CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

Authored by James Gorrie via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

For years, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has positioned the digital yuan (e-CNY) as the ultimate weapon of financial totalitarianism. It was intended to be the crowning achievement of the surveillance state. With a programmable, traceable digital currency, Beijing thought it would finally break the back of private payment giants like Alipay and WeChat Pay.

Yet, despite having total control over the levers of the domestic economy, Beijing’s digital dream is showing signs of terminal fatigue.

Since its debut at the 2022 Winter Olympics, the e-CNY has gone from an aggressive, potential retail juggernaut to a low-public-appeal tool for state administration.

In short, nobody really wants it.

The Genesis of Control: Why the e-CNY was Born

The People’s Bank of China (PBOC) didn’t launch the digital yuan to make life easier for the average citizen in Shanghai or Shenzhen. It was an aggressive move against the autonomy of the private sector and an offensive tactic to undermine individual privacy.

In 2014, when China’s research into the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) began, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) realized that the vast majority of retail transactions occurred on platforms it did not directly control. The authorities understand that any lack of control is a potential threat to the Party. Therefore, the goal of the digital yuan was “financial inclusion” (a euphemism for state monitoring and control of every cent spent), and the “internationalization of the yuan” to challenge the U.S. dollar.

But most importantly, it was about strengthening the CCP’s “Social Credit System.” A retail CBDC allows the state to freeze assets instantly if a citizen’s behavior deviates from Party orthodoxy.

The Adoption Decline: Why People Refuse to Swipe

Despite distributing millions of dollars in “red envelope” giveaways and forcing government employees in cities like Changshu to receive salaries in e-CNY, adoption has stalled. The reason is simple: there is no consumer benefit, only risk.

Alipay and WeChat Pay already provide a seamless user experience. Transitioning to a state-controlled wallet offers zero additional utility while stripping away the last vestiges of financial anonymity. In a culture where “saving face” and protecting one’s assets from the predatory state are paramount, it seems that the Chinese public has responded with a collective shrug.

A Digital Yuan Reimagined?

Even though domestic digital yuan transaction volumes have made significant gains in terms of percentage of transaction usage, the total remains just a small fraction of the total money supply. In most instances, it’s used for low-value public transit or utility payments before being immediately converted back into traditional bank deposits.

To enhance its appeal as broadly as possible, as of Jan. 1 this year, the central bank is allowing commercial banks to pay interest on e-CNY wallets, making it a savings as well as a payment vehicle. This may be the PBOC’s effort to salvage the digital currency. But it also changes the nature of the original digital yuan as a CBDC, at least to some degree. However, current deposits in China earn a meager 0.05 percent.

Opinions vary on which criteria are optional, but most definitions hold that it’s a “digital form of central bank money.” That strict definition may make the new design make much of the e-CNY no longer a true CBDC.

A New Trade Currency?

Realizing that domestic retail adoption is not where it needs to be, Beijing is shifting its focus toward “Project mBridge”—a multi-CBDC platform designed for cross-border trade between BRICS nations. The strategy for the digital yuan has shifted from monitoring citizens’ grocery shopping habits to bypassing the SWIFT system for oil and gas trade.

Increasing international use is part of a broader strategy to maintain trade and financial relationships if U.S. financial sanctions cut it off from dollars. Trading partners are indeed using it, but not as much as Beijing would like or needs. Increasing the interest rate would certainly boost the e-CNY’s attractiveness internationally, but the current low interest rate isn’t much of an incentive to adopt it.

By focusing on a wholesale CBDC for international settlements, the CCP hopes to build a financial “Iron Curtain” that is immune to Western sanctions. This pivot is a tacit admission that the retail e-CNY has failed to become the “people’s money.”

Economic Decay and Internal Fractures

The failure and redesign of the e-CNY shouldn’t be viewed in a vacuum. The conditions and aspects of the digital yuan are still evolving because the original rollout didn’t succeed as much as the CCP had hoped. The digital yuan evolution is happening as the “China Miracle” enters its death throes.

