The FBI says convicted murderer Alex Murdaugh lied about where more than $6 million of stolen client money went‚ and about whether an unnamed attorney helped him steal it. Murdaugh is already serving two consecutive life terms for the murders of his wife‚ Maggie‚ and youngest son‚ Paul‚ both of whom he denies killing. Murdaugh did‚ however‚ plead guilty to stealing money from his clients and law firm‚ which resulted in a 27-year prison sentence‚ meaning he will be incarcerated even if his murder conviction is overturned. The federal government also sought to prosecute Murdaugh‚ who pleaded guilty last year in federal court to money laundering and various fraud charges‚ the Associated Press reported at the time. Now the feds want to revoke their part of the plea agreement‚ claiming Murdaugh lied because the unnamed attorney failed a polygraph test‚ the results of which have not been released‚ according to the AP. The unnamed attorney failed the test in October‚ which was given because the FBI already suspected Murdaugh had lied in his previous three interviews with the bureau. Federal prosecutors argued in court documents to keep the polygraph test and the summaries of its interviews with Murdaugh out of the public eye. Murdaugh’s defense attorneys reportedly oppose this‚ as prosecutors said in a footnote. Polygraph tests are not permitted as evidence in court because they are notoriously unreliable. Murdaugh admitted to stealing around $12 million from clients over the years after promising to help them with medical bills or pain and suffering. One victim‚ Jordan Jinks‚ had been a friend of Murdaugh’s since they were children. He asked Murdaugh to represent him after he incurred hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills for a neck injury resulting from someone rear-ending his car. Jinks paid the bills‚ assured that Murdaugh would obtain a settlement to refund him. When Murdaugh received that settlement‚ he kept the money for himself. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP “The money you stole from me‚ I would have gave it to you‚” Jinks said during Murdaugh’s sentencing. “Why bro? Why?” While taking responsibility for the financial crimes‚ Murdaugh adamantly denies killing his wife and son. “I want to take responsibility. I want my son to see me take responsibility. It’s my hope that by taking responsibility that the people I’ve hurt can begin to heal‚” Murdaugh said when pleading guilty in September. His defense attorney‚ Dick Harpootlian‚ noted at the time: “There’s two things Alex will tell you. One‚ he stole the money. Two‚ he did not kill Maggie and Paul.”

A new poll out of Canada found that if national elections were currently held‚ a political thunderquake would shake the nation‚ with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party thrown out of power and the Conservative Party‚ led by Pierre Poilievre‚ completely dominating the Canadian Parliament. Abacus Data‚ one of the country’s most accurate pollsters‚ surveyed over 3‚500 adults between March 16 and March 24‚ and found that 41% of committed voters would vote for the Conservative party‚ 23% would vote for the Liberal party‚ 19% would vote for the New Democratic Party‚ and 4% would vote for the Green Party. “Since the beginning of the year‚ we have seen stability in vote intentions with the Conservatives consistently in the low 40s and the Liberals stuck in the low to mid 20s‚” Abacus reported. The survey found that the Conservatives led with all age groups across the country; interestingly‚ the Liberal vote rose as the age of voters rose‚ implying young people are more inclined to see the error of Trudeau’s ways. Only one in four voters thought Canada was headed in the right direction. 59% of voters disapproved of the job Trudeau is doing as prime minister. 58% of voters had a negative impression of Trudeau with only 24% having a positive view‚ leaving him 34 points underwater‚ while 38% had a positive view of Poilievre and 34% had a negative impression‚ leaving him four points to the good. Only a paltry 15% of voters thought Trudeau and his party should be reelected. 52% of voters thought it was time for a change. 61% of voters thought Trudeau was focused on the wrong priorities; 48% thought him ineffective‚ and 53% thought he was not transparent about his actions. The poll also discovered that Conservative voters were more likely to vote than Liberal or NDP supporters. A near majority of voters‚ 46%‚ thought Conservatives would win the next election; only 21% thought the Liberals would win. “In evaluating the Trudeau government‚ Canadians expressed concerns about its focus and effectiveness‚ with a majority viewing the government as distracted‚ focused on the wrong priorities‚ and closed. These perceptions are closely tied to vote intention‚ suggesting any path back to competitiveness for the Liberals will require it to address these public perceptions‚” stated Abacus Data CEO David Coletto.

