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

Authored by Troy Myers via The Epoch Times,

The Trump administration has petitioned the Supreme Court to allow border wall construction to resume in the Big Bend area of Texas.

In an emergency application filed with the high court on Oct. 21, lawyers for the federal government asked the justices to lift a lower court order halting construction of President Donald Trump's key project that began during his first term in office.

In the Oct. 3 order, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone sided with environmental groups who claimed the work was unconstitutional, breached the separation of powers, and took land from residents.

"This case involves a baseless injunction that halts a major portion of the construction of the border wall," U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the emergency application. "Leaving a 300-plus-mile gap in border defenses would act as a dangerous magnet for cartels and other bad actors to exploit as other routes close off."

The Trump administration argued that continuing construction was crucial because the Big Bend region encompasses nearly one-quarter of the U.S. - Mexico border.

Between fiscal years 2021 and 2025, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) apprehended more than 89,000 foreign nationals attempting to enter through the Big Bend sector, according to the emergency application, "and those are just the aliens who were detected."

According to CBP data, there were 11,823 apprehensions in the region during 2023 and 3,096 in 2025.

CBP has seized increasing amounts of illegal narcotics across the southwest border, and the Sinaloa and Juarez cartels, which operate south of the Big Bend area, continuously seek to exploit any vulnerabilities in the U.S. border to further drug, human, and weapons trafficking, Sauer stated.

He argued that Cardone's order, if allowed to remain in place, would lead to a number of harms for the federal government, including a disruption of its ability to secure a large portion of the southern border against cartel incursions and activity in addition to irreversible delays, costs, and operational harms from halting already-begun construction.

Sauer accused Cardone of misbalancing the equities and harms in her ruling.

The judge had conceded the federal government "will experience at least some degree of irreparable harm" because of her block. Nonetheless, Cardone "illogically concluded" the environmentalist groups' harms outweighed the government's, Sauer said.

"The notion that respondents' interest in 'escaping from modern life' in the 'wild spaces in the Big Bend Sector' and preserving 'the spiritual, recreational, and aesthetic value of the area,' surpasses the United States' paramount interest in preventing a quarter of the border from becoming a magnet for cartel exploitation defies credulity," the solicitor general wrote.

Plans for border construction in the Big Bend region were announced in January, with administration officials waiving environmental laws to speed up the building.

The plaintiffs, the Center for Biological Diversity, nonprofit Friends of the Ruidosa Church, and Rio Grande river guide and landowner in the Big Bend area Danny William Miller, filed suit in April over the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) waiving of regulations.

Zeynep Graves, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, told The Epoch Times via email that she and the groups are confident the Supreme Court will hand down a favorable decision.

"We're deeply disappointed that the Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court for a green light to bulldoze one of America's wildest, most extraordinary landscapes," Graves said. "Once Big Bend's canyons, cultural treasures and wild ecosystems are destroyed, they'll be lost forever."

By early October, Cardone had sided with the groups.

But Sauer argued in the emergency application that she never had jurisdiction to issue such a ruling.

He cited a section of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

Through that legislation, Congress granted authority to the attorney general and secretary of DHS to construct border security measures while making it "harder for federal judges to block those critical national security endeavors."

Congress also allowed the DHS secretary to waive legal requirements he deemed necessary to ensure speedy construction of roadways and barriers.

To further guard against delays of border wall construction, Sauer said, Congress "stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to hear any non-constitutional challenges to" a DHS secretary's waiver decisions.

Under that authority, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin issued two waivers in 2026 to expedite construction on border walls and roadways in Big Bend.

"The President received a mandate from the American people to build a wall, defeat the cartels, and stop the flow of illegal aliens and dangerous drugs like fentanyl into our country," DHS General Counsel James Percival wrote in a post on X. "[Cardone's] order is as unprecedented as it is flawed, and we look forward to the Supreme Court's expeditious consideration of this important question."

However, Graves told The Epoch Times she believed that the lower court does have authority to resolve the groups' claims, and "only Congress can authorize something as consequential as walling off the entire U.S. - Mexico border."

CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott said he expects the border wall to be completed by the end of 2027.

Authored by Andrew Devine via The Daily Sceptic,

Left-leaning Boomers (born 1946-1964) and Gen Xers (born 1965-1980) view any criticism of 21st century mass immigration through a particular cultural and psychological lens that is outdated and a barrier to having a constructive debate about extremist mass immigration policies in the here and now.

Left-liberal 'progressives' who grew up or were young adults between the 1960s and 1990s were socially and culturally conditioned to believe that any criticism of immigration policies is synonymous with racial hatred. This is because in the eras when they grew up many of the people who opposed the much more limited immigration of those decades were openly racist. This is why it's almost impossible to have a nuanced discussion with 'progressive' Boomers or Gen X about the issue of mass immigration and get them to address the reality of resource constraints caused by excessively high numbers, or how certain immigrant groups like Indian Sikhs or Middle Eastern Christians are a better cultural fit with British and European people than say an Afghan Taliban supporter or an Islamic supremacist from Somalia who openly promotes Female Genital Mutilation as beneficial to society.

