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

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

The Trump administration is using all its legal levers to obtain complete voter rolls, pressing ahead with dozens of lawsuits and investigations in multiple states.

Although some of the lawsuits have been dismissed, criminal proceedings have yielded results. Also, about a dozen states have provided the data voluntarily.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), through its criminal and civil rights divisions, has been reaching out to states since May, requesting voter rolls with complete personal information, mainly driver’s license numbers or the last four digits of Social Security Numbers.

The department said the information is necessary to determine whether states are complying with federal voter roll maintenance laws.

Democratic states have almost uniformly refused to provide the data. Some Republican states also have been wary of submitting the information, usually referring the DOJ to the public version of their voter list with the sensitive information redacted.

The Constitution leaves it up to states to organize their elections, but also grants Congress authority to override state election laws. “The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations,” reads the Elections Clause.

Congress has passed multiple landmark election bills, including the 1993 National Voter Registration Act and the 2002 Help America Vote Act. Both speak to rules for maintaining voter rolls by removing ineligible individuals, such as those who have moved, died, or do not qualify to vote for other reasons.

President Donald Trump has vowed to strengthen federal election oversight, maintaining that irregularities in the 2020 election cost him victory. His lawyers vigorously and unsuccessfully contested the results.

Trump has been pushing the SAVE America Act, which would require Americans to present proof of citizenship, such as a passport or a birth certificate, for voter registration.

The bill passed the GOP-controlled House in February, but stalled in the Senate, where Republicans lack the votes to overcome the filibuster.

Civil Suits

At least 22 states, plus the District of Columbia (D.C.), have refused to provide the unredacted voter data to the DOJ, usually citing state and federal privacy laws.

Some states have stalled, telling DOJ they needed more time to review the legal implications.

Since September, the department has filed lawsuits against state election officials, trying to compel production of the data. So far, at least 29 states, plus the District, have been sued.

The lawsuits argue that the DOJ has broad authority to request the data under Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960.

The law requires states to retain election documents and make them “available for inspection, reproduction, and copying” by the attorney general upon demand.

The department’s lawyers state that courts can’t question what the DOJ needs the data for, as long as the demand provides a reason, which, in this case, is that the department needs to check whether states comply with voter rolls maintenance rules outlined in federal laws.

States have argued that Title III was to prevent racial discrimination, rather than facilitate compliance with voter rolls maintenance. They state that the DOJ needs to provide not just a reason, but also “basis” for its demands—some “specific, articulable facts pointing to the violation of federal law.”

They further raise the issue of privacy laws, both state and federal, precluding them from sharing sensitive personal data.

The DOJ has argued that federal laws trump state laws and federal privacy laws are already satisfied because the department has provided states with the means of transmitting the data securely and will handle it in accordance with existing procedures.

So far, none of the suits have proceeded far enough to grant the department’s request.

Three of the earlier suits, in California, Oregon, and Michigan, have been dismissed by federal judges. The administration has appealed the cases.

Criminal Proceedings

On Jan. 28, the FBI executed a search warrant in the election offices of Fulton County, Georgia, which includes the broader Atlanta area.

Agents seize hundreds of boxes of documents, including physical ballots.

The affidavit supporting the warrant pointed to multiple issues with the 2020 elections in the county, including its two recounts, one by hand and one by machine.

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who was responsible for overseeing the election, has dismissed the issues as administrative and human errors that didn’t affect the election outcome.

But the affidavit noted that even if the result wouldn’t change, the issues indicated that crimes may have been committed.

In early March, the FBI obtained a grand jury subpoena to collect election documents pertaining to the Arizona Senate’s 2020 audit of Maricopa County, where nearly two-thirds of Arizonians live.

The large volume of electronic data included ballots and voter records, The Epoch Times reported.

Voluntary Compliance

A dozen states have voluntarily provided the data or indicated they will do so: Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming.

Some states, including Florida, Missouri, Montana, Iowa, South Carolina, Alabama, and Idaho, have not provided the data, but have yet to be sued.

