Month: July 2024

In 2024, the median salary for the typical American home buyer has risen to $104,339 – up from $88,000 just two years prior.

Despite record-high home prices, housing demand continues to outpace supply, even with mortgage rates at their highest in over a decade. As one bright spot, housing inventory is steadily increasing, with the number of homes for sale up almost 19% in May compared to the previous year. This growth in inventory could help ease the cost of home ownership looking ahead.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Nuefeld, shows the salary needed to buy a home across the 50 largest U.S. metropolitans in 2024, based on data from Home Sweet Home.

The Cost of Home Ownership in 2024

Below, we rank U.S. metro areas based on the salary needed to buy a median-priced home.

2024 Ranking	Metro Area	State	Median Home Price	Salary Needed
1	San Jose	California	$1,840,000	$463,886.5
2	San Francisco	California	$1,300,000	$336,170.4
3	San Diego	California	$981,000	$241,783.5
4	Los Angeles	California	$823,000	$207,030.2
5	Seattle	Washington	$755,300	$191,332.4
6	New York City	New York	$659,200	$186,122.8
7	Boston	Massachusetts	$704,700	$186,058.7
8	Denver	Colorado	$651,000	$160,874.3
9	Miami	Florida	$625,000	$159,528.2
10	Washington, D.C.	N/A	$600,200	$155,370.4
11	Riverside/ San Bernardino	California	$579,900	$146,791.9
12	Portland	Oregon	$574,000	$146,483.4
13	Sacramento	California	$533,900	$139,283.1
14	Austin	Texas	$466,700	$135,333.1
15	Salt Lake City	Utah	$551,200	$134,691.8
16	Providence	Rhode Island	$470,700	$129,565.5
17	Phoenix	Arizona	$470,500	$114,499.6
18	Orlando	Florida	$435,000	$114,215.9
19	Las Vegas	Nevada	$465,400	$113,354.8
20	Raleigh	North Carolina	$439,800	$111,347.6
21	Dallas	Texas	$377,700	$110,463.0
22	Richmond	Virginia	$425,000	$106,952.9
23	Tampa	Florida	$405,200	$106,614.1
24	Hartford	Connecticut	$350,400	$106,127.9
25	Baltimore	Maryland	$385,000	$104,132.8
26	Chicago	Illinois	$349,300	$103,794.0
27	Jacksonville	Florida	$390,000	$103,487.6
28	Minneapolis	Minnesota	$373,500	$101,868.4
29	Nashville	Tennessee	$404,300	$101,535.4
30	Charlotte	North Carolina	$398,300	$100,140.4
31	Philadelphia	Pennsylvania	$342,500	$99,535.4
32	Houston	Texas	$334,100	$98,135.3
33	Milwaukee	Wisconsin	$354,000	$96,942.7
34	Atlanta	Georgia	$369,200	$96,825.1
35	San Antonio	Texas	$305,800	$90,259.9
36	Virginia Beach	Virginia	$336,500	$88,208.3
37	Columbus	Ohio	$306,600	$84,598.5
38	Kansas City	Missouri	$308,600	$83,386.1
39	Indianapolis	Indiana	$300,100	$77,181.6
40	Cincinnati	Ohio	$280,600	$75,634.6
41	New Orleans	Louisiana	$277,700	$75,218.3
42	Birmingham	Alabama	$295,000	$75,193.9
43	Memphis	Tennessee	$272,400	$71,943.2
44	Buffalo	New York	$229,700	$71,669.2
45	Oklahoma City	Oklahoma	$251,000	$70,455.8
46	Louisville	Kentucky	$262,000	$69,169.8
47	Detroit	Michigan	$240,000	$68,334.7
48	St Louis	Missouri	$241,100	$68,240.0
49	Pittsburgh	Pennsylvania	$207,100	$59,604.2
50	Cleveland	Ohio	$191,900	$58,402.6
	National		$389,400	$104,339.0

Note: These calculations determine the salary needed to afford the principal, interest, taxes, and insurance payments on a median-priced home in the corresponding metro area as of May 2024. Figures reflect homes with a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage and a 20% down payment.

As the most expensive city overall, residents in San Jose require a salary of $463,887 for a median-priced home in 2024—more than quadruple the national average.

Since 2023, this required salary has skyrocketed almost $100,000, soaring to a monthly payment of $10,824 to own a home. One reason why San Jose prices are sky-high: it sits at the heart of Silicon Valley. On average, homes on the market sell in roughly nine days.

Like San Jose, the San Francisco metro area is highly unaffordable. In May, median home prices stood at $1.3 million. The metro area houses more billionaires than anywhere in the world, in addition to having among the most individuals with $100 million in investable wealth globally.

New York City residents need an annual salary of $186,123, making it the sixth-highest in the country. While the annual growth in home prices fell into negative territory, the required salary to own a home jumped over $25,000 since last year. Overall, just 30% of New Yorkers own homes, compared to the 66% national average.

On the other hand, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis are the most affordable metro areas in the dataset, where a salary under $70,000 can buy a median-priced home.

Authored by Marina Zhang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Over 60 diseases can be predicted just by looking at proteins in the blood, a study published Monday finds.

These proteins provided more accurate predictions for 52 out of 67 diseases than current clinical tests.