House Republicans are pressing their inquiry into the biting incidents involving President Joe Biden‘s dog Commander after Secret Service employees reportedly got nipped dozens of times. On Monday‚ the House Education and the Workforce Committee sent a new letter to acting Labor Secretary Julie Su requesting information about workplace safety protocols at the White House. Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) said she wants to know what the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is doing to enforce the standards. “Recently‚ news reports say the number of known dog-bite incidents involving the President’s dog Commander and Secret Service employees has risen to 24‚” Foxx wrote. She added the panel “stresses that it is still concerned about the occupational safety and health program for all employees working at the White House and the Executive Office of the President (EOP).” Foxx has written two other letters to Su‚ in October and November‚ as biting incidents involving Commander kept making headlines until the first family gave the German Shepard to family members. In fact‚ Biden had been dogged by negative pet stories for years. He had another German Shepard named Major who also got in trouble for biting. Major was also removed from the White House and ultimately left with family friends. The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) “requires the head of every federal agency to maintain an occupational safety and health program consistent with OSHA standards‚” Foxx noted. In response to the November letter‚ the Labor Department claimed not to be “aware of any forms or reports from the White House submitted pursuant to the OSH Act‚” Foxx said. The chairwoman said it “seems that the EOP failed to provide this information to DOL.” Foxx also noted OSHA chief Douglas Parker’s response to a question for the record (QFR) “suggests that OSHA’s answer covers only agencies which OSHA ‘historically contacts’ for injury and illness data.” “This qualification suggests that‚ despite the dictates of the OSH Act‚ OSHA is picking and choosing which agencies it scrutinizes and requires to submit data‚” Foxx said. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP “The Committee has an interest in ensuring that the White House is providing the same protections to its workforce that it demands of the private sector‚” the chairwoman added. “Furthermore‚ the Committee has an interest in ensuring that DOL has accurate data on the EOP and the White House.” Foxx requested various documents and information‚ including copies of claims submitted to DOL’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs for EOP employees since January 20‚ 2021. She asked‚ “Why did Park omit the EOP in the QFR response … when it appears the EOP did not comply with the requirements of the OSH Act?” The chairwoman also queried‚ “If the White House has not submitted the appropriate forms to DOL to remain in compliance with the OSH Act‚ what does DOL intend to do to ensure that the EOP is aware of and complies with the OSH Act’s requirements?” The Daily Wire reached out to DOL seeking comment.

A Massachusetts teachers union representing 117‚000 teachers and faculty members at public schools and universities across the state is under fire for hosting a webinar that featured a professor who praised the “courage” of Hamas terrorists who attacked Israel on October 7.  The Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) webinar titled‚ “The Struggle Against Anti-Palestinian Racism‚” featured three professors from the University of Massachusetts Boston‚ all of whom are anti-Israel activists. One of them‚ Leila Farsakh‚ penned an op-ed two weeks after Hamas’ attack praising its terrorists that raped‚ killed‚ and beheaded Israeli civilians. “The courage of those who broke through the barbed wire‚ sailed by boat to return to their ancestral homes‚ or flew with their hang-gliders over the wall of the largest open-air prison has shown that Palestinians will continue to defy the gravity of settler colonialism to be free‚ whatever the cost‚” Farsakh wrote. “The facts unfolding on the ground have made it clear who the perpetrator is and who the victim is‚” she added‚ referring to Israel as the perpetrator‚ before Israel entered Gaza in an attempt to find its hundreds of civilians taken hostage. The webinar is the latest radical anti-Israel action by the union in the months since Hamas terrorists massacred more than 1‚000 people in Israel. The MTA late last year passed a resolution accusing the United States of being complicit in a “genocidal assault.” NEW: A Massachusetts teachers union representing 100‚000+ people hosted a webinar