There’s no indication that data from North Dakota and North Carolina has been requested by the DOJ.

The department has been offering states a Memorandum of Understanding that outlines the conditions under which the demanded data should be provided. The memorandum would require states to remove ineligible voters within 45 days of being alerted by the DOJ.

Most states have refused to sign it, including some among those that have ultimately shared the data.

Federal laws require, in certain circumstances, that voters be notified before they are removed from the rolls, and for officials to wait two election cycles before removing them. At least 13 Republican states have mentioned the 45-day requirement as an issue of concern.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

In a move that’s raising alarm, researchers have poured 65,000 litres of sodium hydroxide into the Gulf of Maine, claiming it’s a step toward combating climate change through geoengineering. 

With unknown effects on marine life, many are worried this experiment reeks of tinkering that could backfire.

The trial, dubbed the LOC-NESS project, took place off the Massachusetts coast last August, with scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution leading the charge. 

Stop this now!!

Every single time arrogant men mess with nature it's a natural disaster

Scientists pump tonnes of chemicals into ocean to stop global warming https://t.co/PXEVDsaug6

— Liz Williams (@Liz4Littletons) March 10, 2026

They argue that boosting ocean alkalinity could suck more CO2 from the atmosphere, turning it into harmless baking soda. 

Yet, as globalist agendas push these unproven fixes, freedom-loving skeptics see it as another layer of control over nature without public consent.

Over four days, the team added the alkaline chemical, tagged with red dye for tracking, to waters 50 miles off Boston. “These early results demonstrate that small-scale OAE deployments can be engineered, tracked, and monitored with high precision,” said principal investigator Adam Subhas of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. “We need independent, transparent research to determine which solutions might work.”

The method, known as Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement (OAE), aims to mimic and accelerate the ocean’s natural CO2 absorption.

As the document details, the oceans already trap around 38,000 billion tonnes of CO2 as dissolved sodium bicarbonate. By resetting the pH with sodium hydroxide, the scientists boosted it from 7.95 to 8.3—matching pre-industrial levels—and measured 10 tonnes of carbon entering the water immediately.

In the best-case scenario, they estimate the dump could absorb about 50 tonnes of carbon over a year, equivalent to the yearly emissions of five average citizens. 

But that’s a drop in the bucket compared to industrial outputs, and it doesn’t address the hypocrisy of governments preaching emission cuts while funding these chemical interventions.

Critics aren’t buying the hype. Gareth Cunningham, Director of Conservation and Policy at the Marine Conservation Society, told the Daily Mail: “These approaches are resource-intensive and their ecological impacts are still poorly understood.” He added: “Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement is a short-term fix that doesn’t address the behaviours driving climate change and ocean acidification.”

The experiment found no negative impacts on plankton, fish, and lobster larvae, according to PhD student Rachel Davitt from Rutgers University, who helped lead the ecological assessment: “Based on the biological and ecological impact data that we have collected and analysed so far, there was no significant impact of the LOC-NESS field trial on the biological community using the metrics we measured.” But effects on adult fish weren’t even assessed, leaving a glaring gap in a region vital for lobster, cod, and haddock fishing.

This isn’t the first time alkalinity tweaks have been tried—Scandinavian rivers got limed in the 1980s to combat acid rain, reviving salmon populations. Yet scaling OAE up would mean dumping billions of tonnes of chemicals annually, releasing trace metals that could poison ecosystems. 

Recent studies warn of risks to species growth, metabolism, and biodiversity, while excessive alkalinity might harm seagrasses crucial for marine habitats.

This ocean dump comes amid growing resistance to geoengineering schemes that smack of playing God with the planet. 

As we previously covered, a U.S. bill introduced last month aims to outright ban geoengineering activities nationwide. H.R. 7452, sponsored by Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL), would criminalize atmospheric dispersal of chemicals or biological agents for weather modification, including geoengineering, cloud seeding, and solar radiation management.