There are too many negative economic factors to ignore. The property market, the main source of Chinese household wealth, continues to deteriorate. Youth unemployment remains at record highs, and the Belt and Road Initiative has turned into a massive debt-trap liability, with many partner nations unable to repay loans. Adopting a new currency that removes all privacy and personal autonomy in such economic conditions is poor timing, to say the least.

Political Division Within the CCP Is Another Factor

Political support within the CCP is shifting in intensity and among factions, and the Party is not the monolith it appears to be. Factional infighting between Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s “Security First” loyalists and the remnants of the technocratic wing has led to policy paralysis as other financial priorities demanded attention.

Resources that were once earmarked for the retail digital yuan are being diverted to shore up a failing banking system and to fund “theater” projects in the artificial intelligence sector meant to project a facade of technological parity with the West.

The Future: A Tool for Control, Not Commerce

Will the CCP cancel the e-CNY?

That’s not likely. Dictatorships rarely admit defeat. What’s more, it would be another mark against Xi’s authority that his opponents could use against him. In short, the digitalization of currency isn’t going away.

Instead, the digital yuan will likely be relegated to a specialized tool for state-to-state transactions, government disbursements, and auditing local officials. Plus, the digital yuan is ultimately about increasing control over the people and preserving the CCP’s rule over the country.

It’s here to stay, in one form or another.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Canada is barreling toward a chilling new reality where quoting certain Bible passages could be treated as a criminal hate speech offense.

Bill C-9, the so-called Combatting Hate Act, cleared the House of Commons on March 25 and now moves to the Senate. 

Critics say the legislation guts a decades-old legal safeguard that protected sincere religious expression, handing prosecutors new tools to target Christians and other believers who dare reference holy texts on topics like sexuality.

? Canada just criminalized the Bible.
Bill C-9 has passed.

Quoting Scripture on marriage, sin, or God’s design for sexuality can now be prosecuted as “wilful promotion of hatred.”

Do you support free speech?

A. Yes
B. No pic.twitter.com/jskW38sNTl

— ??? Karoline Leavitt (@WHLeavitt) April 2, 2026

The bill, introduced last September by Liberal Justice Minister and Attorney General Sean Fraser, eliminates sections 319(3)(b) and 319(3.1)(b) of the Canadian Criminal Code. Those provisions had long stated that a person could not be convicted of hate speech if they “expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text.”

Quoting the Bible could be classified as hate speech under proposed Canada bill, lawmaker warns https://t.co/aegvBhdWQ1

— Daily Mail (@DailyMail) April 7, 2026

Fraser and his Liberal allies insist the measure will not touch religious practice. “Canadians will always be able to pray, preach, teach, interpret scripture, and express religious belief in good faith, without fear of criminal sanction,” Fraser claimed on December 9.

Yet Conservative MP Andrew Lawton is not convinced. “Bill C-9 makes it easier for people of faith and others to be criminally charged because of views that other people take offense to,” he told Fox News Digital. 

Lawton added that the legislation “weakens protections for freedom of expression and freedom of religion, especially with the removal of the longstanding religious defense, which has stipulated that religious beliefs and religious texts expressed in good faith cannot be seen as ‘hateful.’”

Liberal hate speech Bill C-9 has passed Canada's parliament and is now with the senate.

John Carpay from the JCCF tells us how this bill could further erode free speech in Canada—particularly the right to practice religion.

Watch the full episode below ?? https://t.co/tYA8e7ctcL pic.twitter.com/rm8q87Nt5r

— Jason James (@jasonjamesbnn) April 2, 2026

Liberal MP Marc Miller made the threat explicit during an October House justice committee hearing. “I don’t understand how the concept of good faith could be invoked if someone were literally invoking a passage from, in this case, the Bible, though there are other religious texts that say the same thing,” Miller said. He continued: “How do we somehow constitute this as being said in good faith? Clearly, there are situations in these texts where statements are hateful. They should not be used to invoke … or be a defense.”

Miller specifically cited passages in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Romans as examples.

