PRESIDENT GUTS THE FEDERAL EV FLEET, SELLING IT ALL!

The free ride for Biden’s EV mandate comes to a screeching halt.

The word has come down from on high: Shut down the power, and sell the fleet.

The Trump administration’s General Services Administration is set to pull the plug on all EV charging stations in federal buildings nationwide. In addition, the agency plans to off-load newly purchased EVs from the federal vehicle fleet.

Shutting this down isn’t just about saving pennies; it’s a signal. The Trump administration is pumping the brakes on the whole EV push, big time.

Tell me again how Trump’s in the tank for Elon?

Fleet cheat

The GSA is the agency that keeps the federal government’s buildings humming and manages a massive fleet of about 650,000 vehicles.

Under Biden, the GSA went all in on EVs — ordering over 58,000 zero-emission rides and installing thousands of charging ports nationwide. The goal? Electrify everything by 2035.

But now, with Trump back in the driver’s seat, the GSA is hitting the brakes hard. It is pulling the plug on hundreds of charging stations — think 8,000 plugs going dark — and off-loading those brand-new EVs faster than you can say “range anxiety.”

The reasoning? These assets aren’t “mission critical.” Translation: The GSA doesn’t think EVs fit the government’s real priorities.

Free ride

Let’s break this down. These chargers weren’t just for government vehicles and federal employees; they were being used for personal EVs, too. We’re talking Denver Federal Center, VA sites, military bases, and other places where federal employees could cop a complimentary charge for their personal vehicles.

The free ride is over. And GSA is unloading its electric vehicle fleets, too. No word yet on whether the government is selling them cheap or just parking them in some giant government lot. Either way, this is a seismic shift. The Biden administration spent billions of your tax dollars to push this green dream, and now the GSA has yanked the emergency brake.

And let’s not kid ourselves — shutting this down isn’t just about saving pennies; it’s a signal. The Trump administration is pumping the brakes on the whole EV push, big time.

War on the green agenda

It’s no secret that President Trump is not a fan of Biden’s EV mandate. He’s already paused $5 billion in public charger funding and nixed plans for more federal EVs. This is war on the green agenda. Biden’s team dropped BILLIONS of dollars of your money to electrify everything by 2035.

The GSA is responsible for managing federal assets including a fleet of approximately 650,000 vehicles. Under the Biden administration, it embarked on a plan to transition to zero-emission vehicles. That included the procurement of over 58,000 EVs and the installation of more than 25,000 charging ports. It never came anywhere close to achieving those figures though, and this new directive puts that plan to a swift end.

It’s not clear where all those unwanted EVs will go. Technically, the GSA could simply take the vehicles out of the fleet and put them into storage rather than sell them at a loss.

It’s also uncertain how the agency will replace the vehicles being phased out; possibilities include purchasing new gas-powered models or reallocating older ones from retirement. I hope they reuse the older ones and stop wasting our tax dollars.

Waste management

Three years ago, the Biden administration gave out a total of $7.5 billion in grants for states to develop EV charging infrastructure; since then, only about a dozen charging stations have been built nationwide.

This is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Carmakers need to shift gears and stop cranking out EVs that are not selling and sitting on dealer lots. Making what their customers want rather than what is mandated will return the profits they once enjoyed.

SECRET CLUB OF JUDGES TO THWART ADMINISTRATION AND CHIEF JUSTICE IS IN THE SECRET MEETINGS!

REVEALED: Chief Justice John Roberts Caught in Secretive, Invite-Only Club of Elite Judges and Lawyers That Includes James Boasberg, Beryl Howell, Amit Mehta and Ketanji Brown Jackson

by Jim Hoft Mar. 20, 2025

Members of the invite-only Inns of Court Club in Washington DC – James Boasbrg, Chief Justice John Roberts, Amit Mehta, Beryl Howell, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Investigative journalist Bad Kitty Unleashed reported on Thursday that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is involved in a secretive, invite-only club for elite judges in Washington, DC.

The secretive club America Inns of Court also includes the radical America-hating judges James Boasberg, Beryl Howell, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Amit Mehta—all hard-left judges and Trump-haters.

John Roberts has been Chief Justice of the Supreme Court since September 2005. What in the world is he doing fraternizing in a secret group with far-left colleagues?

This is a shocking development.

Source: Americans Inn of Courts

The Supreme Court Chief Justice is holding secretive meetings with far-left district judges who are running a judicial coup on the current President of the United States! This is a huge development.

Just think, two days ago, on Tuesday, Chief Justice Roberts released a statement attacking President Donald Trump for calling on these same crooked District judges to be impeached!

And now we have evidence that John Roberts was in a secret group with these same judges!

Here is what Roberts said to the US President, who is under siege by the judicial branch.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

So who all is linked to this selective and secretive club? And recall all of their negative Trump rulings?

– Judge James Boasberg (President)
– Scotus Ketanji Brown Jackson (Vice President)
– Judge Amit Mehta (Secretary and a meeting held at her court.)
– Judge Beryl Howell
Justice (Professionalism Award)
-Justice John Roberts (Honorary Bencher of the Middle Temple)

The list includes some of the most soulless and vicious judges in DC District Court.

Wasn’t it something else that Judge John Roberts broke ethical conduct and stuck up for his, “brother Boasberg”?

George Soros has funded a fellowship at Middle Temple where John Roberts is a master of the bench.

First let me very quickly explain how this secret society called, the American Inns of Court came about. In the UK, they have the four Inns of Court that dates back hundreds of years. One of those is called Middle Temple (see Roberts photo). Well, the US created the American version of this in recent decades. There’s a massive list of branches.