“Measuring one protein for a specific reason, such as troponin to diagnose a heart attack, is standard clinical practice. We are extremely excited about the opportunity to identify new markers for screening and diagnosis from the thousands of proteins circulating and now measurable in human blood,” lead author professor Claudia Langenberg, director of the Precision Healthcare University Research Institute at Queen Mary University of London, said in a press release.

Postdoctoral researcher Julia Carrasco-Zanini-Sanchez, who is also the study’s first author, told The Epoch Times that the study was prompted by her team’s prior research on a disease related to impaired glucose control.

“[The condition] is basically a form of prediabetes that you can only detect when you do what’s called an oral glucose tolerance test, but not through HBA1c (blood glucose testing) or fasting glucose testing,” she said.

“We started working with proteomics (large-scale study of proteins) to try to develop a test … to predict the outcome of this oral glucose tolerance test without having to perform it because it’s routinely not done in clinical practice.”

Ms. Carrasco-Zanini-Sanchez said that their prior study led them to wonder if other diseases could be predicted using proteins.

She said that their current model predicts disease development in 10 years’ time.

“[Ten years] is kind of a long time frame for some of the diseases that we’re studying … a three- or five-year prediction timeline would be a bit more relevant. However, the data is still not large enough, which is why … all of them are trained for 10-year incidents,” the first author said.

Ms. Carrasco-Zanini-Sanchez, who did her doctorate research on proteomics, told The Epoch Times that she hoped the study’s proteomics tests would be used to screen specialized populations most at risk for the disease in question rather than the entire population.

52 Diseases Identified

The study, published in Nature Medicine, used data from the UK Biobank and analyzed over 3,000 different blood proteins for 218 different diseases.

Over 40,000 people were recruited to have a sample of their blood taken for proteomics analysis.

These people were then followed for 10 years through their electronic health records to see what diseases they would develop.

For those who did end up developing various diseases, by studying the protein levels they had 10 years ago, researchers determined protein signatures for over 60 diseases.

Each protein signature is made up of five to 20 different proteins.

The researchers developed a clinical model to predict the risk for various diseases, which included information such as age, sex, and body mass index, among other factors.

On top of that model, they added the protein signature, disease biomarkers, or genetic risk scores to make three other models and compared the results.

With the protein signature model, the authors found significant improvements to the predictions for 52 diseases. They include celiac disease, dilated cardiomyopathy, liver cirrhosis, multiple myeloma, COPD, dementia, Sjogren’s disease, and prostate cancer, among others.

The authors highlighted that the biomarker model for prostate cancer, which is currently screened for by measuring a person’s prostate-specific antigen, was outperformed by their protein signature model.

They also identified certain proteins that only predicted one disease; for example, TNF receptor superfamily member 17, a protein responsible for B-cell development, was highly specific for predicting multiple myeloma.

Model Based on One-Time Sample

Participants’ blood samples were only taken once at the start of the study. Their health outcomes were followed through their electronic health records for 10 years.

Ms. Carrasco-Zanini-Sanchez said it is unlikely that blood protein levels would change too drastically.

“There are not that many studies with repeated proteomic sampling. But the ones that exist do show that there are quite stable levels or stable measurements of the proteins. Very large variations are mostly associated with changes in risk factors or the environment that may, on itself, predispose you to a different disease.”

Ms. Carrasco-Zanini-Sanchez envisioned that their test may help doctors make better judgments on diagnosing and treating high-risk groups.

“If we think about screening the entire population [for celiac disease] … about one person in 100 people will basically go on to develop celiac disease,” she said, adding that many people may need to be tested to only help one person.

However, in specific population groups, like those with autoimmune disease, their risks of developing celiac disease are higher.

“This is kind of the general framework in which we envision,” she said, “It’s just about finding the right population in which you would apply this sort of test realistically.”

The first author said that doctors in the United States may also use the proteomics test to screen their own patients for diseases during checkups.

All we’ve got to say is, good luck with that.

According to The Verge, Amazon is planning to release a newer, subscription-based version of Alexa – the “assistant” who knows to set food timers and tell you the weather and, well, that’s pretty much it, with generative artificial intelligence support that will cost as much as $10 a month. Alexa will still be free for the basic version you have now, but the newly upgraded version will offer conversational generative AI with a monthly fee, which the Wall Street Journal reports could launch as soon as this month.

While Amazon is reportedly targeting an August launch date for this new version of Alexa but that is subject to change. This comes as Amazon has started to roll out an improved version of Alexa on Fire TVs to help make finding movies and TV shows easier.

Amazon hopes that putting its AI-upgraded Alexa –which may be called “Alexa Plus” or “Remarkable Alexa”– behind a paywall will drive revenue, but the plan is under a lot of pressure according to CordcutterNews.

In 2022, reports said Alexa was set to lose Amazon $10 billion that year. As recent as November, Amazon cut several hundred jobs in its Alexa division. In short, a smaller team has to handle more work in a short amount of time.

In addition, asking people who already use the voice assistant to start paying for it could backfire.

“[S]ome were questioning the entire premise of charging for Alexa,” sources said in the report of other Amazon employees said earlier this year. “For example, people who already pay for an existing Amazon service, such as Amazon Music, might not be willing to pay additional money to get access to the newer version of Alexa.”

The new technology has been tested by 15,000 customers, according to the report, and while it excels in human-like conversation, it’s “deflecting answers, often giving unnecessarily long or inaccurate responses.”