The moment a Boomer or Gen X Leftist open borders advocate is faced with anyone critical of 21st century mass immigration policies (which are radically more open than the immigration policies of the 1950s-1980s) all they see and hear in their mind's eye is some frothing at the mouth National Front extremist skinhead from the 1970s or 1980s who believes there shouldn't be a single brown or black face on the island of Britain. Unless you can break through that cultural and psychological conditioning regarding the issue of immigration, it's impossible to have a constructive debate with 'progressive' Gen Xers and Boomers on the issue. While you're trying to have a nuanced discussion on the issue of mass immigration, Left-liberal Boomers and Gen Xers are having a Pavlovian response.

In order to understand the psychology of Gen X and Boomer British 'progressives' further, it's important to understand that we are the generations who grew up listening to music that transcended cultural and racial lines. We grew up listening to Motown and Philly Soul from black America along with black musical giants like Prince, Michael Jackson or James Brown, while even all-white bands like the Rolling Stones, the Beatles, the Who and later U2 paid homage to the black R&B artists who inspired them. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the 2-Tone music label fused white British Punk Rock with Jamaican Ska and Reggae and the label's multi-ethnic bands such as the Specials topped the charts. It was the norm for us to see black, brown and white musicians in bands together. For those who love football, many black footballers born and bred in England and even Ireland were viewed as belonging to the country as much as any white player. This inclusive ethos that was prevalent in the 1970s and 1980s that emphasised black, white and brown kids uniting in a love of music, fashion and football was all very laudable and it helped foster a cultural norm where genuine racism came to be viewed as anathema by most of the public.

However, the inclusiveness of the 1970s and 1980s led many of the people who adopted this mindset to adopt a very simplistic and shallow minded approach to the issue of immigration which is now influencing how we discuss the very different phenomenon of mass immigration in the 21st century. The Gen X or Boomer 'progressive' erroneously conflates criticism of any non-white, non-European culture with racism which in turn has led to the idea that to oppose unrestricted flows of people with darker skin from all of the world's non-white cultures is synonymous with white supremacy. This is the mindset that has dominated most of the British media and cultural establishment for decades. It shapes everything from how certain news items are reported (or not reported). It explains why TV dramas include the over representation of ethnic minorities even in periods and locations in British history where everyone was white along with the incongruous shoe-horning of radical-Leftist dogma into so much modern entertainment.

It must be infuriating for decent, law-abiding Caribbeans, African Christians and Indians who came to the British Isles many decades ago and are patriotic and well-integrated to be lumped in with Islamic supremacists coming from Afghanistan or Somalia just because they're all non-white. Leftists are so obsessed with skin colour and viewing 21st century mass immigration through the racial politics of the 1970s and 1980s that it blinds them to genuine cultural incompatibilities of certain immigrant groups as well as security threats and resource constraints that result from the 21st century open borders fiasco.

One aspect of the current debate about what it means to be British that needs to be acknowledged is that it was only possible for Caribbean or Indian migrants who came to Britain in the 1950s and 1960s to become culturally British because there was a majority white British population and culture with which to integrate. If you make whole areas of cities non-native British, and especially if those areas become dominated by Islamic supremacists, then there is no native culture for people to integrate with. Civic nationalism can only work when the indigenous people remain the dominant majority and immigrant groups come from compatible cultures who aspire to integrate with the host population.

Boomer and Gen X 'progressives' need to wake up to the fact that it's not the mid to late 20th century anymore. They need to have debates on mass immigration in the 21st century on the conditions and terms of the 21st century. Today's mass immigration is not comparable to the limited migration of the 1950s through to the 1980s. Those of us with centrist or small c conservative views on immigration, including many patriotic ethnic minority citizens, agree with 'progressives' that racism is wrong. Where we disagree with them is how they've extended that term and redefined it beyond its original meaning to the point of utter absurdity.

There is nothing racist about effective border controls or wanting manageable levels of immigration that consider resource constraints and security risks. There is nothing far Right about believing that the native peoples of the British Isles (the English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish and Northern Irish) should remain the majority in these islands and that only cultures that are compatible with ours should be invited to live amongst us. If we forget that, then the national and regional cultures that have shaped the British Isles will disappear.

Andrew Devine is a 2010 Orwell Prize winning blogger and author of Generation F (under the pseudonym Winston Smith). Former radical Leftist. Fully recovered. He blogs on his Substack page, the Devine Message, where this article first appeared.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of ZeroHedge.

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

The Supreme Court sided with New Hampshire Republicans, allowing officials to stop accepting student ID cards as valid proof of identity for voting.

The high court cited the Purcell principle, which guards against changes to election rules close to Election Day.

The court's decision took the form of an unsigned opinion issued late on Oct. 22.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

The Supreme Court here applied the so-called Purcell principle against last-minute judicially ordered changes to election rules.

A state law known as HB 323 forbids the use of student IDs as valid proof of identity when voting. New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan issued guidance directing election clerks not to accept student IDs as a backup form of identification.