The branch many of our judges belong to is The Edward Bennett Williams (EBW) Inn of Court. It’s so secretive, they deleted most signs of this branch from their website although they still met.

Now here’s Judge Beryl Howell. She was nominated by President Judge Boasberg, and VP Ketanji Brown Jackson approved of her nomination. Boasberg claims it was her work on Jan 6 that contributed to his choosing her for the American Inns Of Court Professionalism award.

Let me show you the scant meeting info that I found which included the DOJ and Inspector General Horowitz in attendance.

1. The Edward Bennett Williams Inn of Court: BOP Custody / Current Status of BOP / Early Release & Reentry: Washington DC, 2/15/24

“Joel Sickler – invited panelist at EBW Inn of Court (February15, 2024, Washington DC). The meeting held in the District of Columbia Court of Judge Amit Mehta. In addition to panelists, approximately 150 lawyers including several Federal District Judges were also present. The panel was presented primarily with Michael Horowitz, DOJ Inspector General and Seth Eichenholtz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General – also featuring Vanessa Rojas, a returning citizen with direct and learned perspective regarding constructive reforms within the Bureau of Prisons.”

Also there was:

“Seth Rosenthal, Chief Deputy Attorney General for Office of AG District of Columbia.”

ADVERTISEMENT

2. Mathew Bester, 3 years ago in a quote Linkdn post:

“I really enjoyed talking about the latest DOJ developments last week on a great panel.”

Matthew was reposting Brent Gurney’s Post and yes the DOJ was there:

“I want to thank my co-hosts, Erin K. of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Lisa Phelan of Morrison & Foerster LLP, Inn member G. Zachary Terwilliger of Vinson & Elkins and our guest panelists Jim Fredricks of the DOJ Antitrust Division, Tiffany Rider of Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP and Matthew Bester of Accenture, for a robust and fascinating discussion of the issues.”

3. Yearly gala, I’ll review this later. But the Assistant United States Attorney at U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia replied in a comment. Was he there?

“Great job, Rebecca!”

I’ve seen lawsuits online for this secret org over recusal worries with this private club. I also saw a lawsuit that stated their secrecy is dangerous to democracy.

Freaking exposé! FIVE anti Trump judges are involved in a secretive, INVITE ONLY club for judges and lawyers called the American Inns of Court. Even the membership and meetings are secret. But somehow the DOJ has shown up at meetings. At least since Biden had been in… pic.twitter.com/PxbBQLWvtF

— Bad Kitty Unleashed (@pepesgrandma) March 20, 2025

Here’s the American Inns of Court judicial benefits flyer. Judges hobnobbing with other judges, the DOJ and lawyers, just doesn’t seem very ethical to me.

NETWORK WITH AND GAIN ACCESS TO COLLEAGUES

• Meet and interact with federal and state judges on a local, regional, and… pic.twitter.com/4AsNXYVvot

The perks of membership include being able to hobnob and network with top colleagues in the area.

Via Bad Kitty Unleashed:

Here’s the American Inns of Court judicial benefits flyer. Judges hobnobbing with other judges, the DOJ and lawyers, just doesn’t seem very ethical to me.

NETWORK WITH AND GAIN ACCESS TO COLLEAGUES

• Meet and interact with federal and state judges on a local, regional, and… pic.twitter.com/4AsNXYVvot

— Bad Kitty Unleashed (@pepesgrandma) March 20, 2025

This part of the report is just shocking!

Judge Beryl Howell was nominated to the American Inns of Court for our outstanding work sending hundreds of Trump-supporters to prison for months and years for walking inside the US Capitol on January 6, 2021!

These are NOT good people! And Beryl Howell has an atrocious record of partisan and abuse of Trump supporters. She is the definition of wicked.

Please read the rest at Bad Kitty Unleashed. This is a huge development.

DODGE STOPS CRAZY WASTEFUL SPENDING ALL OVER THE WORLD, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS THEFT OF TAXPAYER MONEY??

Elon Musk Confirms DOGE Blocked $52M Payment To KLAUS SCHWAB’S WEF-AMERICA HATING GROUP!

DOGE Cancels $52 Million Payment To Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum!

Now today Elon Musk himself has confirmed our reporting was 100% accurate!

Musk confirmed the news by replying to @UpdateNews724 with the note: “True. You’re welcome.”

I love it!

Here was our original report:

DOGE Cancels $52 Million Payment To Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum!

DOGE has uncovered a lot of absurd things….fraud, waste and abuse everywhere!

$50 million worth of condoms to Gaza being near the top of the list — I know, I know, not THAT Gaza, Gaza in Mozambique (as if that somehow makes it better?).

But there may be a new king of the hill when it comes to ridiculous payments: $52 million to the rich world “elites” over at the World Economic Forum!