last week that tried to convince its audience that anti-Zionism and antisemitism have no correlation. pic.twitter.com/opttqx2UXB — Kassy Akiva (@KassyDillon) March 27‚ 2024 The webinar was crafted in conjunction with Jewish Voice for Peace‚ an anti-Semitic organization that blamed Israel for Hamas’ attack while it was still ongoing and stepped up its anti-Israel activism afterward‚ including storming the U.S. Capitol. Prior to the webinar‚ participants were asked if they felt supported by their schools when “teaching anti-Zionist narratives about Palestine‚” according to a survey obtained by The Daily Wire. Survey sent out ahead of MTA’s webinar on anti-Palestinian racism. At the webinar‚ presenters made it a focus to convince the audience that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism have no correlation.  “How do we counter this unfair and misleading propaganda?” Gender Studies professor Heike Schotten said with a slide stating‚ “One of the biggest‚ most common‚ painful‚ and offensive ways this propaganda works is by attacking anyone who speaks out against Zionism as anti-Semitic.” “Well‚ you know‚ all of us in the Zoom room are educators‚” said Schotten‚ who according to the Boycott‚ Divestment‚ and Sanctions movement’s website‚ has been active in anti-Israel activism since 2006. “Education is and has always been central to movements for liberation and justice… and when we do this together‚ when we learn and teach and know about Zionism‚ both as settler colonialism and as a very well-funded propaganda effort‚ we realize that these claims about anti-Semitism are lies.” Following the event‚ the Anti-Defamation League New England released a statement saying it was “deeply concerned by the framing” of the webinar.  “By expressly rejecting anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism and invoking frameworks of ‘colonialism and imperialism’ in a discussion regarding Israel/Palestine‚ this programming reinforces anti-Semitic and anti-Israel falsehoods.” “Educational programming on topics such as Zionism and anti-Zionism‚ particularly where a stated goal is to better prepare educators for discussions in the classroom‚ must be subject to at least the same rigorous standards we would expect of any curriculum intended to be taught to our children‚” the ADL added in its statement. Jeremy Burton‚ the CEO of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston‚ accused members of the MTA of using “pernicious and inflammatory rhetoric” and said messaging from the MTA in recent months played into “dehumanizing anti-Semitic tropes.” Burton added that he took issue with the webinar “coupling concerns for anti-Palestinian racism with a campaign of anti-Zionism in classrooms.” The webinar’s promotional materials stated that “anti-Palestinian racism too often goes unnoticed” because many teachers do not feel confident to speak about the complex topic of “Palestine” in classrooms. Massachusetts Teachers Association’s promotional material for its “The Struggle Against Anti-Palestinian Racism” webinar. Brigitte Karns‚ a teacher and MTA dues-paying member‚ said she fears the school’s curriculum will be infused with anti-Semitism and anti-Israel teachings. “We have major concerns that the end goal for the MTA is to implement this type of curriculum into classrooms across Massachusetts‚” Karns told The Daily Wire. “They are looking to train teachers with dangerous material that will indoctrinate our students to be anti-Semitic.” “The MTA should not be involved in geopolitical issues‚” she added. “There have been many in the past with the same groups and they did not get involved.  Ukraine/Russia and they did not get involved.” The MTA president defended the webinar as an opportunity for dialogue and noted that it plans to host an upcoming event on anti-Semitism. “I expect that there will be members in attendance who will agree wholeheartedly with what is presented; there will be members in attendance who could not disagree more‚” Max Page said. “The particular viewpoints expressed in these individual workshops do not represent the official views of the MTA.” Page added that he lost 18 family members during the Holocaust and that it has been difficult to be accused of anti-Semitism in recent months. Arielle Kingsbury‚ who is an occupational therapist in a public school in the Greater Boston area and dues paying member of MTA‚ called the webinar “abhorrent.” Kingsbury took issue with Schotten making the claim that Israel rules with “Jewish supremacy.” “The webinar was biased and contradictory‚” Kingsbury said. “They spoke about the history of the conflict but neglected to mention a lot of historical fact.” MTA’s board of