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops fired back in a December 2025 letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney. “This narrowly framed exemption has served for many years as an essential safeguard to ensure that Canadians are not criminally prosecuted for their sincere, truth-seeking expression of beliefs made without animus and grounded in long-standing religious traditions,” the bishops wrote.

The Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council warned the bill “poses disproportionate risks not only to marginalized and racialized communities, but to faith-based communities more broadly including Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Sikh, and Jewish communities.”

Supporters point to a reported 169 percent rise in hate crimes since 2018 and argue the changes target real threats like Nazi symbols or terrorist insignia, including those linked to groups such as the Proud Boys. But the removal of the religious-text defense has faith leaders across denominations fearing selective enforcement against traditional biblical teachings.

The bill also creates new hate-crime sentencing enhancements and makes “willful promotion of hatred” — including displaying designated terrorist symbols — punishable by up to two years in prison, though journalistic, educational, or artistic uses remain exempt.

While a handful of Jewish organizations back the legislation as a tool against antisemitism, the overwhelming response from Christian and Muslim advocacy groups has been fierce opposition.

This is the inevitable endpoint of leftist governance that treats disagreement on marriage, sexuality, or human nature as a public danger. Once governments decide certain truths are “hateful,” scripture itself becomes contraband. Canada’s experiment shows how quickly religious liberty evaporates when bureaucrats get to define good faith.

Americans watching this unfold have every reason to reject the same path. Free speech and the right to live and speak according to one’s faith are non-negotiable. The fight to preserve them isn’t abstract — it is happening right now on the northern border.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times,

Parents who start raising a child in 2026 will spend around $303,418 from birth to 18 years old, according to a study published April 6 by Lending Tree. The cost increased 1.9 percent from last year.

The average annual cost works out to about $16,857 over 18 years, pushing this year’s estimate over $300,000 for the first time since Lending Tree began calculating it in 2023, the online loan marketplace reported.

Hawaii is the most expensive state to raise a small child, as yearly costs reached $40,342 for the first five years, the report said. Raising a child for 18 years in Hawaii is projected to cost $412,661. The next most expensive state is Alaska at $365,047, followed by Maryland at $326,360.

Parents in the Aloha State are projected to spend more than 27 percent of their yearly income on raising a small child. Nebraska and Indiana follow closely with 23 percent. In all, parents in 22 states should expect to spend at least 20 percent of their yearly income on raising a small child, the report stated.

Maryland at $36,419 and Massachusetts at $34,247 were the second and third-most costly states per year for young children. California came in fourth highest with a yearly cost of $33,692. Insurance premiums in California were the highest of the four top states at an average of $5,254 per year.

The differences between some coastal states are substantial. Raising a child in California will now cost an average of $312,300, compared with Florida, where it costs $280,280, the study showed.

States with the lowest annual costs to raise a small child were Mississippi ($17,148), Alabama ($18,019), and South Dakota ($18,622).

Florida ranked 27th with a nearly $25,000 annual price tag to raise a small child, while Texas ranked 45th at just about $21,000.

Costs to raise a small child rose by about 10 percent or more in 14 states from 2025 to 2026. In four of those states, prices jumped by at least 20 percent, according to Lending Tree. Those included Nebraska, where costs increased 27.4 percent, and in Montana (24.5), Maine (24.4), and Wisconsin (23.3).

The largest overall cost increases were found in rental costs, which jumped by nearly 50 percent, and girls’ clothing, which jumped by nearly 27 percent.

President Donald Trump, joined by Republican lawmakers, signs the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law during an Independence Day military family picnic on the South Lawn of the White House on July 4, 2025. Samuel Corum/Getty Images

Cost savings were found in a 10 percent increase in the child tax credit provided by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. This resulted in $200 in savings each year.

The annual cost for the first five years of a child’s life decreased by about $94 from $29,419 to $29,325, or about 0.3 percent, because of a small dip in day care costs, according to the report.