That news just broke in this list of new DOGE savings from this week:

DOGE BREAKING: US taxpayer dollars were going to be spent on the following items, all which have been cancelled:

-$69mm for the Eurasia Foundation to do “digital transformation activity” in Europe
-$32mm to Internews for programs including “media enabling democracy,… pic.twitter.com/82ZbWHfF8Y

— DogeDesigner (@cb_doge) February 25, 2025

DOGE BREAKING: US taxpayer dollars were going to be spent on the following items, all which have been cancelled:

-$69mm for the Eurasia Foundation to do “digital transformation activity” in Europe
-$32mm to Internews for programs including “media enabling democracy, inclusion, and accountability in Moldova” and the promotion of “sustainable media outlets”
-$7mm for the American Bar Association to promote the “resilience” of the “Eurasian legal sector and civic society”
-$520mm for a consultant to do ESG investments in Africa and “mobilize private sector resources and expertise”
-$25mm to “promote biodiversity conservation and promote licit livelihoods” by developing “socially responsible” behaviors in Colombia
-$40mm to “improve the social and economic inclusion of sedentary migrants”
-$42mm for Johns Hopkins to research and drive “social and behavior change” in Uganda
-$45mm to “address[] the needs, opportunities, and challenges identified by activists and other civic actors engaged in nonviolent collective action”
-$52mm for the World Economic Forum

Now ordinarily I would not bring that to you as confirmed news until I saw it from a better source other than DogeDesigner (no offense, but not affiliated with the Government DOGE), but Mr. DOGE himself, Elon Musk, reposted the news and confirmed the WEF payments in this post:

More tax dollars saved.

Why was American taxpayer money sent to the WEF? It’s a wealthy boondoggle in Switzerland! https://t.co/hLP8DchbKI

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 25, 2025

So that’s good enough confirmation for me!

I agree with MomoMoni that whoever orchestrated this needs to be tried for treason:

Whoever put $52 million in there for the WEF needs to be tried for treason. Funding a global entity that is intent on destroying the American lifestyle. https://t.co/eJO5rz6y2v

— MomoMoni (@Shakapahona) February 25, 2025

This is literally giving aid to the enemy….

The WEF hates us.The hate America.They hate our way of life.

They hate Trump.And we’re sending them $52 million?

Aren’t they rich enough anyway?Stop this madness!

FEDERAL JUDGES DISREGARD ESTABLISHED COURT RULES TO STOP PRESIDENT TRUMPS DISMISSAL OF BLOATED WORK FORCE

Federal Judges Are Trampling Court Rules To Obstruct Trump’s Agenda, Expert Says

“These judges are not following the law.”

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a Friends of Ireland luncheon with Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin in the Rayburn Room at the U.S. Capitol on March 12, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) — Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Federal judges are violating the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in their rush to stop a series of executive actions taken by the Trump administration on immigration, government reform, and other issues.

District court judges are repeatedly failing to abide by Rule 65(c) which requires parties seeking an injunction to post a bond before an injunction can be issued, according to American Path Initiative senior legal fellow Daniel Huff. Huff, who served as a lawyer in the Trump White House and for the House and Senate Judiciary committees, said that without the security of the bond, the judges are ripping off taxpayers whose money is then tied up in legal wrangling.

Last week, two federal judges in separate opinions ordered the Trump administration to reinstate nearly 25,000 probationary employees recently fired from the government.

“Now, if you have to reinstate 25,000 people, you’re paying them salaries, you’re paying them benefits. The loaded wage there is on average maybe $100,000,” Huff said in an interview with The Daily Wire. “Essentially, what you’re creating here is a requirement that the government spend, on a per month basis, something like $100 to $200 million to reinstate these people. That’s a huge cost.”

“What if it turns out, as it likely will, that the Supreme Court agrees that the government had the authority to fire these probationary workers? How does the taxpayer get our money back?” Huff continued. “The answer is that the people who are seeking the injunction are supposed to post money up front in case it turns out that the government had authority to act.

Rule 65(c) is supposed to be a hurdle to filing “frivolous cases,” according to Huff. The rule compels plaintiffs to put up a security that should scale alongside the size and cost of the complaint.

“This makes a lot of sense because it filters out bad cases. You’re not going to post that bond as a plaintiff unless you really think you’re going to win,” Huff said. “But it’s not being done here. These judges are not following the law. They are not. They’re issuing injunctions without bonds, and that is a clear and unambiguous violation of the laws that govern them.”

Huff said that the abuse of federal rules around bonds has been a pattern across federal judges issuing injunctions against the Trump administration. The injunctions have been sweeping actions that stand to cost taxpayers into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The injunctions have roiled critics within the administration and others on the right. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has called for Congress to strip those judges of their jurisdictions. Tech titan Elon Musk has said those judges should be removed from office.

Huff expressed doubt about the viability of those tactics. He said that the makeup of Congress, with Republicans not having enough votes to overcome a 60-vote threshold in the Senate, makes each suggestion practically impossible without Democratic support.

Along Huff’s line of thinking, the White House issued guidance to federal agencies last week advising them to push federal judges issuing injunctions on Rule 65(c).

“Consistent with applicable law, the heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies), in consultation with the Attorney General, are directed to ensure that their respective agencies properly request under Rule 65(c) that Federal district courts require plaintiffs to post security equal to the Federal Government’s potential costs and damages from a wrongly issued injunction,” the memo says. “The scope of this directive covers all lawsuits filed against the Federal Government seeking an injunction where agencies can show expected monetary damages or costs from the requested preliminary relief, unless extraordinary circumstances justify an exception.”

DEEP STATE HOLDOVERS SABOTAGE DODGE BY VANDALIZING THE ENTRY LOCKS!

Congressionally funded institute sabotaged its building to keep out DOGE:

Federal judge refuses to issue temporary restraining order against DOGE despite saying she’s “very offended” by how it operated at the U.S. Institute of Peace.

Sttaff of the U.S. Institute of Peace, ANOTHER CASH SUCKING UNACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT ENTITY, physically removed locks from exterior doors, “effectively destroying entry mechanisms,” before the Department of Government Efficiency could enter its building at the far west end of the National Mall, according to photos obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The congressionally funded organization, whose board is appointed by the president and must include the secretaries of state and defense and president of National Defense University, allegedly flouted President Trump’s downsizing executive order, leading to the removal of its President George Moose on Friday.

