Author: admin

On June 22, President Trump issued an Executive Order barring nearly all visa workers – a move he said would open up 525,000 American jobs.

And here is @POTUS’s Executive Order today. It will preserve about 525,000 jobs for Americans during the remainder of 2020. This is an #AmericaFirst policy… really it is putting AMERICANS First! https://t.co/JkxnV4jZMd

— Acting Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli (@HomelandKen) June 22, 2020

Unsurprisingly, the #resistance found a way to neuter Trump’s order – and it didn’t even take a Democrat-appointed judge! 

According to immigration attorney Charles Kuck, the State Department made an “extraordinary change in policy” on June 12 which completely undermines Trump’s Executive Order – and translates to “no significant ban in place for nonimmigrant visa holders.”

The new provisions are broad enough, if well argued, to essentially incorporate ANY job in America. The reality is, with these “exceptions” in place, there is no significant ban in place for nonimmigrant visa holders.

— Charles Kuck (@ckuck) August 12, 2020

Another immigration lawyer, John Miano of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, told Breitbart “They have totally eviscerated the requirements” of the executive order. “There is no doubt about it — whoever created this is thumbing their noses at President Trump.“

“You can bet that the guys who did this are voting for [Joe] Biden,” he added.

Kevin Lynn, founder of US Tech Workers said “This is an insult to the President of the United States, it is an insult to working men and women of the United States.”

Via Breitbart:

There are less than 90 days to go in the election. How can he persuade Americans he’s keeping any of this 2016 promises if he allows the State Department to nullify and gut the E.O. he signed to protect Americans from [outsourcing by Fortune 500 companies]? More than that — I think it is beginning to make Trump look stupid in front of the voters. He needs to call in Pompeo and talk to him about his job prospects because [Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo does not seem to give a hoot about Americans’ job prospects.

Lynn met with Trump on August 3, along with several employees of the Tennessee Valley Authority, where the president told them he would block three staffing companies from outsourcing their jobs to H-1B workers.

“It doesn’t work that way. As we speak, we’re finalizing H1-B regulations so that no American worker is replaced ever again.  H1-Bs should be used for top, highly paid talent to create American jobs, not as inexpensive labor program to destroy American jobs.” he said.

And according to pro-immigration attorney Greg Siskind, the exemptions are “expansive.” 

More on the State Department’s ‘alterations’ to policy (via Breitbart):

The document says Trump’s directions:

 … include exceptions, including an exception for individuals whose travel would be in the national interest, as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees.  The list below is a non-exclusive list of the types of travel that may be considered to be in the national interest, based on determinations made by the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, exercising the authority delegated to him by the Secretary of State.

Pompeo is the Secretary of State. Carl Risch is the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs.

The list of exemptions is very wide:

Travel by technical specialists, senior level managers, and other workers whose travel is necessary to facilitate the immediate and continued economic recovery of the United States … The petitioning employer has a continued need for the services or labor to be performed by the H-1B nonimmigrant in the United States.

Miano is an expert on visa worker laws and studied the long list of exemptions:

The first one on the list is what they needed to do to get the visas in the first place … Number 2, any of them can do that, no problem … Number 3 is totally meaningless — anyone can do that … ‘Financial Hardship’ for an employer is so loosey goosy that anyone can meet that … ‘Critical Infrastructure’ is basically anything.

Lynn was less formal;

This is effing b….. Who the f… came up with these exceptions? … You can drive a Mack truck through this …. The exemptions basically cover anyone on an H-IB or a J-1 or an L-1 …. Boom! They’re in … with all the exemptions, there is no EO — they’ve eliminated the EO through the exemptions.”

One of the most notable exemptions are for visa workers who have jobs at government agencies, usually via Indian-run staffing companies:

… individuals, identified by the Department of Defense or another U.S. government agency, performing research, providing IT support/services, or engaging other similar projects essential to a U.S. government agency.

The document also provides exemptions to foreign workers who have taken jobs from Americans in “critical infrastructure,” such as the TVA jobs blocked by Trump:

The applicant’s proposed job duties or position within the petitioning company indicate the individual will provide significant and unique contributions to an employer meeting a critical infrastructure need.  Critical infrastructure sectors are chemical, communications, dams, defense industrial base, emergency services, energy, financial services, food and agriculture, government facilities, healthcare and public health, information technology, nuclear reactors, transportation, and water systems.