* * *

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Colorado’s tourism slogan, “it’s our nature,” has a menacing meaning for free speech advocates. Colorado is now arguably the most anti-free speech state in the union, pushing an array of measures attacking those with opposing social and political views. The irony is that the state has proved a bonanza for free speech with spectacular legal failures that reaffirmed rather than restricted the First Amendment. Now, the Democratic legislature and governor are back with new unconstitutional measures, including a requirement that lawyers not share information with federal immigration officials as a condition for filing with state courts.

Colorado legislators and judges have spent years attacking core free speech and associational rights. In the last election, the state attempted to strip President Donald Trump from the ballot with the support of a majority of its Democratic-controlled state supreme court. (The effort was later declared unconstitutional in a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court. Colorado could not even get any of the liberal justices to support its actions).

The state is responsible for the efforts to force business owners to create products celebrating same-sex marriages. That effort led to the Masterpiece Cake Shop case and then the 303 Creative case. Even after losing earlier efforts against Masterpiece Cake Shop owner Jack Phillips, the targeting of its owner continued for years. That litigation proved to be a tremendous victory for free speech.

Colorado has also been leading the fight to limit the speech and associational rights of professionals and parents on “conversion therapy.” Recently, that effort led to another massive loss before the Supreme Court in Chiles v. Salazar, resulting in a resounding 8-1 rejection of Colorado’s position. It could only secure the vote of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

After that near-unanimous ruling against the state, Colorado responded by doubling down with legislation to expose any counselors engaged in conversion therapy to heightened legal liability, including waiving any statute of limitations. That case could also result in legal challenges as Colorado continues to spend a fortune on seeking to curtail free speech rights.

Now, the state is defending a new public accommodation law, HB 25-1312, that defines “gender expression” to include “chosen name” and “how an individual chooses to be addressed.”

As in past Colorado cases, the state secured favorable rulings from district court judges. President Biden-nominated U.S. District Judge Regina Rodriguez refused to grant a preliminary injunction against the Colorado public accommodation law.

The Alliance Defending Freedom is appealing the matter to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on behalf of its clients, XX-XY Athletics and Born Again Used Books. Other appeals are also being brought in the matter.

At the same time, the state has moved forward on Senate Bill 25-276, which imposes a threshold condition for state e-filings that requires lawyers to certify annually “under penalty of perjury,” that they will not use “personal identifying information” from the system to help federal immigration enforcement.

The provision is vague on critical points in seeking to bar any information that might identify an individual or cooperating or assisting in federal enforcement. While the rule allows for compliance with federal law and court orders, it is leaves considerable ambiguity on the scope of the rule.

It is common for courts to consider specific motions to seal certain information, but such motions must state a legal basis for such withholding of information in a given case.

Lawyers have already objected to the compelled endorsement of the state’s anti-ICE policies as a condition to their representing their clients, as well as a bar on cooperating with federal authorities.

The law will likely face an immediate challenge not only from lawyers and clients but also from the federal government.

Denver Gazette investigative columnist Jimmy Sengenberger has been covering the story on limiting what is considered a public resource.

The Colorado Judicial Branch’s page on the law previously posted a statement that “In September 2025, some users may have briefly seen a certification requirement appear in the system.” It noted that the Judicial Department elected to take it down “for further internal and external discussion regarding the implementation of the new statutory requirements.” However, it announced implementation in March.

It stated that the condition would apply to any “third party” with access to the system – “certain attorneys, LLPs, and, in certain case types, pro se litigants”with access to information that is not “available to the public online, in person, or through a records request.”

It added “We recognize that some people may be frustrated by the requirements of this new legislation,” but insisted that the “judiciary is required to comply with the laws as enacted by the legislature and has worked hard to make the process as easy as possible.”

In my view, the law is facially unconstitutional and should be struck down. Regardless of the outcome on these challenges, Colorado appears hellbent on maintaining its dubious status as the most anti-free speech state in the union.  Citizens will continue to subsidize this effort to defend laws compelling or censoring speech.