“Much of USIP’s leadership, including Moose, barricaded themselves on the building’s fifth floor, closing window shades and blocking access points in a last-ditch effort to resist DOGE’s entry,” DCNF reported, citing a “Trump administration official involved in the USIP leadership transition who requested anonymity.”

The official also said USIP leaders disconnected information technology infrastructure including phonelines and internet connections, “forcing communication among staff through walkie-talkies,” in DCNF’s paraphrase. Another photo shows a flyer distributed throughout the building with the names and pictures of “anticipated DOGE officials,” and told staff to “immediately notify the on-duty lieutenant” if they came to the building.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell refused to issue a temporary restraining order Wednesday against DOGE’s takeover, saying its removed board members likely don’t have legal standing to sue, even though Howell said she was “very offended by how DOGE has operated at the institute,” The Hill reported.

“Mr. Moose denied lawful access to Kenneth Jackson, the Acting USIP President (as approved by the USIP Board),” and D.C. police escorted Jackson into the building,” DOGE said Monday night after the standoff. It said Moose “even tried to fire USIP’s private security team when said security team went to give access to Mr. Jackson.”

“SCIENTISTS” CONSTANTLY PEDDLE LIES TO GET STUDY GRANTS!

Not Just Fauci: The Scientific Establishment Peddles Lies Continually

It was just revealed that the Biden administration intentionally buried an “inconvenient” study in order to justify an energy crackdown. Of course, we’re seldom shocked to hear that politics is, well, political.

But what about when study authors themselves bury, or otherwise obscure, inconvenient data? This not only happens, says a Ph.D. scientist with more than 20 years experience, but is actually common in research. In fact, the picture painted by Dr. Lorene Leiter reveals, the mainstream science establishment is much like our mainstream media establishment: a realm where lies may reign supreme.

Explaining her background, Leiter states that she “earned a Ph.D. from Rutgers University and worked at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts Institute of Technology.” She began her scientific career as a starry-eyed young idealist, too. Her romantic vision was one of toiling in a basement with Marie Curie-like figures pushing back the frontiers of knowledge. And Leiter did make a major discovery:

She learned that today, the “publish or perish” priority trumps all.

“No paper, no money for your lab. Period,” Leiter writes at American Thinker Wednesday. “And the mother lode for money is the NIH.”

Yes, that would be the National Institutes of Health — the entity the now notorious Dr. Anthony Fauci was part of.

Get the Cat — An Infernal Lab Mouse Is Refusing to Cooperate Again

Leiter states that our current system ensures scientific fraud. In fact, the incidents of cheating she observed are legion, she says. Know that she’s far from the first to make this observation, too, as I reported in 2014. (More on this later.)

A common cheating method, Leiter relates, is to, à la Joseph Stalin, “airbrush” “uncooperative” lab mice from an experiment. That is, let’s say that upon conducting research you find that your hypothesis isn’t borne out. But then you realize you can use the Chinese menu method of result “alteration.” Just dispense with “the data from two mice in Group A and one in Group B,” writes Leiter, and voila! Hypothesis alignment is achieved — and publication is possible.

As for possibly disclosing the negative results revealing your hypothesis’ invalidity, that’s a nonstarter, states Leiter. First, you won’t be published. Moreover, it’ll be disastrous for the other scientists expending resources studying the same hypothesis. (Probably a good way to earn persona non grata status among your colleagues.)

Staggering Deceit

Leiter also provides some examples of the scientific fraud. She writes that, for instance,there’s the interaction that wasn’t — published in a prestigious journal. The “discovery?” Molecules A and B bound together! It was a big discovery in cancer research. What the journal didn’t know was A and B never bound directly. Instead, they both bound to Molecule C, giving the appearance that A and B bound directly. This was easily proven by dissolving C. The kicker? The researcher did this experiment before submitting the paper, but mum’s the word to the journal. And wouldn’t you know — that paper resulted in a big grant from the NIH.

And then there’s the “smart” gene. A gene in mouse brains was altered to see if it affected intelligence. Success! It made them smarter! The study got so much attention that David Letterman included it in his act. But then…

Oops. No one could reproduce the results, and a close look at the raw data by a clever new researcher revealed the truth — the famous paper was bogus.

Warnings Abound

As mentioned earlier, Leiter isn’t alone in blowing this whistle. As I related in 2014 in “Blinding Me With Science: Fraud and Folly for Fame and Funding”:

BMJ.com (formerly the British Medical Journal) has done much good reporting on this topic. [Its] Bob Roehr wrote in 2012:

Retraction of biomedical and life science research papers for fraud or misconduct is more widespread than previously thought and is roughly 10-fold more common today than in 1975, shows a new study….

The study looked at all 2047 retractions listed in the PubMed index as at [sic] 3 May 2012. It tallied the reasons stated by the journal in making its retraction and also examined reports filed with the US government’s Office of Research Integrity and other sources. That resulted in reclassification of 118 of 742 retractions (16%) given in an earlier study of retraction from error to fraud.

Also in 2012, BMJ’s Aniket Tavare reported, “One in seven UK based scientists or doctors has witnessed colleagues intentionally altering or fabricating data during their research or for the purposes of publication, found a survey of more than 2700 researchers conducted by the BMJ.” In the same vein, BMJ’s Tony Sheldon wrote just three months later, “A Dutch survey claims that one in seven doctors have seen scientific research results that have been invented. In addition, nearly a quarter have seen data that have been massaged to achieve significant results.”