“The people who are doing this are ignoring the president,” said Miano. “I can only guess at their motivations, but we can say it is Deep State acting independently.”

“In a close election, with time running out, with [2016] expectations not met … Trump needs things to go smoothly from now till November, and this list clearly he has people in the  State Department sabotaging him,” said Miano.

*  *  *

According to Lynn, “When word of this gets out to the public that every E.O. he writes is not worth the paper it is written on,” adding “Because through exceptions, they become get nullified by the Deep State, he loses the voters’ trust and confidence.”

“What good is a State Department that becomes the tool of corporations that want to displace Americans, when tens of millions of Americans are under extreme financial duress?”

Authored by Stacey Lennox via PJMedia.com,

Adbusters, the group credited with energizing the Occupy Wall Street protests, is now pushing a 50-day siege on the White House beginning on September 17.

This date is the same day the Occupy riots started in 2011. The group is an anti-consumerism magazine based in Vancouver, British Columbia.

On September 17, 2020 we will lay siege to The @WhiteHouse for exactly fifty days.

We need your wisdom and expertise to pull off a radically democratic toneshift in our politics.

Are you ready for #revolution?

This is the #WhiteHouseSiege
🔥https://t.co/gWw8jDJC05 pic.twitter.com/bTxyLvl7a7

— Adbusters (@Adbusters) July 28, 2020

You might call Adbusters the marketing wing of the revolution. It would be naive to think the use of the words “siege” and “occupation” are unintentional. They did occupy Wall Street for nearly two months from Zuccotti Park in New York City’s financial district. Protests continued through the first anniversary and have recurred at least annually since.

They have an activist wing, the Blackspot Collective. They claim they have 13,000 activists in their collective and are explicit in their desire to overturn liberal democracy. Liberal, in this case, refers to our foundational ideas—free speech, individual rights and freedoms, property rights, and objective reality—not left-wing politics.

You would also have to be pretty wet behind the ears to assume some of the agitators in Lafayette Park recently were not their operatives. It is highly likely they used the Peaceful Protestors™ as cover to collect intelligence about how federal law enforcement operates and to develop plans.

During the Occupy riots, NPR reported that Adbusters distanced themselves from the protests:

Adbusters is an anti-consumerism magazine based in Vancouver, British Columbia. This summer, it proposed a Sept. 17 “occupation” of Wall Street, and the idea caught fire.

Adbusters doesn’t claim any control over the protests. It wouldn’t give NPR an interview, for instance, for fear of overshadowing the movement. It sees itself more as an idea shop, sort of an “anti-advertising firm” that takes special glee in creating fake ads to subvert the message of real products

With the new activist arm, this type of distance from any outcome of the advertised “siege” becomes much more difficult. The two groups share a website and make their association quite clear. Adbusters has a manifesto, and so does Blackspot.

Adbusters provides the visual art to communicate ideas in what they refer to as The Metamematic Insurrection, or meme war:

In short, we must rethink almost all economic, political, and cultural precepts we’ve taken for granted for generations. We must breathe fresh life into progressivism, revive its mojo, and return it to the visionary force for change it once was.

Our strategy is to zero in on a new grand narrative, a once-in-a-millennium mind shift, a set of big ideas — metamemes — so fundamental, so systemic, so profound that a sane and sustainable future is unthinkable without them.

In short, they are shooting for an economic, political, and cultural revolution. When you watch the latest rant on Adbusters’ website, the things they hate become clear. Capitalism, individual freedom, and private property are the things they seek to tear down. You can see this clearly in their featured video. The background narrative is comedian George Carlin, so it is only fair to provide a language warning:

It is interesting to note that woke CEO Jeff Bezos is featured. One has to wonder when these successful businessmen will understand there is no amount of virtue signaling that will save them from the mob. They are genuinely the frogs in the pot.

Now Blackspot is much more direct in their language. They are explicitly calling for a collectivist and intersectional revolution. Note the reference to tactical briefings. Attorney General Bill Barr is not overstating the organization and training these insurrectionist groups engage in:

Acting as one, we can overturn the failing neoliberal order, revitalize democracy and secure a sustainable future that computes. But only if we can summon the radical ideas and revolutionary spirit equal to overcoming these threats — existential threats that we all must face together.

