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

Only 1% of the American population identifies as vegan (a person who refrains from using or consuming any animal products), and around 3% of the population identifies as vegetarian.  It is therefore a little confusing as to why American political and social discourse is hijacked by vegan issues so often. 

Leftist activists have adopted the age-old mantra that the "squeaky wheel gets the oil"; but imagine a wheel that never gets enough oil?  Imagine a movement specifically designed to keep society constantly on egg shells, trying to figure out different ways to satisfy that squeaky wheel so it will finally shut up?

One eventually has to ask the obvious question:  Why don't we simply throw that insufferable wheel in the garbage?

A perfect example of why Americans need to start aggressively discriminating against veganism as a movement has popped up in Oregon.  A new initiative called the PEACE Act (IP28) has enough backing to make it on the state ballot in November.  The initiative originally gained support as a way to "end animal cruelty", but the details of the proposed law turned out to be a vegan's version of Orwell.  

The petition has more than 120,000 signatures, according to the Oregon secretary of state’s office. The campaign needs about 117,000 valid signatures to make the ballot.  Initiative Petition 28 would expand animal cruelty protections in Oregon by effectively giving “all” animals the same protections currently in place for dogs and cats, supporters say. Opponents argue the measure would go much further, potentially criminalizing hunting, fishing and raising animals for food.

It's important to understand that vegan activists and leftists in general do not operate from a basic understanding of the environment.  They know next to nothing about the science behind these issues and legislate from a purely emotional position.  Banning hunting would effectively destroy various wild animal populations, causing disastrous disease outbreaks that the hunting community has kept in check for decades.    

That said, a lot of attention in the media has been paid to the hunting side of this law while the biggest impact would be felt in cattle farming and the fishing industry in Oregon.  If passed, the law would effectively criminalize the entire meat production base for the state under "animal cruelty" statutes. 

No state has the capacity to sustain on a mass vegan diet, so, animal products would have to be shipping in from the rest of the country, driving up prices.   

Of course, this tiny minority of militant animal rights activists are not working alone.  They are able to thrive and organize because they have a host of international NGOs and politicians working with them.  These institutions act as amplifiers for activist groups that would otherwise go completely ignored.  The United Nations, for example, has long been involved in global efforts to remove meat from the menu for most of the human population.

The UN fabricated the notion of animal agriculture acting as a primary mechanism for greenhouse gases and global warming.  Of course, there is zero evidence of a causation or correlation relationship between animal methane and changes in the Earth's temperatures, just as there is no concrete evidence of a connection between human industry and climate change. 

One can speculate as to why the UN is so interested in eliminating meat from the human diet, but stopping global warming is certainly not the real reason.  

Global warming claims continues to be debunked as one of the biggest hoaxes of the century, and the idea of compelling the public to stop eating meat in the name of "saving the climate" just isn't going to work.  It would appear that the political left and their NGO backers intend to criminalize meat if they can't convince people to go vegan voluntarily.   

This is why the majority of Americans distrust and despise vegans:  It not because they've chosen a different lifestyle, it's because they are obsessed with forcing that lifestyle on everyone else.

Arrest records from recent demonstrations outside Newark’s Delaney Hall immigration detention facility show that many of those taken into custody were not New Jersey residents, according to The New York Post. According to information reviewed by The Post, only a small number of the arrested individuals were from the state, while others had traveled from locations including Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Connecticut, and New York.

The arrests stemmed from a series of confrontations between protesters and law enforcement that took place during ongoing demonstrations at the facility. Authorities accused some participants of offenses such as damaging property, obstructing access to the detention center, failing to disperse, and assaulting federal officers. The demonstrations have drawn national attention as activists continue to challenge immigration enforcement policies and conditions at the facility.

Observers critical of the protests argue that the presence of participants from across the country suggests a coordinated effort rather than a purely local movement. They point to the involvement of activist organizations that have publicly campaigned against Delaney Hall and called for broader changes to federal immigration enforcement. Some arrested individuals were linked through social media activity to groups that have promoted protests at the site and encouraged supporters to participate.

