mr. Musk labelled Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant (a former Twitter employee), the “Australian censorship commissar,” after she issued an order to X to take down videos related to the alleged stabbing of a Christian bishop. X says it had removed all posts domestically, but the commissioner’s order calls for the removal of content around the world. X is planning to challenge this in court, and said the posts did not violate its rules on “violent speech” – content that incites or glorifies violence. Shadow Minister Says Musk Being ‘Irresponsible’ However, the Liberal Party’s Shadow Foreign Minister Simon Birmingham called X’s contention a “completely ridiculous and preposterous argument.” “The type of standards that we expect in everyday life that we expect in other forms of media should be able to be applied to the online world as well,” Mr. Birmingham said on ABC News Breakfast on April 22. “The idea that it is censorship to say that imagery of a terrorist attack, of a stabbing incident should not be able to be broadcast in an unfiltered way for all to see—children to access and otherwise—is an insulting and offensive argument.” The senator also argued Mr. Musk’s argument was “irresponsible” given the impact of the social media posts on potential terrorists. “It is also an irresponsible one when you consider the implications that can have for inspiring potentially future terrorists, for creating discord and disharmony in communities, and driving people further apart when such images are manipulated or used with propaganda or other information,” he said. The Australian censorship commissar is demanding *global* content bans! https://t.co/CRLglUYYIG — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2024 Labor Government Paints Musk As ‘Bully’ This comes after Labor’s Health Minister Mark Butler said the government would not be “bullied” by Mr. Musk. “And can I say this: Australia is not going to be bullied by Elon Musk, or any other tech billionaire, in our commitment to making sure that social media is a safe space,” Mr. Butler said during a press conference. Mr. Butler said if Mr. Musk wanted to fight the fine in court, the government was up for it because they were determined to keep “social media safe.” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he found it “extraordinary X chose not to comply.” “We know, I think overwhelmingly, Australians want misinformation and disinformation to stop. This isn’t about freedom of expression,” he told reporters. “This is about the dangerous implications that can occur when things that are simply not true, that everyone knows is not true, are replicated and weaponised in order to cause division, and in this case, to promote negative statements.” Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek called Mr. Musk an “egotistical billionaire.” “It’s more important for him to have his way than to respect the victims of the crimes that are being shown on social media and to protect our Australian community from the harmful impact of showing this terrible stuff on social media,” she said on Sunrise. “We need to keep Australians safe from this terrible stuff on social media. And Elon Musk doesn’t dictate to the Australian government what we are doing here domestically with our laws.” I’d like to take a moment to thank the PM for informing the public that this platform is the only truthful one https://t.co/EM0lF6n7SC — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 22, 2024 Opposition Switches Gears, Will Back ‘Misinformation’ Laws Meanwhile, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton agreed there was a case for “tougher action” against social media companies during an interview with ABC Insiders on April 22. “No question at all, and I think there’s a bipartisan position in relation to this. We know that the companies—and we’ve seen some of the comments from Elon Musk overnight—they see themselves above the law,” Mr. Dutton claimed. “The Australian law here should apply equally in the real world as it does online.” Mr. Dutton pointed out social media companies turnover billions of dollars of revenue in the Australian economy and indicated the laws should apply to them within the country. “I think there’s a red herring in a sense here. When Elon Musk says that there’s not extraterritorial reach—that is the Australian law can’t apply to other parts of the world—I’m sure that’s the case. But in terms of the content, which is displayed here, or broadcast here, well the Australian law does apply,” Mr. Dutton said. Mr. Dutton also indicated the Opposition would support Labor’s misinformation and disinformation laws, despite the Shadow Communications Minister David Coleman being very critical of the law in September. “Yeah, we are, and happy to have a look at anything the government puts forward, as we’ve said over the last week, with the horrendous scenes that we’ve seen.” Don’t take my word for it, just ask the Australian PM! pic.twitter.com/ZJBKrstStQ — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 22, 2024 What Did X Do? X received a global takedown order from Australia’s eSafety commissioner to remove posts following the knife attack on a Christian bishop during a livestream service. However, X says the posts did not violate the platform’s rules on “violent speech,” and revealed it had received a demand from the eSafety commissioner to remove all posts globally—or face a daily fine of $785,000 (US$506,000). “X believes that eSafety’s order was not within the scope of Australian law and we complied with the directive pending a legal challenge,” the platform posted. “While X respects the right of a country to enforce its laws within its jurisdiction, the eSafety commissioner does not have the authority to dictate what content X’s users can see globally. We will robustly challenge this unlawful and dangerous approach in court.” The recent attacks in Australia are a horrific assault on free society. Our condolences go out to those who have been affected, and we stand with the Australian people in calling for those responsible to be brought to justice. Following these events, the Australian eSafety… — Global Government Affairs (@GlobalAffairs) April 19, 2024 On April 16, the eSafety commissioner confirmed it had issued legal notices to X and Meta to remove material within 24 hours. The commissioner said notices related to material that depicted “gratuitous or offence violence with a high degree of impact or detail.” “While the majority of mainstream social media platforms have engaged with us, I am not satisfied enough is being done to protect Australians from this most extreme and gratuitous violent material circulating online,” Ms. Inman Grant said. “That is why I am exercising my powers under the Online Safety Act to formally compel them to remove it.” Tyler Durden Mon, 04/22/2024 – 21:40