directors passed a resolution in December that accused Israel of committing genocide and the U.S. of being complicit‚ the Daily Wire previously reported. “As an educators’ union‚ we must take a stand with our union siblings‚ and promote peace and justice in the region by calling for an end to our government’s complicity with Israel’s genocidal assault on the people of Gaza and intent to take over their territory‚” the statement reads. “How many deaths‚ how many more children must die‚ before we take a stand? Silence is complicity‚” it adds. The ADL at the time‚ accused the resolution of camouflaging “an ill-founded attack on Israel.” “At a minimum‚ the statement’s failure to explicitly and unconditionally condemn the Hamas attack call for the return of all remaining hostages or demand that any ceasefire include a commitment to remove Hamas — whose officials have reportedly vowed to repeat terrorist attacks like the one on October 7th until Israel is destroyed — as a controlling actor in Gaza is revealing‚”  ADL chapter’s director‚ Dr. Jonah C. Steinberg said. More than 57‚000 Massachusetts teachers‚ students‚ and parents signed a counter petition to the resolution which demanded a public apology‚ a statement noting that only 34 MTA members voted in favor‚ and a motion to rescind the proposal.  In the wake of the controversies‚ MTA’s board of directors was invited to a Lappin Foundation seminar this April about countering anti-Semitism in schools. Board member Joe Herosy rejected the invitation‚ claiming the foundation is part of the “Israel lobby.” Heresy has been pushing anti-Israel rhetoric on his social media in recent months‚ including sharing a cartoon of Hamas terrorists bulldozing into Israel just a day after the attack.  UMass Boston and Joe Herosy did not respond to a request for comment.

The Biden Administration continues to champion efforts to take legally purchased guns away from American citizens after Vice President Kamala Harris touted “red flag laws” as an effort to tackle gun violence during a recent visit to Parkland‚ FL. During her visit‚ the vice president announced the creation of a national office that would focus on the implementation of red flag laws in states that currently have these laws in place. The Department of Justice (DOJ) would oversee the office which raises alarm bells for supporters of the Second Amendment and Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill are raising concerns that this so-called “red flag” operation would indeed violate the Constitution. Meanwhile‚ the courts are telling American citizens that illegal immigrants have the right to legally possess a weapon after an Obama-appointed federal judge in Illinois ruled that our Constitution protects the rights of individuals who enter this country illegally. Law-abiding American citizens are frustrated‚ and they have a right to be. Approximately 986 different bills to restrict gun rights were introduced in the first half of 2023‚ according to the most recent data available. My home state of Illinois enacted a law in 2023‚ Public Act 102-1116‚ which prohibits the sale and distribution of so-called “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines. Citizens who owned these previously legal weapons could keep them‚ only if they registered their weapons with the State. Gun laws do not stop criminals from using guns while committing crimes. Criminals‚ by definition‚ do not care about gun laws. Federal law requires a criminal background check for all firearm sales and transfers by licensed dealers. The challenge is that most criminals do not legally obtain their guns. Moreover‚ semi-automatic weapons are not the weapon of choice when committing a crime. According to Pew Research Center‚ in 2020 “handguns were involved in 59% of gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters. Rifles — the category that includes “assault weapons” – were involved in 3% of firearm murders.” This means that approximately 408 people were killed by semi-automatic firearms in 2020. In Philadelphia‚ people who are accused of illegally carrying a gun have seen their chances of being convicted in court decline from 63% in 2017 to 49% in 2019. This is why the recent ruling by an Obama-appointed district court judge for the Northern District of Illinois‚ Sharon Johnson Coleman‚ is so concerning. Judge Coleman ruled that a federal ban on undocumented immigrants owning firearms is unconstitutional and dismissed charges against an illegal named Heriberto Carbajal-Flores‚ who was arrested in 2020 for violating a federal law which prohibits non-citizens from possessing guns. Judge Coleman’s ruling stated that since this illegal immigrant had