Not-so-mighty Mouse

What’s more, the problems with today’s research are baked in, asserts Leiter. For example, consider that the most commonly used mice in research now are the “C57BL/6” variety. These are purposely inbred rodents (brother/sister pairings) designed to have no genetic variability. One result of this is “fixed” recessive genes and “fixed” mutations — some of which are dangerous. As Leiter writes:

Interestingly, C57BL/6 mice don’t hear well; they prefer alcohol to water; and they are more prone to obesity. What else is wrong that has yet to be discovered? The defect may not be overt, but is it affecting your experiment without you even knowing it?

Leiter makes more points related to using these dysgenic creatures:

“Outbred” mice would mirror humans more in exhibiting great genetic diversity, but aren’t usually used. For this variability would necessitate much larger sample sizes and far greater monetary expense.
Lab rodents never see sunlight and have one dimensional diets. How does this affect their immune systems?
Lab mice usually have no toys and languish in small cages; meaning, there’s little exercise or stimulation. Does this create a mental state (depression?) conducive to health?

She then illustrates the problem with an example:

Suppose you discover that a certain diet made a mouse sicker. Was it the diet itself, or did the diet push the mouse over the edge because it wasn’t healthy to begin with? Or what if another diet made the mice healthier? Were they so sick (albeit not to the naked eye) that just about anything would improve their health?

Solutions

Finally, Leiter presents some possible ways to remedy the scientific corruption. She states:

For starters, minimize cheating by perhaps setting up a lab with the purpose of randomly reproducing studies submitted for publication. You never know if yours will be picked, so you better not cheat. If you’re caught, you’ll lose your NIH funding.

Second, abolish the “publish or perish” scam that encourages cheating and bad science. A good start is being able to publish negative data.

Third — how about a think tank? We don’t have to fill it with Ph.Ds — just great minds…. Imagine ideas that could emerge among people from all different backgrounds.

Really, this corruption and waste sound like problems Elon Musk and DOGE should perhaps tackle. After all, just imagine how many billions of dollars are wasted funding fraudulent research. And is any of this surprising? It is, in fact, precisely what we might expect when we combine science and state.

GREENPEACE, THE CRAZY NUTCASE MOVEMENT THAT WATS US ALL TO LIVE IN CAVES GETS A TASTE OF ITS OWN MEDICINE

This has been a long time coming. Energy Transfer argued that Greenpeace didn’t just cheer from the sidelines—they whipped up a frenzy that crossed legal lines. Meanwhile, Greenpeace is crying foul, clutching their pearls and insisting this lawsuit is a corporate plot to “destroy the right to peaceful protest.” Constitutional rights experts are wringing their hands too, fretting about a “chilling effect” on free speech. Boo-hoo. The jury wasn’t buying the sob story, and now Greenpeace is staring down a payout that might just bankrupt their U.S. outfit. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.

Deepa Padmanabha, Greenpeace’s senior legal adviser, tried to spin it:

“What we saw over these three weeks was Energy Transfer’s blatant disregard for the voices of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. And while they also tried to distort the truth about Greenpeace’s role in the protests, we instead reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to non-violence in every action we take.”

Nice try, Deepa, but the jury saw through the sanctimony. Energy Transfer even played a clever card, suing three Greenpeace entities as one big happy family—checkmate.

So, what’s the takeaway? Is this a glorious win for holding activist groups accountable when their antics go too far? You bet it is. Greenpeace had it coming, and now they’re squirming. Sure, they’ll wail about corporate overreach and appeal until the cows come home, but for now, let’s savor the moment. The Dakota Access Pipeline’s been pumping oil for years despite their tantrums, and this ruling? It’s the cherry on top.

$50 MILLION AWARDED A STARBUCKS CUSTOMER FOR SPILLED HOT DRINK..WILL THE INSANITY OF SUCH JURY AWARDS EVER STOP?

Jury Awarded L.A. Man $50 Million After He Was Injured by Spilled Tea at Starbucks Drive-Through

A Los Angeles man who suffered what his lawyers describe as “life-altering” burns when he spilled a piping hot tea in his lap at a Starbucks has been awarded a venti-sized judgment of $50 million.

Michael Garcia, a delivery driver, had claimed that Starbucks was negligent because the tea was not adequately secured in the tray when he accepted it into his vehicle during a visit back in 2020.

The injuries were pretty extensive. Upon pulling the tray into his car, the tea spilled, and Garcia suffered severe burns and permanent genital damage. Lawyers indicate that the brutal injuries included third-degree burns and PTSD.

Security camera footage of the handoff from the barista to Garcia in his car shows that the order was in his hands exclusively before the drink spilled. Shortly thereafter, the man was clearly in a lot of agony.

A California jury has awarded $50 million to Michael Garcia, a delivery driver who suffered severe burns from a Starbucks coffee spill at a drive-thru. Garcia’s lawsuit claimed the lid was not properly secured, causing significant injuries. Starbucks denies wrongdoing and plans… pic.twitter.com/SCWU1lNLKT

There is no downplaying the severity of Garcia’s injuries. He underwent skin grafts and other procedures on his genitals, according to the Associated Press.

The question became who was at fault for the accident – the barista for not securing the drink or the man for spilling it. The jury clearly sided with Garcia in this case. They deliberated for just 40 minutes before awarding the massive judgment.

“It’s a reasonable verdict. It’s justified. This injury changed Michael’s life, it was gross negligence,” Garcia’s trial attorney, Nicholas Rowley, said following his client’s win.

Starbucks initially tried to settle with the man for $3 million before the trial. As the case progressed, they upped the offer to a staggering $30 million. However, as part of the agreement, Garcia insisted they also apologize to him, change their policies, and issue a memo to employees to double-check the cups before handing them out.