The Post notes that among those arrested were people from a variety of personal and professional backgrounds, including students, artists, healthcare professionals, and longtime activists. Publicly available information and social media profiles indicate that several had previously participated in political or social justice campaigns on issues ranging from climate activism to racial justice and immigration reform.

One organization frequently mentioned in connection with the demonstrations is the Sunrise Movement, a progressive activist group that has publicized its involvement in actions outside Delaney Hall. The group has shared updates, photos, and videos from the protests on social media and has described its organizers as being actively engaged at the site for an extended period.

Supporters of the demonstrations maintain that the protests are a response to concerns about the treatment of detainees and conditions inside the facility. Critics, however, contend that the protests have become increasingly confrontational and have been supported by well-funded activist networks capable of mobilizing participants from outside the region.

The standoff at Delaney Hall has continued for weeks, with repeated clashes between demonstrators and law enforcement. As investigations and legal proceedings move forward, the arrests have become part of a broader debate over immigration policy, protest tactics, and the role of national activist organizations in local political conflicts.

The first Iranian ships crossed the area of the US naval blockade without obstruction after a memorandum of understanding was reached to end the war between Washington and Tehran, Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency reported Tuesday.

At least three Iranian oil tankers and two cargo ships carrying essential goods broke through the US naval blockade following an accord between the countries. 

A large Iranian VLCC and another vessel used to transport livestock moved from open waters toward Iranian ports, the agency said. Another Iranian tanker carrying oil also crossed the Gulf of Oman toward its designated export port, Fars said, without providing further details about the destination.

BREAKING: CRUDE OIL DEPARTS IRAN FOLLOWING A TWO MONTH LONG NAVY BLOCKADE

According to AIS data which we corroborated yesterday (2026-06-15) by satellite imagery, at least two National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC) VLCC supertankers named DIONA (9569695) and HERO2 (9362073) have… pic.twitter.com/tSesQTcC6K

— TankerTrackers.com, Inc. (@TankerTrackers) June 16, 2026

The crossing followed a WSJ report that under the agreement expected to formally end the war between the United States and Iran on Friday, Tehran would be allowed to immediately resume oil and fuel sales. The sanctions relief takes effect as soon as the agreement is signed and extends beyond crude exports to include the banking, shipping, and insurance services needed to move those barrels to market.

That detail may prove to be one of the most consequential parts of the entire agreement.

Oil sanctions are only effective if buyers can't pay, tankers can't ship, and insurers won't touch the cargo. By waiving restrictions across the entire supply chain, Washington is effectively giving Iran access to international energy markets from day one rather than months down the road, according to OilPrice.com.

Iran holds some of the world's largest oil and gas reserves and was producing well over 3 million barrels per day before the conflict. Much of that production has remained constrained by sanctions, infrastructure limitations, and wartime disruptions. The prospect of Iranian barrels returning to global markets in meaningful volumes could reshape supply expectations just as consumers and governments remain focused on energy security after months of turmoil in the Middle East.

The move also marks a striking shift in U.S. policy. Washington spent years tightening restrictions on Iran's energy sector. Now, the Trump administration appears prepared to use oil revenues as a financial incentive to secure a lasting end to the conflict.

The oil could potentially start flowing the moment the ink dries without the expected waiting period.

Authored by Janice Hisle via The Epoch Times,

Fifteen suspects are accused of conspiring with two Minneapolis-based Antifa groups to violently interfere with federal immigration enforcement, authorities announced on Tuesday. 

Daniel Rosen, who heads the U.S. attorney’s office for Minnesota, told reporters at his Minneapolis headquarters on June 16 that agents arrested 12 of the 15 suspects; one was already in custody for other offenses.

Two defendants remain at large. Rosen said both are aware that federal agents are seeking them in connection with an indictment that was unsealed just before the news conference.

“We expect they will surrender peacefully,” he said.

The 15 suspects—all from Minnesota—are charged with conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer, solicitation to commit a crime of violence, interstate threats, interstate stalking, assault on a federal officer, and destruction of government property.