no criminal record‚ and the circumstances behind his arrest were not violent‚ he should not be deprived of his Second Amendment right to bear arms. Case in point‚ being in the United States illegally was not enough cause to deny this individual his Second Amendment rights. Judge Coleman seems to have forgotten one important fact; being in the country illegally is a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325‚ which makes it a felony to unlawfully enter the United States. In Illinois‚ it is illegal for a person convicted of a felony to possess a firearm. Any person desiring to legally purchase a firearm in the state of Illinois must obtain a Firearms Owners Identification Card (FOID Card). To be eligible for a FOID card‚ amongst other regulations‚ a person must not be an alien who is lawfully present in the United States. You cannot even enter a gun shop or buy ammunition without a FOID card in the state of Illinois. So‚ this individual’s firearm must have been illegally obtained which is another federal violation. Yet‚ this Obama-appointed judge ruled that he could keep his weapon and cannot be prosecuted for any of his numerous crimes. On the flip side‚ a law-abiding American citizen in Illinois‚ who legally obtains a firearm is now‚ by definition‚ a felon‚ for not registering his or her weapon with the state police. The Biden administration’s DOJ may want to think twice before coming after a citizen’s right to bear arms — a right guaranteed by our Constitution. Maybe the government and the judiciary should enforce the gun laws that are already on the books before looking to punish legal gun owners and award criminals. * * * Jim Nelles is a Navy veteran and supply chain consultant based in Chicago. His articles have appeared in the Washington Examiner‚ Newsweek‚ Foxnews.com‚ and the Daily Wire. He has served as a chief procurement officer‚ chief supply chain officer‚ and chief operations officer for multiple companies. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

A George Floyd memorial scholarship open only to “Black or African American‚ that is‚ a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa‚” students violates the Civil Rights Act‚ a federal complaint says. North Central University in Minneapolis‚ Minnesota‚ has offered the scholarship since June 2020‚ and says on its website that the memorial scholarship “is a four-year‚ full-tuition scholarship awarded to one student each year based on two community recommendations and a written essay.” William Jacobson‚ a Cornell Law professor who runs the conservative website Legal Insurrection and founded the Equal Protection Project‚ filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights in Chicago‚ alleging the scholarship violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964‚ which prohibits schools from discriminating based on race. “The George Floyd Scholarship eligibility requirements are openly racially discriminatory‚” Jacobson told The College Fix. “Regardless of the purpose of the racial discrimination‚ it is wrong and unlawful.” “NCU needs to come up with a remedial plan to compensate students shut out of the George Floyd Scholarship due to discrimination‚” Jacobson added. In addition to violating the federal Civil Rights Act‚ the scholarship also violates Minnesota’s Human Rights Act‚ Jacobson’s complaint alleges. “Similarly‚ the [scholarship] defies the civil rights protections of Minnesota’s Human Rights Act‚ which makes it a criminal offense for an educational institution to limit access to any educational program on the basis of race‚” a footnote in the complaint says. Jacobson also told The College Fix that the Supreme Court’s decision last year on affirmative action should make clear that discriminating based on race is illegal. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP “After the Supreme Court’s decision in [Students For Fair Admissions]‚ it is clear that discriminating on the basis of race to achieve diversity is not lawful‚” Jacobson told the Fix. “As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion‚ ‘[e]liminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.’” In Justice Neil Gorsuch’s concurring opinion on the affirmative action ruling‚ he stated that it doesn’t “matter if the recipient discriminates against an individual member of a protected class with the idea that doing so might favor the interests of that class as a whole or otherwise promote equality at the group level.” The Supreme Court ruling was based on allegations that Harvard discriminated against Asian and white students by enrolling students of other races over them‚ even when the Asian and white students had better test scores.