Starbucks would not agree to those terms and subsequently cost themselves another $20 million. They aren’t happy with the jury’s decision.

“We sympathize with Mr. Garcia, but we disagree with the jury’s decision that we were at fault for this incident and believe the damages awarded to be excessive,” a statement from Starbucks reads. “We plan to appeal. We have always been committed to the highest safety standards in our stores, including the handling of hot drinks.”

The case is reminiscent of one involving McDonald’s in the ’90s. Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman at the time, sued McDonald’s after suffering third-degree burns from spilling a scalding hot coffee on her lap.

In an almost identical scenario, Liebeck required skin grafts and extensive medical treatment for her injuries. One main difference is that the woman had been trying to add cream and sugar to the coffee by attempting to pry the lid off the cup.

She initially sought $20,000 to cover medical expenses, but after McDonald’s offered only $800, she brought them to court. A jury awarded her $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages, which was a mind-numbing sum at the time.

Similar incident in 1992. Coming around again…..

The “original” hot coffee lawsuit against McDonalds. ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/WcU3jsZ9Js

This isn’t the first time Starbucks got hit with a multi-million judgment. Shannon Phillips, a former Starbucks regional manager, won a $25.6 million verdict after a federal jury in New Jersey found that she was wrongfully terminated because she was white.

Phillips sued the coffee giant when she was fired shortly after the 2018 arrests of two black men at a Philadelphia Starbucks she oversaw. The lawsuit alleged that Starbucks scapegoated Phillips to appease public outrage.

$9 TRILLION WASTED ON STUPID RENEWABLE UNATTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PRODUCTION AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE!

Despite $9 trillion spent on net zero goals, fossil fuels to remain dominant energy source: report

Modern prosperity is tied to certain industrial products, including chemicals, steel, cement, food and paper, according to the J.P. Morgan report. Approximately 80% of the energy inputs for these products is fossil fuels.

While the legacy media often reports that the world is rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewable energy, a new report from J.P. Morgan shows that narrative is simply not correct. Since 2010, $9 trillion has been spent globally on wind, solar, electric vehicles energy storage, electrification and power grids, but despite this expensive effort — mostly at taxpayer expense — the share of final energy consumption by carbon-free energy sources is advancing by approximately a scant 0.3% to 0.6% per year.

Michael Cembalest, Chairman of Market and Investment Strategy for J.P. Morgan, explains in “Heliocentrism,” the 15th annual energy paper by the investment firm, that the reason fossil fuels remain the dominant source of energy is that modern prosperity is tied to certain kinds of industrial products, including chemicals, steel, cement, food and paper. Approximately 80% of the energy inputs for these products are fossil fuels. JPMorgan Chase is the world’s fifth largest bank by total assets, with $3.9 trillion as of 2023.

“As things stand now, modern prosperity is highly reliant on fossil fuels,” Cembalest said in a podcast on the report. Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., retired professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, estimates on his “The Honest Broker” Substack that at the current pace, the world will not be carbon free until sometime after the year 2200.

Solar accounts for 2% of total final energy

Cembalest notes that solar capacity, both utility scale and rooftop, is exploding and represents two-thirds of new generation capacity. It will reach about 75% of all new generation capacity for the rest of the decade.

“There’s a lot of people that are so focused on the growth in solar power that they believe that solar power, typically bolted on with some energy storage, can represent the dominant share of where we get our energy from,” Cembalest said.

Solar accounts for approximately 6% of global electricity generation. However, electricity is only about 33% of the total energy people consume, according to the paper, and by some estimates it’s only about 20%. Translating all that solar power to a share of final energy consumption, which includes all forms of energy, solar is only 2% of total final energy and will grow to 4% to 5% by the end of the decade.

“While that’s impressive growth from a low base, we obviously need to be more focused on the other 95% of where we’re going to get our final energy consumption from and rather than just the solar on its own,” Cembalest said.

Heliocentric

This misperception about the energy transition is why Cembalest, he explained, chose the “Heliocentric” title, referring to the idea that the sun revolves around the Earth, as opposed to the other way around. While completely accurate, the concept was resisted for centuries as opponents and even the Holy Roman Church insisted the science was settled. It was not until the mid-1500‘s that the theory was generally adopted.

“While we should be trying to decarbonize as much as we possibly can, we have to be realistic about the pace at which this can be done,” Cembalest said.

He disputed other predictions of a rapid industrial transition to renewable energy. He said such transitions can happen, and as an example, he pointed to the transition from open hearth furnaces to basic oxygen furnaces in steel production that began in the 1960s and 1970s and took 20 years to complete. That new technology, Cembalest explained, reduced steel production times to 10% of what they were, which allowed for a reduction in 80% to 90% of energy costs.

“When you have a transition that can pay for itself, like this, it can happen rapidly, but that’s not the case with the transition [to non-carbon energy] that we’re experiencing now,” he said.

Transmission and brownouts

Cembalest noted other impediments in the transition to non-carbon energy sources. These include the cost and time it takes to build transmission lines. Electrification, which seeks to transition away from gas-powered appliances to those powered by electricity, runs up against the fact that natural gas is much cheaper than electricity. Cembalest said this is true globally and not just in the U.S.

He also noted that as the U.S. has increased its share of renewables on the grid, reserve buffers, which is the amount of electricity generation required to meet demand during peak times, have been shrinking. “We’re getting more and more close to the point where we might have some kind of brownout situation,” he said.