“These defendants have been charged not for what they said, but for what they did. They all joined an agreement, a conspiracy to interfere with lawful immigration enforcement operations,” Rosen said.

“The conspiracy was not to interfere by their voice, but to do it by force. That’s a crime, and it will not be tolerated in the United States.”

A group called “Direct Action Minnesota” is tied to many of the allegations, Rosen said, while another group, Black Cat Workers Collective, is connected to other allegations

The new cases are part of a “broad federal effort to address organized lawless behavior,” he said.

Michael McCarthy, special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations, said the announcement followed “a thorough and months-long investigation into a deeply concerning trend—coordinated violence targeting federal law enforcement officers and facilities.”

“There is a clear line that cannot be crossed” between peaceful protesting and violence, he said, adding, “some groups have crossed that line.”

He noted that many of the violent actions opposed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations.

The new charges were filed months after President Donald Trump’s administration announced that it was probing Antifa groups.

After some reporters questioned whether the new Antifa-related cases would hold up in court, given that a number of other cases involving anti-ICE activists have been dismissed, Rosen replied: “You watch how this case plays out; you watch how this evidence plays out, and the evidence will prove it all out.”

Antifa, short for “antifascist,” is a far-left extremist group that originated under the Soviet Union and functioned as the violent wing of Germany’s Communist Party to target political rivals. Antifa adherents label their enemies as “fascists” and often say they will use “any means necessary” to stop people from spreading messages they oppose.

Trump had issued a directive to disrupt and dismantle Antifa, which he designated a “domestic terrorist organization” in September 2025. The following month, Trump held a roundtable discussion with journalists and commentators who alleged that Antifa targeted them with threats or violence. 

Minnesota became a hotbed of resistance against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), sometimes involving Antifa, after federal agencies ramped up immigration enforcement in that state. That happened partly in response to accusations that networks of immigrants were defrauding government programs on a large scale.

In two separate January incidents, ICE opponents Renee Good and Alex Pretti were fatally shot by federal agents during protests, but there was no reported Antifa connection to either of those shootings. Rosen said investigations into both shootings are ongoing.

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 15 declined to hear a legal challenge to tariffs imposed on Chinese imports by U.S. President Donald Trump during his first term in 2018.

The decision follows an appeal by HMTX Industries and other businesses after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last year upheld the tariffs, which Trump previously imposed on Chinese goods under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 in response to China’s unfair trade practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation.

The plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court to review the ruling, but the high court denied the request on June 15, keeping the tariffs in place. The justices did not provide any explanation for the decision.

According to a Feb. 20 petition filed by the importers, the first Trump administration imposed an initial round of tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese imports under Section 301 of the Trade Act.

The administration later expanded the tariffs in response to China’s retaliatory tariff measures by invoking Section 307 of the Trade Act, which allows the president to modify existing tariffs to address unfair trade practices.

“But Congress nowhere gave USTR [Office of the United States Trade Representative] the vast power to engage in an open-ended trade war under that modest modification provision. Yet that is precisely what happened here,” the importers said.

“That USTR’s ‘modification’ continues to impose billions of dollars in taxes on the American public each month is enough to warrant this court’s review.”

In a May filing, the administration argued that the case did not merit Supreme Court review and said the law allows the USTR to modify tariffs as long as the changes “are not radically transformative.”

“Accordingly, modifications imposed under Section 307(a) necessarily comport with the Act’s scheme because they are limited to actions appropriate to address the same problem that the original Section 301 actions addressed, as that problem has evolved over time,” it stated.

After taking office for a second term last year, Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on trading partners, citing the need to regulate international transactions to respond to an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to national security.

The Supreme Court struck down the tariffs in February, ruling that the IEEPA does not clearly authorize the president to impose tariffs.

The Trump administration has been looking at alternative legal avenues following the Supreme Court ruling.

USTR Jamieson Greer said on Feb. 20 that his office would launch new Section 301 investigations covering most major trading partners.

The new trade investigations will cover various areas, including industrial excess capacity, forced labor, pharmaceutical pricing practices, discrimination against U.S. technology companies and digital goods and services, digital services taxes, and ocean pollution.