That legislation defines weather modification broadly as “any injection, release, emission, or dispersal of a chemical substance, a biological agent, or an air pollutant… into the atmosphere” that alters weather, climate, or sunlight. Violators could face up to $100,000 fines and five years in prison per offense. It even repeals existing federal authorities for such programs and bans federally funded research into them.

The bill’s backers point to covert operations already underway, as a 2023 White House report admitted the U.S. “conducts or funds limited research into solar radiation modification.” With commercial jets contributing to lingering contrails that form cloud cover—per FAA, NASA, and NOAA admissions—the push for bans highlights how these experiments evade accountability.

Critics of OAE echo the bill’s concerns: it doesn’t solve emissions but adds residues that could devastate marine life. As Cunningham noted, restoring natural habitats like seagrass and shellfish reefs offers a “more sustainable solution by helping buffer acidification while improving water quality, protecting coastlines and supporting marine life.”

Broader geoengineering strategies, from afforestation in deserts to artificial ocean upwelling and iron fertilization, carry their own drawbacks—like unintended warming or rapid climate shifts if halted. 

Solar radiation management via sulphate aerosols could cool the planet but lets CO2 build up unchecked.

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 Rob Sabo via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announced on March 9 that it had selected eight out of 30 proposals to participate in its Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) and Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing (eVTOL) Integration Pilot Program (eIPP).

The eight projects span work across 26 states and include a range of public entities and private companies developing operational concepts in urban and regional air taxi and transportation services, cargo and logistics, emergency medical response, autonomous flight, and energy transportation. Data compiled from the various projects will help the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) better understand the challenges associated with safely and efficiently integrating these new types of aircraft into the National Airspace System.

“The program will provide valuable operational experience that will inform the standards needed to enable safe Advanced Air Mobility operations,” said Chris Rocheleau, FAA deputy administrator.

The DOT said the eight proposals were selected based on their ability to quickly integrate into commercial operations, as well as overall manufacturer experience and the strength of existing public, private, and academic partnerships.

“Congratulations to the great American innovators behind each of these exciting pilot programs,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said.

“Working together, we will ensure America leads the way in safely leveraging next-gen aircraft to radically redefine personal travel, regional transportation, cargo logistics, emergency medicine, and so much more.”

Initial operations under the program umbrella are expected to begin this summer, the DOT said.

The pilot program is the cornerstone of President Donald Trump’s efforts to accelerate aviation innovation by developing next-generation unmanned aircraft systems. Trump initially outlined his vision for the program in a June 6, 2025, Executive Order titled Unleashing American Drone Dominance.

Air taxi startup Joby Aviation of Santa Cruz, California, which in January acquired a 700,000 square-foot manufacturing facility in Dayton, Ohio, to ramp up its production capabilities, was selected as a partner for programs in Arizona, Florida, Idaho, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, and Utah.

Joby said in a news release that the pilot program accelerates its path to providing commercial electric air taxi and cargo delivery service by streamlining approvals and the relevant infrastructure required for integration into national airspace.

JoeBen Bevirt, Joby’s founder and CEO, called the announcement a defining moment for American innovation.

“Instead of just reading about the future of flight, communities across America are going to be able to see it in the skies above their own cities this year,” Bevirt said.

San Jose, California-based Archer Aviation, which is developing short-flight eVTOL air taxis for congested metropolitan markets such as Chicago and New York, was selected for programs in Florida, Texas, and New York.

Archer said in a news release that it will work with the Texas and Florida departments of transportation, as well as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, to install local operating teams and infrastructure in each test area in preparation for commercial deployment of its Midnight aircraft.

“This is the clearest sign yet from the White House, the FAA and the DOT that bringing air taxis to market in the United States is a real priority,” said Adam Goldstein, Archer Aviation’s founder and CEO.

Additional companies selected for the pilot program include Electra of Manassas, Virginia; BETA Technologies of South Burlington, Vermont; and Ampaire of Long Beach, and Elroy Air of Byron, California.