This comes after Amazon unveiled an upgraded, more human-sounding version of Alexa in September. The enhancements aim to bring the company’s voice assistant in line with newer artificial intelligence technology.

In the end of the day, however, the question is “would you pay for use Alexa”, and if not, just how brittle is the AI castle in the sky built on hopes of dreams of widespread adoption and which has singlehandedly propped up the market for the past two years…

Authored by Ian Miller via The Brownstone Institute,

The response to the Covid-19 pandemic revealed many concerning aspects of how government functions and how committed individuals and institutions are to maintaining their preferred narratives.

Truth, data, science, evidence…apparently none of those matter relative to the importance of ensuring the public complies with their desired behavior. Perhaps no single individual has been a better representation of the symbiotic relationship between government officials and media members, as well as their ceaseless commitment to ideological priorities, than Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Fauci’s NIAID and its parent organization, the National Institutes of Health, have been two of the most prolific spreaders of ideologically motivated misinformation ever during the pandemic. But Fauci is no longer part of NIH, having departed for the considerable financial rewards available from the private sector. 

So as a result of his timely exit, we must finally be witnessing improvements regarding government studies and communication, right? Right?

Not exactly.

Government Covid Misinformation Continues Unabated

A triumphant, breathless press release from the National Institutes of Health was just released in the past week covering a new study that claimed a horrifying new conclusion.

Contracting Covid-19 once is bad, but God forbid you experience two bouts of the virus…It’s terrifying. 

That’s their claim resulting from utilizing massive volumes of “health data” on over 200,000 Americans who they believe had Covid at least once over a two-and-a-half-year period from 2020-2022.

“Those individuals were originally infected between March 1, 2020-Dec. 31, 2022, and experienced a second infection by March 2023. Most participants (203,735) had Covid-19 twice, but a small number (478) had it three times or more,” the study says.

The conclusion, is at first glance, concerning. 

“Using health data from almost 213,000 Americans who experienced reinfections, researchers have found that severe infections from the virus that causes COVID-19 tend to foreshadow similar severity of infection the next time a person contracts the disease. Additionally, scientists discovered that long COVID was more likely to occur after a first infection compared to a reinfection,” the NIH summary claims.

That sounds pretty bad. If you get infected a second time, you’re likely to experience a severe case of Covid. Right?

Except that is a completely inaccurate conclusion based on the limited data presented. 

“About 27% of those with severe cases, defined as receiving hospital care for a coronavirus infection, also received hospital care for a reinfection. Adults with severe cases were more likely to have underlying health conditions and be ages 60 or older. In contrast, about 87% of those who had mild Covid cases that did not require hospital care the first time also had mild cases of reinfections,” the researchers write.

And there’s the real story, hidden in plain sight.

We know from years of experience that Covid significantly impacts those who are in poor health, have underlying conditions, or are older AND in poor health. We also know that a very small percentage of Covid cases require treatment in a hospital setting. 

All this study shows is that those who are in poor health, have underlying conditions, or are older, are more likely to need additional care if they get Covid a second time. Even then, 73% of those who had a second infection and were hospitalized the first time did not need hospitalization for the second infection. Sure enough, the vast, vast majority of those who had mild Covid cases the first time had mild Covid cases the second time.

The protection from natural immunity is highly important and generally durable, though less so when an individual with poor underlying health has contracted the virus. This is nothing new. But that didn’t stop the new head of the NIH from spouting some impressive fear-mongering and bad science.

NIH Can’t Stop Getting Things Wrong

Dr. Monica Bertagnolli posted a link to the study on X, and a short summary. She repeated the same line about the severity of Covid reinfections, which were intended to undermine the importance of natural immunity.

And more importantly, she claimed that the results underscore “the importance of preventing infection.”

After analyzing data from 200K Americans who had #COVID19 twice, researchers found that a severe #COVID case tended to foreshadow a similarly severe infection the second time, underscoring the importance of preventing infection[.]

Except that’s an impossibility. SARS-CoV-2 is an endemic virus. It will never be eliminated. It will never be stopped. Infection cannot be avoided. Vaccinations don’t prevent it, masks surely are ineffective, and any public interaction may result in an infection.

There simply is no way to prevent infection, which is why some countries have now reported that roughly 70% of their population, even with masking and vaccination, have tested positive. Telling those at risk to try to avoid infection is irresponsible and inaccurate. So why is this coming from the NIH?

Sure enough, these researchers also accidentally made the case for natural immunity. When studying the nonexistent phenomenon of “long Covid,” they found that those who had typical, longer-lasting effects from viral infections had bigger reactions after their first infection.

“Scientists also discovered that regardless of the variant, long Covid cases were more likely to occur after a first infection compared to a reinfection,” the study says.

Why is that? Because of natural immunity. 

Under Anthony Fauci, they spent years downplaying it. They continue to undermine it in 2024. But the reality and the science continue to prove that natural immunity is protective and durable, and this is especially true for those in good health and younger age groups. Imagine if government agencies had been willing to admit this in 2020 instead of pointlessly locking down all of society in order to somehow prevent a virus that cannot be prevented.

That would have been the correct evaluation and communication.

But since when have government agencies handled a single aspect of Covid correctly?