We’re at a tipping point. The internet has reversed a centuries old power dynamic. Billions of us now hold the most revolutionary tool ever invented in the palms of our hands. Backed by collectives like ours, the streets have unprecedented power. After centuries of rule by kings, emperors, tyrants, mad men, fascists, communists, Maoists, military dictatorships, corporations and white supremacists like Donald Trump, we can now take charge of our own destiny and start calling the shots from below.

Today we are 10,000 strong. Tomorrow we will be 100,000. The day after next, we could amass a billion people — enough to spark a world revolution in how we live, love and think.

Hysterically, the primary campaign of an anti-consumerism magazine touts the products of capitalism and consumerism as the means to organize a revolution.

They’re filming the revolution with their iPhones and they are too steeped in their social-justice memes to see the irony.

This unrest is going to put Democrats in a precarious position in the lead-up to the election. The entire party establishment has allowed Peaceful Protestors™ in places like Portland and Seattle to engage in violence and destruction without consequence. After Americans witness 50 days of escalating insanity in the nation’s capital in the lead-up to the election, support for law and order is likely to increase.

The elites of the Democrat Party, including Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris, are going to have to denounce these radicals if they want to have a prayer in the suburbs. With Black Lives Matter endorsing looting in Chicago over the past weekend, leading Democrats kneeling in deference to their demands becomes absurd.

To remain silent in the face of more Peaceful Protestors™ in our nation’s capital should not bring them the electoral success they seek. Groups like Blackspot are trying to tear down liberal democracy, capitalism, and Western culture. Establishment Democrats are steeped in both of these.

Insurrectionists may hate President Trump more, but only because he will not bend a knee. Rest assured, they only hate the Democrat establishment slightly less. Ultimately their revolution is less about justice than it is about power—and no establishment Democrat will inevitably be spared. They might want to take their eyes off their pursuit of power and recognize the real existential threat. It is not mainstream conservatives or even Donald Trump.

Given recent events, there is no reason to believe they will see the truth in that statement any time soon.

Senior editor, Ash Bennington, joins managing editor, Ed Harrison, to discuss secular stagnation, initial jobless claims, and the fiscal cliff. They begin by exploring Ed’s takeaways from his interviews with Milton Berg and Charlie McElligott, their contrarian stances, and how price signal distortion is pointing toward secular stagnation. Ed and Ash also parse the differences between seasonally adjusted and non-seasonally adjusted initial jobless claims and how the treatment of the data shapes the way an investor understands employment trends during the pandemic. They wrap up their discussion by considering USPS funding, the lapse in fiscal aid, and the significant political tail risks ahead for this election cycle. In the intro, Peter Cooper reviews the latest initial jobless claims numbers and the plight of essential workers.

After more than two years of investigations, the DoJ has finally determined that Yale university’s discriminatory practices during the admissions process amounted to evidence of discrimination against white and Asian-American applicants, in violation of a federal civil rights statute.

The DoJ’s two-year investigation concluded that Yale “rejects scores of Asian American and white applicants each year based on their race, whom it otherwise would admit.”

Not only did Trump’s DoJ pick up the previously rejected 2016 complaint, breathing new life into a movement to return US civil rights policy concerning collegiate admissions back to the standard from the Bush era, which was “race blind” admissions. After many years of squawking about that standard being unfair, the Obama Administration ushered in a new “affirmative action” policy that called for quotas.  Trump officially reversed the policy in July 2018.

“Yale’s race discrimination imposes undue and unlawful penalties on racially-disfavored applicants, including in particular Asian American and White applicants,” Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband, the head of the department’s civil rights division, wrote in a letter to the college’s attorneys.

The complaint was based on years of complaints from white and asian applicants who claim they were only rejected because their race made them “similar” to other applicants. Phrases like “she doesn’t have the right profile” – with “profile” being used as a kind of dog whistle for “she’s not the right race” – were uncovered in the records obtained by the DoJ from schools including Yale, Harvard and Dartmouth.

The findings detailed in a letter to Yale’s attorneys mark the Trump administration’s latest step in advancing its college admissions agenda (a low-key critical issue for many white suburban mothers, who spend dozens of hours stressing about their child’s academic future, as we learned during the College Admissions scandal, an extreme example of this instinct.

Prosecutors found that Yale has been discriminating against applicants to its undergraduate program based on their race and national origin and “that race is the determinative factor in hundreds of admissions decisions each year.” The investigation found that Asian American and white students have “only one-tenth to one-fourth of the likelihood of admission as African American applicants with comparable academic credentials.”