Authored by Michael Lebowitz via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

In our recent article, The Value Rotation Illusion, we explained that in the recent rotation from growth to “value”, passive investors, in actuality, are selling value stocks to buy expensive stocks. Confused? In this follow-up, we take our three-tier earnings valuation framework introduced in the article a step further to uncover true value stocks.

First, though, it’s vital to provide context for why the passive investment landscape skews stock valuations.  

Passive Investing Drives The Current

A passive investment environment is oftentimes agnostic to valuations, blurring the lines between traditional investment styles like value and growth.

Oftentimes, we associate passive investors with investing in broad market indexes such as the S&P 500 or the Nasdaq. However, passive investors also buy sector- or factor-based ETFs, such as consumer staples ETFs or large-cap growth factor ETFs. The word “passive” means they are not picking individual stocks, but it doesn’t necessarily imply their investment style is passive. A growing number of passive investors are actively trading, rotating in and out of popular narratives and themes. For more on the topic, please read our recent article Calm Market Waters Hide Fierce Undercurrents.

For instance, over the last few months, stocks in large-value ETFs have been hot, while the once-trendy mega-cap technology stocks have fallen out of favor. We can easily see this rotation in the performance differences between value and growth ETFs and sectors, as well as in the money flows into and out of the largest ETFs.

The first graph below shows the stark contrast in money flows from the Vanguard large-cap value (VTV) and the iShares large-cap growth (IVW) ETFs. The second graph shows a greater divergence between the State Street Energy ETF (XLE) and the State Street Technology ETF (XLK). The data in the graphs is courtesy of ETF.com.

The Value Rotation Narrative

The media is making quite a to-do about the exodus from “expensive” growth stocks into “cheaper” value stocks.  Yet as we showed in Part One, investors are chasing a narrative. In many cases, investors are selling value while believing they are buying it.

The value rotation narrative can be summarized as follows: Higher-beta, mega-cap growth stocks have run their course and are now expensive and risky. Therefore, the logical place to rotate to is toward the opposite, less expensive, smaller-cap, and value sectors.

Regardless of whether the narrative makes sense, it is driving the markets, the sectors, and the factors beneath them. Thus, while we can tell you all day that many value ETFs do not represent value, it doesn’t matter. The narrative will trade patterns until it fades.

However, if the narrative is not factual, it will create distortions. Therefore, active investors must appreciate the narrative and its current impact on market dynamics, but also be able to find true value stocks, for their day in the sun will come.

Traditional Screens Miss Real Value

Most value investors begin their search with quantitative screens using filters such as low P/E ratios, high dividend yields, or low price-to-book multiples. These metrics are useful starting points, but they are not conclusions. In many cases, they simply identify companies that appear cheap.

“Cheap” valuation metrics, like those mentioned above, can signal problems rather than opportunities. For example:

• Earnings may be cyclical and near a peak.

• The business model may be deteriorating.

• Management execution may be inconsistent.

• A legal, political, or structural headwind is forming.

Many screens, especially those that don’t use forward-looking estimates, cannot distinguish between undervalued and declining companies. As a result, investors often confuse statistical cheapness with genuine value.

A Forward-Looking Framework

To properly evaluate value, investors must view companies through multiple valuation lenses. Each lens answers a different question, and when the three align, value opportunities are much more likely to emerge.

The three valuation lenses are past, present, and future. Does the company have a good earnings track record? Is it currently performing at a high level? Is it expected to grow solidly in the future? Importantly, it’s not just about earnings; equally important is how the current price relates to its past, present, and potential earnings.

Past Earnings
Is the stock obviously expensive based on its earnings and cash flow over the last year or two? Metrics such as trailing P/E, free cash flow yield, and margins help answer that question.

One Year Forward Earnings

Forward estimates matter more than trailing ones, but only if they are believable. As Benjamin Graham advised:

Investors should limit analysis of the future to what can reasonably be foreseen.