*  *  *

Republished from the author’s Substack

The radical left-wing Black Lives Matter group demanded on Tuesday that the Democratic National Committee host an informal, virtual snap primary across the country ahead of the DNC convention in August because the installation of Vice President Kamala Harris as the presumptive Democratic nominee, without any public voting process threatens “the integrity of our democracy and the voices of Black voters.” 

“The current political landscape is unprecedented, with President Biden stepping aside in a manner never seen before,” BLM wrote in a statement, explaining how the “Democratic Party elites and billionaire donors are attempting to manipulate Black voters by anointing Kamala Harris and an unknown vice president as the new Democratic ticket without a primary vote by the public.” 

On Sunday, President Biden announced he would be exiting the presidential race and endorsed VP Harris to replace him at the top of the Democratic ticket to face former President Trump in the November presidential elections. Democrats have hemorrhaged all other talking points, such as the miracles of ‘Bidenomics,’ and resorted to this race is all about ‘defending democracy.’ 

Notice how Trump’s rising election odds via PredictIt data prompted an immediate response from leftist corporate media outlets, resulting in a surge of articles about how Democrats were “defending democracy” from Trump.

Meanwhile, BLM articulated very strongly that picking Harris without a public vote is a “blatant disregard for democratic principles” and “unacceptable.”

“We have no idea where Kamala Harris stands on the issues, now that she has assumed Joe Biden’s place, and we have no idea of the record of her potential vice president because we don’t even know who it is yet,” the leftist group said. 

BLM emphasized:

“We do not live in a dictatorship. Delegates are not oligarchs. Any attempt to evade or override the will of voters in our primary system—no matter how historic the candidate—must be condemned. We demand an informal, virtual snap primary now that the incumbent president is no longer in the running.” 

It gets better… 

“For the past few years, the Democratic Party has proclaimed that “democracy is on the ballot” in an effort to persuade Black voters to participate in the upcoming general election. They have presented this as the most serious election for democracy in our lifetimes. However, democracy isn’t just an ideal to be protected against Republicans; it must also be safeguarded from erosions within the Democratic Party.”

And better. 

“Installing Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee and an unknown vice president without any public voting process would make the modern Democratic Party a party of hypocrites.”

Again, better. 

“Imagine our first Black woman president not having won some sort of public nomination process. The pundits would immediately label it as affirmative action or a DEI move, and any progress made by a President Harris would be on shaky foundations. If Kamala Harris is to be the nominee, it must be through a process that upholds democratic principles and public participation.”

Shalomyah Bowers, one of BLM’s leaders, said:

“This is about the nominating process. Those of us who care about the principles of democracy cannot be serious about installing Kamala Harris and an unknown vice president as the Democratic nominee without any semblance of a people-powered process. Not delegates and party elites, but actually asking communities across the country if they believe this should be the democratic ticket. Anything less is unserious in the quest for democracy. Democracies are stronger when political parties operate with primary systems that allow for genuine participation.”

Oh, the irony: the Democratic Party, once the champion of voter rights and freedom of speech, now finds itself accused of voter suppression and disenfranchisement. Like BLM said, “Democratic Party elites and billionaire donors”… 

Soros. 

Are attempting to install Harris, all in the name of “saving democracy” against Trump. Yet, in doing so, they undermine the principles they claim to protect. 

Here is what X users are saying about this:

Glad to see y’all actually being on the right side

The system removed Joe and installed Kamala and left voters out of the decision

— Hodgetwins (@hodgetwins) July 23, 2024

Woke eats their own. I love it. I agree, Biden is the nominee.

— Valentina Gomez (@ValentinaForSOS) July 23, 2024

Wow BLM on the right side of history.. thats something i thought id never say

— aka (@akafacehots) July 23, 2024

They should call it the Undemocratic Party from now on

— Beff – e/acc (@BasedBeffJezos) July 24, 2024

I never thought I’d say this, but good on them. They’re absolutely right.

— Mediocre Thoughts (@EarwQrm) July 23, 2024

Dude.. did they forget they’re a bunch or Marxists at BLM? I mean, I’m having a hard time disagreeing with them here!

— Joe Pags Pagliarulo (@JoeTalkShow) July 24, 2024

Let’s not forget. 

You’ve been getting played. pic.twitter.com/3HvkBfagp8

— Starving Artist (@Starvin38883324) July 24, 2024

Jamaican-born father and an Indian-born mother.
The only Black DNA in Kamala was from Willie Brown. pic.twitter.com/kWt1OOigTr

— Thomas Barrett (@barretto724) July 23, 2024

This is entertainment indeed. 

Authored by Sophie Li via The Epoch Times,

Alameda County, home to Oakland, ranked No. 1 in homicides in the state per capita in 2023, according to a report released earlier this month, by the California Attorney General’s office.

Meanwhile, Merced County – in the central region of the state – which topped the list in 2022, showed a sharp decrease in homicides and fell out of the state’s top five.

Los Angeles County, despite accounting for more than one-third of homicides in the state, also was not on the top five list.

Statewide, 1,892 homicide cases were reported in 2023 – a nearly 16 percent decrease compared to 2022. This is the first time the number of homicides has dropped below 2,000 since 2020.

1. Alameda County, Pop. 1.63 Million

The county just north of San Jose topped the list with a murder rate of 10 per 100,000 residents, totaling 165 cases in 2023.

The number is an 11 percent increase over a five-year period and a 3 percent rise from 2022.