The findings of the Morgan report are in line with the latest edition of the Energy Institute’s “Statistical Review of World Energy,” which found that coal, natural gas and oil remained the dominant source of energy in 2023, and coal consumption and production hit record highs.

While renewables are seeing growth, these analyses show that like it or not, fossil fuels are going to be with us for many decades to come.

$27 BILLION FRAUD AND FRAUD AND BIDEN LIES AND DECEPTION ABOUT MADE UP GRANTS TO CRONIES IN LAST DAYS OF BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, SOMEBODY HAS TO GO TO JAIL

A New Beltway Mystery: Follow the Biden EPA Money

by James Varney, RealClearInvestigations

When the Biden administration announced $27 billion in environmental grants last April, it set the clock ticking on a predicament: how to get the unprecedented sums for the President’s envisioned NetZero future out the door before the fiscal year ended on Sept. 30?

The task was complicated by the fact most of the money – $20 billion – would go to just eight nonprofits that, like the Environmental Protection Agency itself, had never handled such gargantuan grants.

In hindsight, it’s easy to suspect that corners were cut, or laws were broken, or, at the very least, extraordinary measures were taken.

Those possibilities are clearly on the mind of EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin as he tries to unravel what happened to Inflation Reduction Act spending that the Biden White House’s Office of Management and Budget and the EPA decided to expedite before the November election – an effort that included moving the roughly $20 billion to a private institution, Citibank, away from oversight of the Treasury Department.

On Wednesday, Zeldin moved to terminate the arrangements as the enriched nonprofits have filed lawsuits looking to protect their grants. The battle has thrust into the spotlight what had been a rather quiet attempt by the Biden administration to spend the $27 billion.

The money was put into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a new entity born in 2022’s Inflation Reduction Act, which Democrats pushed through Congress without any Republican support.

“This bold investment will not only deploy clean energy and combat the climate crisis but also improve health outcomes, lower energy costs, and create high-quality jobs for Americans,” Biden’s EPA declared when seeking applications for the grants, “all while strengthening our country’s economic competitiveness and ensuring energy security.”

The grants, unveiled April 4, 2024, came with its built-in deadline to push the money out just months away. So a political deal was struck between the White House’s Office of Management and Budget and EPA, current agency officials told RealClearInvestigations. As a hedge against future administration attempts to curb the program, the deal classified the now-suspect $20 billion in a novel way making it hard to track.

Zeldin has asked the EPA’s inspector general and the Department of Justice to investigate the unorthodox arrangement.

“I think it will be an uphill battle to recover the money, but it’s impressive to see Trump and Zeldin running with it,” said Daren Bakst of the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has labeled the Greenhouse Gas money “slush funds.”

“Even if you look past the entities that receive the money, or how they figured out how to get the money to them, this is a setup that is prone to corruption, abuse and cronyism regardless of party,” Bakst said. “The whole thing looks questionable.”

The process began before the April 4 announcement. In December 2022, Jahi Wise, an executive with the Coalition for Green Capital, joined EPA as a senior adviser. In July 2023, the EPA published a request for proposals from applicants to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

The fund was broken into three parts. The two largest, the National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF) and the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA), received huge sums, totaling $20 billion. Notably, as RCI reported last October, grants went to nonprofits that had paltry assets, had been granted their nonprofit status only the month before, or had people associated with them that had previously served various federal or state Democratic administrations. For example, the Coalition for Green Capital, Wise’s former outfit, was awarded $5.1 billion.

Three weeks later, an arrangement was made between OMB and EPA in which the money was designated “non-exchange” rather than “exchange” – a first for EPA funds, according to current officials. That label allowed for the money to be moved to recipients in lump funds rather than parceled out over the length of the deals with the nonprofits, which in most cases were slated to run until 2029, 2030, or later, records show. It also called for an outside financial institution to manage the money, in part because the agency had zero experience in handling grants of this size.

Although the language in the Inflation Reduction Act dealing with the Greenhouse Gas funds does not use “shall,” the word Congress usually employs to indicate that something is required, the law did impose a deadline of Sept. 30 – the end of the fiscal year – EPA officials and legal experts agree.

On June 27, as the EPA was making its deals with the nonprofits, Biden had his disastrous debate with Donald Trump, and on July 21 Biden ended his re-election campaign and threw his support to then-Vice President Kamala Harris. The Greenhouse Gas fund money remained unobligated at that point, according to EPA officials.

The deals were finally completed and the National Clean Investment Fund and the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator money was obligated to the nonprofits on Aug. 16, according to a timeline provided to RCI. That left $7 billion, the portion that comprised the third component of the fund, Solar For All.

At that point, the $20 billion, though obligated, remained with the Treasury, officials said. A memorandum of understanding between EPA and the Treasury Department on moving the mountain of cash was not signed until Sept. 6.

Two weeks later, the Republican-led House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee held a hearing to learn more about EPA funding oversight, calling the agency’s inspector general Sean O’Donnell to testify. O’Donnell made clear he had never seen the maneuvers the EPA was making with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, and said neither he nor his staff would be able to stay on top of it.

“I can’t say enough about how complex this system will be,” O’Donnell testified. “It’s like they created an investment bank. It’s fantastically complex. I think it’s unusual.”

Yet it was not until Nov. 12, three working days after Trump beat Harris in the 2024 election, that the EPA began talks with Citibank about taking control of the $20 billion, Trump administration officials told RCI. During those negotiations, on Dec. 5, Project Veritas released an undercover video of an EPA official laughing about what he considered an extraordinary process, likening it to “throwing gold bars off the deck of the Titanic.”