Colorado’s record is reminiscent of other blue jurisdictions like New York, Illinois, and D.C. in creating precedent in support of gun rights. In passing flagrantly unconstitutional gun control legislation, these Democratic legislators and governors proved a windfall for gun rights advocates in triggering a series of major Second Amendment victories, including  New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen and  Heller v. District of Columbia.

Colorado appears to be working to create the same legacy on the First Amendment. The state motto, “Nil Sine Numine” (Nothing without Providence), is fitting. For free speech advocates, Colorado has proven positively a godsend in its string of losses in seeking to gut the First Amendment.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

* * *

Authored by Petr Svab via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Tucked away in the stalled SAVE America Act is a provision meant to ensure that its proof-of-citizenship requirement would be enforced even if future administrations would choose not to.

The bill, which passed the House in February but got stuck in the Senate, would require new voter registrants to present proof of citizenship, such as a passport, a REAL ID, or birth certificate. It’s been much touted by Republicans as a necessary bulwark against voter fraud. Democrats have called it an attempt at voter suppression.

The bill would codify that the attorney general can sue officials that register voters without the citizenship check. Yet the question has remained what would happen if the attorney general refuses to enforce it.

The bill attempts to solve that issue by including a private right of action. It means that private citizens could also file lawsuits based on violations of the law.

“Private right of action is vital,” according to Hans von Spakovsky, election law expert and former member of the Federal Election Commission currently at the Advancing American Freedom think tank.

“Democrat administrations will refuse to enforce it at all, and particularly not against blue states. Private parties will be forced to do that,” he told The Epoch Times in a text message.

The caveat is the right to sue is written as an amendment of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, which says that only a person “aggrieved by a violation” can sue and only if the violation occurred within 30 days before a federal election. Otherwise, the person needs to first notify the top election official in the state and then sue only if the state fails to address the violation for some time—120 or 20 days, depending on how close to an election.

Who is ‘Aggrieved’?

Different federal courts have come up with somewhat different interpretations of who is “aggrieved” by a violation of election laws. Just recently, the Ninth Circuit rejected a suit by Republican voters which alleged that their votes were at risk of dilution by ineligible voters on Arizona’s voter rolls. The court held that the injury to the voters was “entirely hypothetical” and thus failing the requirements of the Constitution’s Article III. The article has been interpreted by courts to demand that harm to litigants must be “concrete and particularized” as well as “actual or imminent.”

Advocacy organizations have been using a claim that they have been harmed because they had to divert resources from their core functions, but a 2024 Supreme Court decision restricted that legal theory.

“An organization that has not suffered a concrete injury caused by a defendant’s action cannot spend its way into standing simply by expending money to gather information and advocate against the defendant’s action,” said the opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

At least some organizations may still be able to bring such suits. The Republican National Committee, for example, asserted that improper voter registrations in North Carolina forced them to divert resources from their core function of voter outreach into their election security efforts. The Fourth Circuit agreed in 2024 that this claim was sufficient to establish injury.

Lacking Votes

While the SAVE America Act enjoys the energetic support of President Donald Trump, it has hit a formidable roadblock in the Senate, where Republicans lack the 60 votes to overcome the Democratic filibuster. In addition, some GOP Senators have already indicated they don’t support the bill.

Trump has demanded the SAVE Act be included in a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, which has been defunded for more than seven weeks. Democrats have blocked the funding, demanding reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation practices.

A month ago, the President also said won’t sign any other legislation until the SAVE Act is passed.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) wouldn’t budge.

“If Trump is saying he won’t sign any bills until the SAVE Act is passed, then so be it: there will be total gridlock in the Senate,” he said in an X post. “Senate Democrats will not help pass the SAVE Act under any circumstances.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) brought the bill to the floor last month for a vote to force Democrats to go on record with their opposition. Democrats did so unanimously.

The Senate has been on a two-week recess since March 26 and is expected to restart legislative agenda on April 13.

Some Republicans, including Trump, have called for a so-called talking filibuster, forcing Democrats to talk non-stop to block the bill’s passing. Thune said last month, however, he lacks the votes among Republicans to invoke it.