“Unlawfully dividing Americans into racial and ethnic blocs fosters stereotypes, bitterness, and division,” Dreiband said in a statement. “It is past time for American institutions to recognize that all people should be treated with decency and respect and without unlawful regard to the color of their skin.”

The investigation also found that Yale uses race as a factor in multiple steps of the admissions process and that Yale “racially balances its classes.”

As the AP reminds us, SCOTUS precedent has a narrowly defined procedure for how race can be factored in to promote diversity. Schools are responsible for showing why their consideration of race is appropriate.

Yale has previously denied that its admissions process discriminates against Asian Americans or any other ethnic group. Responding to the 2018 announcement of the investigation, Yale’s president said race is just one of “a multitude” of factors the school considers when weighing applications.

Yale denied the DoJ’s allegations – and remember, right now, allegations is all they are.

“Yale College could fill its entire entering class several times over with applicants who reach the 99th percentile in standardized testing and who have perfect high school grade point averages, but we do not base admission on such numbers alone,” President Peter Salovey wrote. “Rather, we look at the whole person when selecting whom to admit among the many thousands of highly qualified applicants.”

Over the previous 15 years, he said, the number of Asian American students in Yale’s incoming classes grew from 14% to 22%. He added that the school’s approach “complies fully with all legal requirements and has been endorsed repeatedly by the Supreme Court.”

The Justice Department has demanded that Yale immediately stop and agree not to use race or national origin for upcoming admissions.

This isn’t the first time the DoJ has tried to unilaterally pressure top colleges into eliminating the Obama-era “affirmative action” policies Harvard and other schools ahve also been found guilty of the same violations. The DoJ is now demanding that Yale must come up with a detailed plan to factor in race via the Trump administration’s guidleines, or simply revert back to the blind admissions of yore

Knowing the prevailing sentiments in the world of academia, we suspect they will resist the administration, at least at first, before trying to come to some kind of compromise.

By Mark Hemingway of Real Clear Investigations

David Brock, the onetime anti-Clinton journalist turned Hillary Clinton ally and aggressive promoter of Democratic media narratives in recent decades, faces legal actions and disclosures portraying his organizations as working so closely with the Clinton campaign in 2016 that they broke the law.

The conservative Patriots Foundation alleges in a lawsuit being filed today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that an improperly porous relationship among four Brock-founded organizations amounted to illegal coordination with the Clinton campaign in violation of Federal Election Commission regulations. The best known of the four groups is Media Matters for America, which highlights what it calls media bias from the right. The other three are the American Bridge 21st Century PAC; the American Bridge 21st Century Foundation; and the Correct the Record PAC.  

“American Bridge 21st Century PAC claimed that it was independent of the Clinton campaign so that it could make independent expenditures,” the Patriots Foundation said in a statement provided to RealClearInvestigations. “American Bridge is run by the same people who run Media Matters and Correct the Record, however, which we know coordinated with the Clinton campaign.

“They all work from the same offices,” the statement continued, “Brock was paid by all of them, American Bridge and Correct the Record shared at least 6 employees, and Correct the Record made in-kind contributions to American Bridge PAC. American Bridge’s supposedly independent activity was just as coordinated as Media Matters’ and Correct the Record’s activity – meaning that American Bridge’s [expenditures] were really excessive and illegal contributions to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.”

Representatives for the organizations did not respond to requests for comment (Correct the Record is now inactive).  Nor did Brock himself or the Clinton campaign.

This past April, the Patriots Foundation filed an FEC complaint against Brock’s organizations. Since the agency hasn’t acted on it within a requisite 120 days, the Patriots Foundation is now suing the FEC as allowed under campaign finance laws. The Patriots Foundation also filed complaints with the IRS last spring regarding Media Matters and the American Bridge Foundation, but there is no legal remedy to force the IRS’s hand in court as with the FEC. 