The Citibank arrangement effectively removing direct EPA oversight, and with interest on the $20 billion going to the grant recipients, was signed on Dec. 27, agency officials told RCI. The deal thus represents a carve-out for the two aspects of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund that accounted for the $20 billion; the $7 billion comprising Solar For All remains with Treasury. The Trump administration has frozen that money, although some of it has already been distributed, according to federal records.

Critics of the spending said the timeline smacks of shady politics.

Steve Milloy, a skeptic of apocalyptic global warming, said he has received a government grant and his experience was profoundly different than the one enjoyed by Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund winners. His process was an uncomfortable one that lasted 10 months, he said.

“They crawled up my ass, and that was for a small grant,” he said.

The contrast is striking, in his opinion.

I’ve never seen anything like this,” he said. “It is fishy … I think they thought they would win reelection and panicked when they lost. It seems like all of this is being done without due diligence or accountability.”

‘Tip of the Iceberg’

Picking up on the “gold bars off the deck of the Titanic” video, Zeldin cited the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund as a dubious operation during his confirmation hearing Jan. 17, and he has been outspoken against it since becoming administrator. On March 2, he wrote to the EPA inspector general, urging him to look into the deals.

“These examples are the tip of the iceberg and suggest a deeply entrenched pattern of political favoritism, lack of qualifications, and other possibly unlawful allocation of taxpayer funds,” he wrote. “Disturbingly, these cases likely represent only a fraction of broader issues.”

Beyond questions about the money, questions also remain about the work it is meant to pay for, according to Zeldin and other EPA officials. None of the recipient nonprofits contacted by RCI, including the Climate United Fund, which got the biggest award of $7 billion, responded to requests for comment.

One stipulation of the Greenhouse Gas funds was that winners attract $7 of private investment for every $1 in federal money. The EPA told RCI that recipients submitted detailed plans in their applications, but could not say if that included specific financing arrangements. Former EPA Special Adviser Zealan Hoover told RCI last year that the goal was to create a market for these green banks through the size of the grants.

While it remains early in the process, it does not appear the groups will be able to hit that target. The Appalachian Community Credit Corporation, for instance, is supposed to get $500 million through the CCIA. On its website, however, it says it will use the money to create a $1.6 billion loan pool, which would be an investment ratio little better than 3-to-1.

The Virginia-based corporation did not respond to requests for comment.

It remains unclear how much money remains in the Citibank accounts and how successful Zeldin may be in recovering the money. Citibank declined comment.

‘The Whole Thing Seems Incestuous’

Some outside observers believe there are mechanisms to claw back the funds. An EPA official told RCI there is boilerplate language in agency contracts that allows “termination for a change in agency priorities,” and Milloy said federal agencies terminate contracts “all the time.”

In this particular case, while it does appear Zeldin could claw back money, the EPA may be legally bound to simply give it to another private financial institution rather than return it to the Treasury, said David Super, professor of law and economics at Georgetown University Law Center.

In addition, Super said, there is that deadline of Sept. 30, 2024.

“There, as here, there was both an appropriation and a deadline for getting the money out the door,” Super said, citing a 1975 Supreme Court ruling. “Any competent lawyer would have told EPA that, unless it wanted to go through the procedures of the Impoundment Control Act, it would be an unlawful impoundment of funds if it failed to spend all the money – and, if it was going to do that, it had to do so by September 30, 2024.”

Other groups that received enormous grants also did not respond to RCI’s questions or requests for comment, including the Climate United Fund, which got the single biggest award: $7 billion up front for an arrangement that is supposed to last through June 2029, federal records show.

Climate United Fund has announced spending $311 million of its grant, all of it on three projects last October and November. The largest of those was $250 million to buy electric trucks, according to the group’s website.

Previously, RCI reported on ties between some of the nonprofits’ key figures and the Biden or Obama administrations, and more of those have come to light since Zeldin pushed the issue into the spotlight last month. Many outlets have zeroed in on failed Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, who was lead counsel for a group known as Rewiring America. That group, in turn, is one of the main components of a new group known as Power Forward Communities, an outfit with listed assets of $100 that obtained its tax-exempt status last March, just weeks before it was named the winner of a $2 billion grant.

Trump mentioned Abrams and the EPA award in his congressional speech last week, and liberal “fact check” groups sprang to action to label his comment false because the money did not go directly to Abrams. Abrams acknowledged being a part of Rewiring America, however, and said the group bought energy-efficient appliances for people in Georgia.

Power Forward Communities, which did not respond to multiple requests for comment, lists scores of other partners. One of those, the Green Door Initiative in Michigan, is led by Donele Wilkins, whom Biden appointed as a member of his Environmental Justice Advisory Council last June. In other cases, Power Forward Communities is partnered with groups that also have other public revenue streams, such as the Nevada Clean Energy Fund, which is funded also by the Nevada governor’s office and has received nearly $850,000 of its separate $155.7 million grant via Solar For All.

Similar ties have surfaced between the Biden administration and the Coalition for Green Capital.

“The whole thing seems incestuous,” said Bakst of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “When you see these short deadlines it really makes everything questionable, because when you rush something like this there will almost certainly be problems with it.”

This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.

Trump pulls plug on government’s 8,000 EV chargers

Fleet cheat

Free ride

War on the green agenda

Waste management

DOGE Cancels $52 Million Payment To Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum!

Jury Awarded L.A. Man $50 Million After He Was Injured by Spilled Tea at Starbucks Drive-Through

Despite $9 trillion spent on net zero goals, fossil fuels to remain dominant energy source: report

Solar accounts for 2% of total final energy

Heliocentric

Transmission and brownouts