A majority of murders occurred in Oakland, with 126 deaths reported by the Oakland Police Department––representing a homicide rate of 27.6 per 100,000 persons.

2. San Joaquin County, Pop. 793,220

Just east of Alameda County, San Joaquin County ranked second in the state with a homicide rate of 9.6 per 100,000 residents, totaling 75 cases last year.

Over a 10-year period covered in the report, the county has consistently been one of the “deadliest” regions in the state, with a homicide rate significantly higher than the state average each year. Additionally, the county has ranked highest in violent crime in recent years.

3. Tulare County, Pop. 477,544

Named after Tulare Lake, this growing county has also seen a rise in its homicide rate in recent years.

With 43 murders in 2023, the county ranked third in the state in 2023 with a murder rate of 9.1 per 100,000 residents. The number has grown by 117 percent since 2019.

4. Kern County, Pop. 916,108; Kings County, Pop. 152,981

Tied for fourth were Kern and Kings counties, both with a murder rate of 7.9 per 100,000 residents.

Largely different in population, the two counties also show varying trends in homicide throughout the years.

Kern County, which spans the southern end of the Central Valley, has seen a downward trend for the past two years, after hitting a rate of 13.7 per 100,000 residents in 2021.

Conversely, the rate for Kings County, located to the northwest of Kern County, has fluctuated due to its smaller population, but has been on the higher end in the state since 2020.

5. Madera County, Pop. 160,256

In 2023, the rural county—located at the southern entrance to Yosemite National Park—reported 12 homicides, resulting in a murder rate of 7.6 per 100,000 residents. The data also indicated an increase in such crimes over the past three years, though the rate remained below the state average in both 2021 and 2022.

Notable Mention: Los Angeles County

Although not among the top 5 “deadliest” counties in the state, L.A. County accounted for more than one-third of the state’s total homicides in 2023, with 683 cases reported.

With more than 9.7 million residents—the most populous county in the nation—the rate translates to a murder rate of 7 per 100,000 residents.

Such is a 7.6 percent decrease compared to 2022, and a nearly 19 percent decrease compared to 2021.

Additionally, when compared with data from the Los Angeles Police Department’s from January, nearly half of the county’s murder cases, according to the report, occurred in the City of Los Angeles, which had 327 homicides and a rate of 8.4 per 100,000 residents in the city of about 4 million people.

Killed by Acquaintance

The report additionally showed that 48.7 percent of the 2023 murders were committed by friends or acquaintances; 30 percent by strangers; and nearly 15 percent by family members.

Additionally, 80 percent of the victims were male, and 20 percent female.

Nearly half of the victims were Hispanic, 27 percent were black, and 17 percent were white.

Nationwide Comparison

Data also showed California’s largest cities have a much lower homicide rate compared with other major cities across the nation.

In 2023, Washington D.C. reported a murder rate of 39.7 per 100,000 residents; Philadelphia, 23.9, Chicago, 22.5; and Dallas, 18.9—according to a 2023 crime report by the Los Angeles Police Department.

During the first three years of Joe Biden’s presidency one issue was dodged and deflected more than any other – Illegal immigration and the unprotected southern border.  While the stagflation crisis remains at the top of the list of greatest concerns among the majority of Americans, almost every poll of non-economic problems puts immigration at forefront of people’s minds.  

The two things are indelibly linked: Mass illegal immigration helps to feed the fires of economic crisis and inflation.  When your house is in economic decline the last thing you want to do is invite millions of unskilled freeloading migrants into your living room to sleep on your couch and eat from your fridge.

Biden (along with the establishment media) spent an incredible amount of energy and resources denying and hiding the reality of the border situation.  When El Paso, TX was overrun with tens of thousands of illegals and the story could not be suppressed, conservatives demanded that Biden or Kamala Harris visit the region and see the danger for themselves.  Initially, they refused.  

When Biden did finally fly to El Paso the city had been sterilized of all migrants and ironically, a border wall had been erected using storage containers and barbed wire guarded by armed soldiers.  Biden then enjoyed a quick photo op with border patrol agents and pretended as if there was never a problem.  

During this period Harris was responsible for border related policy and PR.  She was often referred to as the “Border Czar” but today Democrats deny this was her position.  Harris had essentially taken over all public and media engagement on the border crisis, but this is a role Democrats would now prefer to diminish as she runs for president.

One would think her first task would be to travel to the US/Mexico border and speak with locals and border agents about how to better secure ports of entry.  Points of invasion should have been addressed and the incentives motivating illegals to come to the US should have been examined.  This didn’t happen, ostensibly because doing so would be an admission that there was indeed a crisis in progress.  

Instead, Harris traveled to Central American countries and launched her “Central America Forward” initiative.  She argued:

“Most people don’t want to leave home, and when they do it is for one of two reasons: because they are fleeing some harm, or because to stay at home means they cannot satisfy the basic needs of their family…We have the capacity to give people hope and the belief that help is on the way.”

Her office said US investment would create more than 70,000 jobs and provide internet access for more than 4.5 million people.  In other words, her solution was to give away even more American taxpayer dollars to pay off possible migrants before they come to the border.  

The program ignored the greater issue of welfare subsidies and housing subsidies offered to “asylum seekers” as well as the 2-year-long waiting list for immigration courts to even address new asylum cases.  During that time, illegals have been allowed to stay in the US and enjoy numerous handouts. Over 60% of non-citizen households access US welfare programs that they rarely pay into.