The tactics of Media Matters are generally acknowledged as politically aggressive in a way many see at odds with the organization’s 501(c)(3) nonprofit tax status, which stipulates nonpartisanship. In 2008, The New York Times described Media Matters as a “nonprofit, highly partisan research organization.” The Patriots Foundation alleges that in 2016 Media Matters ceased merely appearing to be partisan — it acted openly as an arm of the Hillary Clinton campaign. A December 2016 report in the liberal-leaning magazine the New Republic, highlighted by the group, substantiates this assessment:

The organization [Media Matters] had long ceased to be a mere watchdog, having positioned itself at the center of a group of public relations and advocacy outfits whose mission was to help put Clinton in the White House. … In our numerous conversations with past Media Matters staff, there was a consensus that in the lead-up to Clinton’s announcement of her candidacy in 2015, the organization’s priority shifted away from the mission stated on its website — “comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation” — and towards running defense for Clinton. The former staffers we spoke to largely felt that this damaged Media Matters’ credibility and hurt the work it did in other areas. “The closer we got to the 2016 election the less it became about actually debunking conservative misinformation and more it became about just defending Hillary Clinton from every blogger in their mother’s basement,” one former staffer told us. This was, moreover, a repeat of what Media Matters did in 2008, when there was a rift between staffers and management over the favoring of Clinton in her race against then-Senator Barack Obama.

Media Matters staffers recounted internal fights over the group’s devotion to Clinton. Employees were ordered to critique NPR’s Terry Gross for asking Clinton some questions about why it took her so long to support same-sex marriage.

But the staff reportedly felt Gross’ questions were fair, and according to the New Republic, “nearly everyone we spoke to who worked there at the time felt that a similar article would not have been written about a different politician.” Media Matters’ research director, Jeremy Holden ended up writing the story because other staffers were unwilling to put their name on it. Holden did not respond to a request for comment.

Media Matters employees were also reportedly frustrated by the organization’s obsession with defending Clinton at the expense of other liberal causes. “Former staffers pointed out several stories that fell within Media Matters’ ambit that should have been better covered. … On the site, there are 1,468 posts tagged with ‘Hillary Clinton’ as opposed to just 26 tagged ‘Bernie Sanders,’” according to the New Republic.

In addition to media reports, internal communications at the Clinton campaign further reveal that it was treating Media Matters as a campaign surrogate and coordinating with the group.

A campaign strategy memo released by WikiLeaks notes that the Clinton campaign reported using the Brock group to “muddy the waters” when it came to issues where Clinton was vulnerable by “working with MMFA to highlight examples of when the press won’t cover the same issues with Republicans.” Another email released by WikiLeaks has Clinton’s press secretary, Nick Merrill, planning to push back on a Vanity Fair story about Clinton campaign vice chair Huma Abedin, which hadn’t been published yet, saying, “We have MMFA, CtR, and core surrogates lined up, which we can expand on tomorrow.” Media Matters published a piece criticizing the Vanity Fair story the following day.

“CtR” in Merrill’s email refers to the Correct the Record PAC. The PAC has been dormant since the 2016 election cycle, but “coordinat[ed] directly with Clinton’s campaign,” Politico reported. The CTR PAC even took money directly from the Clinton campaign – during the 2016 election cycle CTR took in $8.5 million in donations, including a donation of $275,615 in 2015 from Hillary for America. From its inception, the PAC skirted rules that prevent such entities and campaigns from directly coordinating with campaigns by claiming all its activities were covered by an FEC exemption regarding public communications. 

“Correct the Record believes it can avoid the coordination ban by relying on a 2006 Federal Election Commission regulation that declared that content posted online for free, such as blogs, is off limits from regulation,” notes a 2015 Washington Post report. “The ‘Internet exemption’ said that such free postings do not constitute campaign expenditures, allowing independent groups to consult with candidates about the content they post on their sites.” The Patriots Foundation FEC complaint strongly disputes that the operations of the CTR PAC were defensible under this interpretation, noting that the PAC spent money on polling and other activities that don’t constitute communications.

Organizationally, there also appears to have been not much separation between CTR and Brock’s other PAC, American Bridge. “During the 2016 election, Brock claimed that AB PAC remained independent of both the Clinton campaign and CTR PAC so that it could make independent expenditures in support of Clinton,” notes the Patriots Foundation FEC complaint. “However, he continued to collect a salary from both PACs, and disclosure reports show that the committees shared at least seven overlapping staff members at various times during 2016. Moreover, AB PAC reported making in-kind disbursements to CTR PAC in 2016.” (In addition to getting paid by both PACs, Brock drew a salary of $278,566 from Media Matters as well, 2017 tax records show.