Companies with predictable financial trends, durable competitive advantages, and consistent execution deserve more confidence than those dependent on optimistic assumptions, economic scenarios, or speculative growth narratives.

Growth Adjusted Valuations

As we discussed in the first part, P/E ratios and forward P/E ratios can be expensive if expected growth is expected to ramp higher. That is why we also use the PEG ratio, which compares a company’s valuation to its expected growth rate.

This third step is missing from the screening process for many investors. It is also the most difficult, as small changes in growth assumptions can dramatically alter whether a company qualifies as a value stock.

Applying The Framework

In Part One, we noted that companies like Walmart and Costco, which many investors consider tried-and-true value stocks, are not cheap. Using the three-tiered framework we detailed above, Walmart has a P/E of 46, a Forward P/E of 43, and a PEG ratio of 4.50. It is clearly expensive based on the three lenses.

To help true value investors look beyond expensive “value” stocks and find true value, we created a stock screen. The results shown below have low valuations, good earnings outlooks, and growth prospects that justify their prices. These are the companies that most closely resemble true value stocks in today’s market, but they are not without risk.

We screened for the following attributes:

• Market Cap: > $5 billion

• Country: USA

• P/E: <15

• Forward P/E: <15

• PEG Ratio: <1.0

• Price to Sales: <1.0

• Quick Ratio <1.0

In addition to our three lenses, we added the price-to-sales ratio to further affirm value, and the quick ratio to help assess financial liquidity for the companies. Further, we removed financial stocks, as earnings-based analysis is not comparable to that of most other companies.

Why True Value Is Often Ignored

Markets are influenced by fundamentals but more so by psychology and incentives. Professional managers frequently prefer widely owned stocks because deviating from benchmarks introduces career risk. Furthermore, passive investment vehicles allocate capital according to index weightings that loosely fit the fund’s objective.  Doing so reinforces the dominance of already-popular, large companies. At the same time, the financial media often amplifies compelling narratives, drawing even more capital toward the same group of stocks.

These processes often produce a feedback loop. Popular companies attract inflows, which push prices higher, which in turn attract more inflows. Less fashionable companies experience the opposite dynamic, even when their earnings and balance sheets remain solid. Accordingly, the valuation gap between favored and ignored companies can widen significantly.

To wit, on our screen, the stocks are not big contributors to popular ETFs. For example, Phillips 66, the largest company on our screen, accounts for only 3.78% of the XLE energy ETF. Delta and United, the next-largest companies, account for 0.86% and 0.67% of the XLI industrials ETF, respectively. Those companies comprise an even smaller percentage of the largest large-cap value fund (VTV).

The Value Trap

One of the most persistent misconceptions in investing is that “cheap” stocks, like the ones we shared above, qualify as a value stock. In reality, the most dangerous category of stock is one that appears cheap but lacks the earnings power, growth potential, or poses other significant risks to justify its discounted valuation.

For example, Delta and United Airlines appear on our screen as true value stocks. But the future revenues for both companies are highly tied to the economy and jet fuel prices. Moreover, credit card rewards programs are a significant contributor to their earnings. If we forecast a recession, their estimates for double-digit earnings growth are bunk. We should also consider how the current surge in jet fuel prices will affect costs and whether they can pass them on to consumers. Further, will increased competition from non-traditional credit card companies sway users away from Visa- and MasterCard-backed airline reward credit cards?

True value requires both a reasonable price and viable earnings and earnings growth. The higher your confidence in the earnings growth of a value stock, the better your odds of success!

Summary

True value investing has never been easy. But today’s passive investment environment has made it much more difficult. For example, a growing number of value investors buy value in name only. ETFs using the word “value” attract so-called value investors. At the same time, fewer and fewer investors are truly seeking out true value stocks. The result can be a stark divergence in the fortunes of perceived value and true value stocks. Ultimately, such market behaviors create incredible opportunities, but we warn that patience is required to wait for such differences to correct.