Biden and Harris fought for the end of Title 42, the Trump order that stopped migrants from living in the US while their asylum cases were processed.  They also tried to sabotage Governor Greg Abbott’s efforts to defend the Texas Border by creating a razor wire barrier.  Abbott has already put a dramatic dent in illegal crossing in the past year (a drop of 74%), and he promised to triple his razor wire projects should Kamala Harris become president.

In a 2019 interview with National Public Radio, Harris suggested as president she would declare all illegal border-crossers refugees despite unconfirmed claims, even if that meant ignoring the law.  She argued:   

“I disagree with any policy that would turn America’s back on people who are fleeing harm. I frankly believe that it is contrary to everything that we have symbolically and actually said we stand for. And so, I would not enforce a law that would reject people and turn them away without giving them a fair and due process to determine if we should give them asylum and refuge.”

Harris also insinuated that ICE agents were a symbol of racism, stating in a Senate confirmation hearing for Trump nominee Ronald Vitiello that:

“Certain communities saw ICE as comparable to the Ku Klux Klan for administering its power in a way that is causing fear and intimidation, particularly among immigrants and specifically among immigrants coming from Mexico and Central America…”

Harris visited the border just once as Vice President, traveling to El Paso after immense public pressure.  Her plan to control mass immigration by “going to the source” and paying migrants to stay home failed.  Illegal crossings continued to skyrocket.

Putting a stop to the border surge would require threatening Central American nations with economic retaliation should they continue to allow migrant caravans to cross their lands and travel to the US.  It would require a complete moratorium on asylum applications and an end to welfare subsidies.  Finally, illegals would have to be deported in large numbers in order to send a message that coming to America without going through proper channels is a waste of time and energy.  

Harris will do none of these things.  In fact, her history shows that as president she will do the opposite and likely surpass Biden in border degradation.  Where Biden tried to hide his open border agenda from the public, Harris will be brazen and unapologetic.  She will gaslight the public and suggest the crisis is actually to their benefit.  She will rationalize open borders as a humanitarian necessity. 

Authored by Sohrab Darabshaw via Metal Miner,

• The global demand for copper is projected to increase by 40% by 2040, driven by the adoption of green technologies.

• Vedanta Resources has regained control of the Konkola Copper Mines, a major high-grade copper deposit in Zambia.

• The Cobre Panama mine closure and reduced output from Chinese smelters have contributed to concerns about a potential copper shortage.

By now, the world knows that although the current global copper reserves are sufficient to meet demand, extraction continues to lag behind consumption.

As a result, many inside and outside the copper market fear there will be a shortage in the coming years. 

Predictions say that the annual global demand for copper will increase by about 40% by 2040.

There are multiple factors fueling this expected growth, including the global move toward renewable energy and sustainable transportation.

Given this current environment, any developments around copper and its mining remain guaranteed to hit the headlines. 

Reclaiming an Essential Asset in the Copper Market 

Analysts watched from the sidelines for months as the Anil Agarwal-led Vedanta Resources Holdings Limited tried to regain control of the Konkola Copper Mines (KCM) in Zambia, Africa. That was before news arrived earlier this week that the global conglomerate had fulfilled its commitment under the “KCM scheme” of arrangement through a payment of U.S. $245.75 million.

With this move, the copper market could see the immediate reinstatement of KCM’s Board of Directors and the restoration of full management control to Vedanta. This critical step is necessary for Vedanta to boost production and fully unlock KCM’s potential.

KCM boasts copper grades over 2.4%, placing it among the world’s largest high-grade copper deposits. Moreover, the mine also has about 400 kt of contained cobalt reserves and resources, meaning KCM can become a top cobalt producer. As per media reports, Vedanta hopes to push copper production at KCM to 300 ktpa and hike cobalt production from 1 ktpa to 6 ktpa through enhanced production capabilities. 

Global Copper Supply Remains in Doubt  

Vedanta spent the past five years actively pushing to take full management control of the  KCM mine. However, the Zambian Government forced the copper mine into liquidation in 2019 after President Edgar Lungu accused it of failing to increase copper production.

Commenting on the development to LiveMint, Chairman of Vedanta Group Anil Aggarwal said copper was the metal of the future. According to him, the Government of India wanted to secure a copper supply line for its own internal consumption. Incidentally, India has significantly limited domestic production, making it dependent on imports. According to a report by India’s Commerce Ministry, India imported copper plus copper articles worth $12 million in FY23 alone. 

One significant event that impacted copper market dynamics was the closure of the Cobre Panama mine, a major global copper source. This closure altered market expectations from a surplus to a deficit, thus driving copper prices higher.

Green Tech Continues to Fuel Copper Demand Predictions 

Moreover, Chinese smelters decided to reduce output back in March due to a concentrate shortage, further increasing prices. Because of the feared upcoming shortage, copper miners globally foresee closer collaboration with end users, ranging from carmakers to utilities, which could help transform a previously fragmented supply chain. 

According to this report, the change mainly revolves around copper’s importance in green technologies, which will likely only increase in the coming years. In fact, there’s an emerging trend involving some mining companies trying to sign direct deals with cable manufacturers, automotive companies, etc. in order to secure a steady supply of copper at an affordable price.

It may eventually come down to a situation in which anyone using copper for any purpose, be it vehicles, green energy, or charging stations, will have to understand and plan how to lay their hands on the amount of copper they require every year. 

Analysts believe that to get anywhere near net-zero targets by 2035, yearly copper demand may double to 50 MMT. Even conservative estimates predict a one-third increase in demand over the next decade, fueled by significant investments in decarbonization initiatives from both the public and private sectors. This will significantly strain copper markets in both the short and long term.

Authored by Wendy McElroy via The Mises Institute,

The scandal surrounding Canada’s Kamloops Indian Residential School (1890-1969, British Columbia) is an ultracautionary tale about the damage inflicted by self-interested politicians and activists, backed by a media that toes the line. The 2021 scandal sprang from the alleged discovery of 215 graves of indigenous children. They were said to have died under suspicious circumstances at the Catholic-run school and then buried in unmarked graves behind the facility. Kamloops was one of the largest schools in the residential system through which indigenous children were culturally deprogrammed and indoctrinated to mold them into “proper” Canadians.

When the story broke, the press fell over itself in a race to sensationalism. CBC News on May 28 declared, “Remains of 215 children found buried at former B.C. residential school, First Nation says.” The Toronto Star announced on May 28, “The remains of 215 children have been found. Now, Indigenous leaders say, Canada must help find the rest of the unmarked graves.” The international press jumped on the speeding news train with their own headlines, such as “‘Horrible History’: Mass Grave of Indigenous Children Reported in Canada’” from The New York Times on May 31.

Actually, no graves had been discovered; their existence was extrapolated from “anomalies” in the earth found by ground-penetrating radar. Such anomalies are commonplace, however, and usually indicate a tree root, a large rock, or some other innocuous presence. Today, after three years and almost $8 million of publicly unaccountable funds being expended, no graves have been found. No one has bothered to even start the digging necessary to verify anything.

Evidence is optional in the court of opinion

The world was ready to believe without evidence. The residential school system was a horrific page of Canadian history and an act of cultural assault, if not cultural genocide. Perhaps this history lent an automatic credibility to the accusations that many students died prematurely and were buried anonymously as a cover-up or out of callousness.

The fallout from these accusations was stunning. Canada was internationally smeared as a genocidal nation; the United Nations called for prompt action on a massive “human rights violation”; the Pope apologized; dozens of Catholic Churches in Canada were burned down in retaliation; the 2021 Canada Day celebrations were canceled in national shame, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau taking a knee to indigenous people. Subsequent government funds were pledged, including $3.1 million for a National Residential School Student Death Register and $238.8 million for a Residential Schools Missing Children Community Support Fund. Other governments followed suit. For example, the government of Ontario pledged $10 million to search for unmarked graves at residential schools in this province.

Eventually, academics and journalists began to ask for evidence. In a 2022 New York Post article entitled “Biggest fake news story in Canada: Kamloops mass grave debunked by academics,” Professor Jacques Rouillard of the Department of History at Université de Montréal expressed an increasingly common concern. “Not one body has been found. After … months of recrimination and denunciation, where are the remains of the children buried at the Kamloops Indian Residential School?” And why hadn’t a single missing person’s report on them been found?

Almost alone among prominent Canadian media, the National Post ran a series of articles that showed cracks in what had become an almost sacred narrative about Kamloops. A Sept. 6, 2023, headline asked, “Who started calling residential school burial sites mass graves? At least in the beginning, First Nations didn’t claim there were deliberately hidden ‘mass graves.’ Media and activists did.” A May 30, 2024, article concluded, “Canada slowly acknowledging there never was a ‘mass grave’. There was much that was dark about residential schools, but no graves have been confirmed at Kamloops to this day.” In late 2023, the anthology “Grave Error: How the Media Misled Us (and the Truth about Residential Schools)” appeared.

In response to a growing backlash, the special interlocutor assigned to the Kamloops criminal case asked Parliament to make “denialism” of this matter illegal under the criminal code. Those who expressed public skepticism would be vulnerable to prosecution for a hate crime in much the same manner as those who denied the Holocaust. Under section 319 of the criminal code, the willful promotion of antisemitism, unless in a private conversation, could lead to up to two years in prison. This includes “condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust.” Discussions of Kamloops would receive the same treatment. On Nov. 26, 2023, the Canadian Press reported that Justice Minister Arif Virani was still considering how to criminalize residential school denialism. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau expressed sympathy for the idea.

Making the open discussion of a news story into an illegal act obviously guts freedom of speech and journalism. The government wants to control both the information we can hear and our judgment of its worth. This is nothing new, and it is well-explored ground.

But lesser-discussed damages inflicted by the handling of Kamloops are important and common to many cover-ups.

Every day that passes without exhumations casts more doubt about the validity of the Kamloops story. If the narrative is true, then refusing to confirm it is an outrageous offense against the indigenous children lying in these graves. If false, then it is an outrageous offense against any indigenous person who reports a true atrocity in the future and is received with greater skepticism due to Kamloops. If false, then Kamloops also provides shade for real genocides around the globe. The CBC reported on June 22, 2021, “On the same day Canada helped to launch an international effort at the United Nations to demand that China allow free access to Xinjiang to investigate reported human rights violations, China and its allies have called on the UN to investigate crimes against Indigenous people in Canada.” When genocide becomes a game of political chess, it loses its connection to truth or justice.