The Biden administration is reportedly considering expanding noncitizens’ access to green cards‚ which confer legal permanent residence in the U.S. White House and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials are looking into expanding the “cancellation of removal” program. Officials are working on actions the president could take‚ possibly this summer‚ to blunt criticism of President Joe Biden’s immigration policies‚ according to POLITICO. Immigrants undergoing deportation proceedings in immigration court can apply for “cancellation of removal.” If eligible‚ applicants may be given a green card and lawful permanent residence in the U.S. The cancellation process is limited to 4‚000 people each year‚ and the applicant must be undergoing deportation proceedings to apply. To qualify‚ the applicant must have lived in the U.S. for at least 10 years‚ be of “good moral character‚” not have been convicted of disqualifying crimes‚ and have a family member who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident who would “suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if the applicant is deported. The program is only defensive‚ meaning that immigrants cannot apply until they officially enter into deportation proceedings in an immigration court. It’s unclear how the Biden administration may intend to broaden out the process. A group of Democratic lawmakers last year pressed the Biden administration to consider expanding the cancellation of removal process. Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada‚ Dick Durbin of Illinois‚ Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico‚ Bob Menendez of New Jersey‚ and Alex Padilla of California wrote to officials at DHS and the Department of Justice in May 2023‚ pushing them to make cancellation of removal proceedings “more accessible.” The letter urges a reform of the program that would allow immigrants to apply for a review of their case outside of deportation proceedings. If the applicant is found to be a good candidate for the program and a green card‚ officials would then start deportation proceedings to allow the immigrant to officially apply for cancellation of removal. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP “It is estimated that 1.2 million undocumented individuals are married to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident‚ and about 4.1 million U.S. citizen children have undocumented parents‚” the senators wrote. “Establishing a new process for cancellation of removal could have a significant positive impact on many of those individuals and help deliver on the administration’s commitment to immigrant families who deserve to stay together and live and work in the communities they call home.” Ur Jaddou‚ the director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services at DHS‚ responded to the letter in July 2023. “DHS will consider your recommendation to establish a new process and will examine pre-existing policy and process options that may be available to noncitizens who may be eligible for cancellation of removal‚ but who are not in removal proceedings‚” Jaddou wrote.

Eight states — California‚ Rhode Island‚ Maryland‚ Massachusetts‚ New Jersey‚ New York‚ Oregon‚ and Washington — and the District of Columbia are now on board with plans to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles within the next decade. The plans to phase out the vehicles and switch to electric and hybrid vehicles come as the Biden administration continues to pursue its lofty climate goals in a struggling economy. The administration‚ for example‚ wants half of all new cars and trucks sold in 2030 to be zero-emission‚ despite sputtering EV sales. All 8 of the states and D.C. have adopted the Advanced Clean Cars II rule‚ and will have an outright ban on the sale of new gas-powered vehicles after 2035. California was the first to adopt the rule‚ aiming to have 35% of new vehicle sales emit zero emissions by 2026‚ and boosting that goal to 68% by 2030. According to the California Air Resources Board‚ the regulation overhauls the state’s “growing zero-emission vehicle market and robust motor vehicle emission control rules and augments them to meet more aggressive tailpipe emissions standards and ramp up to 100% zero-emission vehicles.” As noted by Money‚ the states’ plans to ban gas-powered vehicles have generally not required votes from lawmakers‚ but have been advanced with support from governors and environmental regulators. The EV market has struggled in recent months‚ as highlighted by The Daily Wire. Ford‚ for example‚ had to cut 1‚400 employees from its Rouge Electric Vehicle Center‚ rolled back the planned production number of the electric F-150 Lightnings in half‚ and slashed $12 billion in EV investments. President Biden‚ however‚ is not slowing down when it comes to targeting the gas-powered vehicle industry. Earlier this month‚ Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set new eye-popping regulations in an effort to increase the number of electric vehicles on the road. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP The new EPA rules set emission standards for vehicles made between 2027 and 2032 and would eliminate more than 7 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions‚ setting off concerns across the nation. For example‚ Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) railed against the EPA’s move‚ calling it both “reckless” and “ill-informed.” “The federal government has no authority and no right to mandate what type of car or truck Americans can purchase for their everyday lives‚” the senator said. “This reckless and ill-informed rule will impose what is effectively an EV mandate without ensuring the security of our supply chains from nations like China and without a realistic transition plan that addresses our domestic infrastructure needs.” Related: Ford Cuts Production Of Electric Truck They Touted As The Future; Hiring Hundreds To Build More Gas Vehicles