Overall, the American Bridge Foundation was the largest donor to the AB PAC in the 2016 and 2018 election cycles. As a 501(c)4 nonprofit, the AB Foundation is not required to disclose its own donors. Other notable donors to the AB PAC include George Soros, who gave AB PAC $2 million between 2015 and 2016. Some of America’s biggest unions – the SEIU, AFL-CIO, NEA, AFT, and AFSCME – all made six-figure donations in the 2016 election cycle. And Win McCormack, the owner and publisher of the New Republic, gave $100,000 to the AB PAC five months before his publication ran the story on Media Matters’ troubles.

Not the First Time

The Patriots Foundation alleges that the legally required separation between the groups did not exist. The two organizations shared staff, office space, and equipment, but the AB Foundation stated in IRS filings the “two entities have entered into a cost-sharing agreement to allocate shared overhead costs so that neither entity is financially supporting the activities of the other.”

But other audited financial statements from the AB Foundation note they did “not have a formal agreement relating to the allocation of expenses between the two entities” and “allocations were made based on management and budget estimates.” Those estimates varied wildly. The AB Foundation gave the PAC some $2.9 million “for salary, rent, and expenses” in 2015; $720,000 in 2016; $4.5 million in 2017; and $3.3 million in 2018. In many of those years, the AB Foundation also claimed to owe AB PAC more than it paid, also by varying amounts.

This is not the first time one of Brock’s organizations has been challenged for running afoul of FEC regulations. Last year, the Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint regarding the Correct the Record PAC’s claim that it could coordinate with the Clinton campaign under the public Internet communications exemption. FEC attorneys agreed with the Campaign Legal Center but the FEC, which has been understaffed during the Trump administration, only had four of six members on the commission. The complaint was dismissed when the two GOP commissioners sided with the CTR PAC, leaving the commission deadlocked. The Campaign Legal Center is still litigating the matter.

The Patriots Foundation complaint is different in that it addresses the coordination across all of the Brock organizations, as well as the allegations American Bridge PAC inaccurately reported the operational costs it shares with the American Bridge Foundation.

The Patriots Foundation told RealClearInvestigations it is not seeking remedies from the FEC beyond what was outlined in its original complaint. That complaint asks the FEC to “elicit admission of the violations from each of the respondents, conduct a robust investigation to determine the scope of the alleged violations, bar respondents from continuing violative activities, and collect civil penalties in amounts commensurate with the gravity of these serious ongoing violations.”

The IRS action filed by the Patriots Foundation seeks to revoke the tax-exempt status of Media Matters and the AB PAC, and calls for both to be compelled to pay applicable taxes while improperly operating as tax exempt, plus applicable financial penalties, while referring both to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution.

At the start of the 2020 hurricane season, we said: this “season could be above average, with 13 to 19 named storms.” 

Already 40% through the season, nine storms have been named, with Tropical Depression Eleven could be the next one named on Thursday. 

Bloomberg reports the hurricane season is about to go “from bad to worse with La Nina odds up.”

The odds the equatorial Pacific will remain neutral, or even spin up a La Nina, have risen in the last month, the U.S. Climate Prediction Center said. In either state, the weather patterns over the Pacific actually decrease hurricane-killing wind shear across the Atlantic, allowing more storms to form and strengthen. –Bloomberg

Odds for La Nina have increased to 60% from 54% a month ago for the September to November timeframe. 

There is a ~60% chance of La Niña development during Northern Hemisphere fall 2020 and continuing through winter 2020-21 (~55% chance). A #LaNina watch remains active. https://t.co/5zlzaYJ1Lp pic.twitter.com/Vglhy601Xq

— NWSCPC (@NWSCPC) August 13, 2020

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Colorado State University said as many as 25 storms could form this year, which could be the highest number since 2005, when 28 were recorded and Hurricane Katrina slammed into the city of New Orleans, unleashing $125 billion in damage along the Gulf Coast. 

With Increasing odds for a La Nina this fall, resulting in what could be a super active hurricane season. President Trump has redirected the use of funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) disaster relief programs to pay tens of millions of unemployed, broke, and hungry Americans, devastated by the virus-induced recession. 

As the odds of La Niña influence continue to grow in the Atlantic Ocean, here’s a recap of U.S. hurricane landfall frequency per ENSO phase since 1871. pic.twitter.com/7mcwngG1lV

— Steve Bowen (@SteveBowenWx) June 30, 2020

But don’t worry about FEMA funds running out, the Trump administration is running record deficits and will have the Treasury issue bonds to fund the gap.