The politicization of Kamloops also prevents genuine healing for those involved because healing rests on understanding, not lies. As it stands, there is deepening antipathy on the part of the main parties: the white Christians accused and the indigenous people. Since May 2021, at least 33 Catholic Churches have burned to the ground, with 24 being confirmed as arsons.The Catholic Register on June 5, 2024, noted, “Over 100 Canadian Christian churches have been vandalized, damaged by fire or outright burned to the ground since the Kamloops’ claim first came to light.” (A map of vandalized or destroyed churches is here, valid as of February 2024.) To some, it feels like open war has been declared on Christianity, especially Catholicism.

For their part, how can indigenous people join hands with white Christians when the latter are portrayed as the murderers of their children who bury the evidence in unmarked graves? The residential system has ceased to be the historical shame it truly is and has become, instead, a multigenerational burden of guilt that stretches forward forever.

It does not have to be this way. The continuing turmoil is created by those to whom it brings power and money. The Epoch Times is correct in stating, “It’s absurd that people can claim a site contains the bodies of hundreds of murdered children yet refuse to allow further investigation into the issue. Only when we have confirmed what did or didn’t happen in Canadian residential schools will we be able to close the door on that chapter of our national history. Until there are excavations at the Kamloops site, the myths will continue to be spun and national healing won’t happen.” In the most literal sense, it is time to start digging for the truth.

This is unlikely to happen. For one thing, in his 2021 federal election campaign, Trudeau leaned heavily on the promise to right the wrongs done against indigenous Canadians. For another thing, the federal government owns much of the mainstream media. Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa explained the government’s system of financially “supporting” the media:

“While the current system covers 25% of the journalist costs up to $55,000 per employee (or $13,750), the government’s fall economic statement increases both the percentage covered and cap per employee. Under the new system, which is retroactive to the start of this year [2023], Qualified Canadian Journalism Organizations (which covers print and digital but not broadcasters) can now claim 35% of the costs of journalist expenditures up to $85,000 per employee. It increases the support to up to $29,750 per employee or an increase of 116%. This new support will run for four years at a cost of $129 million ($60 million this year alone).”

Thus, in a literal sense, the federal government owns much of the mainstream media, at least in terms of paying their salaries.

This is yet another cost of perpetuating an official narrative without evidence. Dismantling freedom of the press is a prerequisite to establishing the politically sacred version of an event, such as the discovery of 215 bodies of indigenous children. If the bodies exist, they will probably never be exhumed and given a proper burial. There is no political advantage in doing so.

Update (2020ET): To be frank, he didn’t sound great at all. Speaking quietly in his new ‘hoarse’ voice, President Biden did not use the word “Hitler” or explain why he is actually resigning from the race (aside from his usual platitudes), but there was still plenty of division and fearmongering for everyone if you don’t vote the ‘right’ way.

He began:

“My fellow Americans:

It’s been the honor of my life to serve as your President.

I draw strength and find joy in working for the people.

But this sacred task of perfecting our Union is not about me. It’s about you. Your families. Your futures.

It’s about “We the People.””

He continued to explain that he quit “for party unity.”

“Nothing can come in the way of saving our democracy.

And that includes personal ambition.

So I have decided the best way forward is to pass the torch to a new generation.

That is the best way to unite our nation.”

Then the division and warnings started:

America is at an inflection point.

We must choose between moving forward or backward.
Between hope and hate.
Between unity and division.

We have to decide: Do we still believe in honesty, decency, and respect?

Freedom, justice, and democracy?

“The sacred cause of our country is larger than any one of us,” he whispered on, adding that “those of us who cherish that cause – the cause of American democracy itself – must unite to protect it.”

“In just a few months, the American people will choose the course of America’s future. I made my choice.”

Watch the full brief remarks here and let us know what you thought:

 

President Joe Biden will (allegedly or it could be a ‘cheap fake’) appear on camera from the Oval Office on July 24 for the first time since ending his candidacy and a week after testing positive for COVID-19.

“Tomorrow evening at 8 PM ET, I will address the nation from the Oval Office on what lies ahead, and how I will finish the job for the American people,” he said in a post on X.

The president has been out of the public eye since testing positive for COVID-19 on July 17 while campaigning in Las Vegas.

President Biden canceled his remaining events and has since self-isolated in his home in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.

President Biden spoke with reporters after exiting Air Force One in his return to the White House on Tuesday.

“Watch and listen. Why don’t you wait and hear what I say?” he said when asked what his message will be during his speech on Wednesday night, his first on-camera appearance since contracting COVID-19 on July 17.

A reporter asked President Biden why he dropped out of the election. He turned his head to the reporter and laughed before walking to his motorcade.

His ever-willing accomplice, KJP, just expressly told the White House Press Corps that the President continues to believe that he can serve four more years and did not withdraw due to his diminished state.

“It has nothing to do with his health.”

So, as Jonathan Turley wrote on X:

“he ran out the primaries and then decided that the party would swap out presidential candidates at the convention for political reasons. This was after the Democratic establishment fought against anyone running against him or holding any debates…

…The question is whether, in light of the decision to withdraw after the primaries, the President will agree to submit to neurological and cognitive tests in light of calls for the 25th Amendment process to start.”

Watch President Biden cough, stumble, stammer, yell, and whisper-mode through his explanation for why he dropped out but is perfectly healthy otherwise… (due to start at 2000ET)…