A group called the Coalition for Open Democracy challenged both the state law and the directive in federal court. The group's attorneys argued that the law ran afoul of both the U.S. and New Hampshire constitutions and discriminated against young voters on the basis of age. They also argued Scanlan exceeded his lawful powers as secretary of state.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante denied the group's request to bar enforcement of HB 323, but temporarily blocked Scanlan from advising election clerks that student IDs were never acceptable. Days later, the judge extended his order to cover public statements to that effect made by Scanlan. Together, the two orders meant clerks had to keep treating a student ID card as possible backup proof.

In its emergency application to the Supreme Court, the state argued that the district court's order came a mere 32 days before the general election, and that this goes against the Supreme Court's rulings, which have repeatedly held that lower federal courts should not "intervene in state election procedures in the lead up to an election."

The justices stayed Laplante's orders.

"This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election," the justices wrote, citing a 2020 precedent. "Here, the District Court did not point to anything that would justify deviating from that principle."

In her dissent, Jackson said Laplante had determined that it was necessary to correct Scanlan's "publicized misstatement about what New Hampshire's election rules require."

The injunction issued by the district court, Jackson said, "was reasonably designed to address alleged misinformation, not to change the law."

"An injunction to prohibit that conduct does not contribute to public confusion, it prevents that very problem," she said. "I would not disturb a clearly justifiable federal-court order issued to ensure that the public receives accurate information about a State's electoral processes."

New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella hailed the Supreme Court's ruling.

"New Hampshire has a responsibility to protect the integrity of its elections and ensure that election laws are applied as written," he said in a statement.

"The Supreme Court's decision is an important victory for our efforts to defend those laws and prevent last-minute court orders from creating uncertainty for voters and election officials."

The Coalition for Open Democracy criticized the high court's new ruling, calling it "wrong" and a misinterpretation of the Purcell principle.

"We applaud Justice Jackson for her dissent, in which she stands for the Constitution, the right to vote, and a rational application of Purcell," the group said in a statement.

"We will continue to vigorously litigate this case in the defense of the fundamental right to vote of young voters across New Hampshire."

The Supreme Court's order remains in effect through the Nov. 3 general election, while the case continues on appeal in the lower courts.

Authored by Jonathan Turley via JonathanTurley.org,

Harvard University is facing another controversy after its medical school held an event on "the Pathology of Unruly Bodies." The most surprising part is that it was not a reference to the Harvard faculty itself. Rather, a panel composed of non-medical experts was railing against anti-obesity drugs as part of "indoctrination" to support the ills of "empire and imperialism." Welcome to the state of higher education in America.

The panel was devoid of actual medical experts. It was dressed up in medical terms with the use of the word "pathology." It could have easily been billed as "GLP-1 Anti-Body." The panel included such experts as Da'Shaun L Harrison, who recently drew notoriety for claiming at the Socialism 2026 conference in Chicago that GLP-1 medications constitute "genocide" against fat people.

Another headliner was Roxane Gay, the Gloria Steinem Endowed Chair in Media, Culture, and Feminist Studies at Rutgers University - New Brunswick and the artist-in-residence at Harvard Medical School. Professor Gay (the cousin of former Harvard University President Claudine Gay) had called for the release of Luigi Mangione, who murdered Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, two years ago.

Despite her extremism and penchant for murderers like Mangione, Gay writes for the New York Times and apparently likes to flip off people in public. Harvard decided she was exactly what they needed to help shape their medical students. She is part of the radical chic of higher education, where no views are too far left (while departments purge conservatives and libertarians).

Harrison quickly picked up where she left off at the Socialist Convention with bizarre claims. Rather than claiming that drug companies were engaging in the genocide of fat people with weight-loss drugs, she explained that the companies were really militarizing an imperialist state: "This practice of forcing people into manipulating and changing or shifting how they look is oftentimes about making bodies militarisable. Building up a military to defend an imperialist state."

She further claimed:

"A lot of doctors, medical professionals and folks who collaborate with them - be it through the government or media - are advocating for atrocities that are directly impacting our citizens, but also citizens around the globe.

It then becomes about creating this ideal body that you are always being pushed and pulled towards, as a way to represent this patriotism that is intended to indoctrinate one into the military, into the defense of the country."

The suggestion that weight loss is an imperialist militaristic plot is obviously bonkers. It is the kind of raving you would expect on a subway from someone wearing a handmade cardboard sign and a tin foil hat.

However, Harvard Medical School views that person as a serious expert on the pathologies of weight loss.

Notably, not a single Harvard faculty member expressed unease over the programming. Medical students are facing an array of tough technological and economic conditions. Yet, the administration wants them to sit through far-left indoctrinations from the likes of Gay and Harrison.

Harvard is not alone. Various medical schools have incorporated radical social agendas into their curricula or events. We recently discussed how UCLA Medical School held a panel on which psychiatrists defended self-immolation in protesting Israel. In an earlier post, we discussed a mandatory lecture at UCLA of one of the university's "activists-in-residence" replete with anti-Semitic postings and racist rhetoric.

The hiring of figures like Gay and the radical programs at these schools show that faculty have little intention to change the ideological echo chamber in higher education. It is truly a pathology of unruly bodies.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of "Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution."