Month: July 2023

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Hitting the news wires late this week are headlines about the Biden administration’s plan to tackle the housing affordability crisis that has persisted since the Federal Reserve aggressively raised interest rates in early 2022 to combat the worst inflation storm in a generation. The result of tighter monetary policy has propelled mortgage rates north of 7%, making starter homes for first-time buyers more unaffordable. 

“Buyers searching for starter homes in today’s market are on a wild goose chase because in many parts of the country, there’s no such thing as a starter home anymore,” Sheharyar Bokhari, Redfin senior economist, told Bloomberg. 

Bokhari said, “The most affordable homes for sale are no longer affordable to people with lower budgets due to the combination of rising prices and rising rates.”

The average rate on the popular 30-year fixed mortgage was 7.34% on July 27, reaching its highest point since November, according to data published by Bankrate. This means the average priced starter home, around $243,000, has become increasingly unaffordable to many — with that, the American Dream quickly dies. 

An increase in borrowing costs has led to more than a doubling of the average mortgage payment for a median single-family home over the course of a year, assuming a 30-year fixed mortgage with a 20% down payment.

Real estate firm Redfin said buyers must earn at least $64,500 to ensure their debt-to-income ratio doesn’t exceed 30% when buying a starter home. 

Buyers face a market where active listing for affordable homes across the US is rapidly plunging. Bokhari said new active listings are down 23% year-over-year due to homeowners staying put because many bought in an era of record-low mortgage rates. We pointed that out last week when only 1% of US homes changed hands in 2023, the lowest on record, indicating the market is in ‘complete paralysis.’ 

Bokhari said the number of affordable homes on the market had been halved in the last decade. 

The housing affordability crisis has been manifesting for more than a year. Readers have been well-informed about this trend via notes titled First-Time Homebuyers Are Absolutely Screwed Right Now and Housing Affordability Worsens As Homeownership Out Of Reach For Anyone Making Under $100k. 

That may be why parked mobile home shipments are surging as the American Dream dies. And Home Depot understands this by offering $44,000 tiny homes (land not included). 

Authored by Charles Ortel via American Thinker,

American voters who struggle to enjoy the benefits of “Bidenomics” understand that Joe Biden and his family likely never earned an honest living while Joe was senator, vice president, or president.

Now that iconic Democrat Robert Kennedy, Jr. has called for a serious investigation into suspicious wealth accumulation by the Biden family during the President’s long career chiefly as a “public servant,” one might be tempted to get lost in minutiae and go far back over years of evidence to see whether impeachment and conviction are warranted in 2023.

In truth, there is a simpler approach: focus on the strange and dramatic increase in Joe Biden’s personal fortune from his time as vice president starting early in the first year of Donald Trump’s presidency in late January 2017, using tools hiding in plain sight in the public domain. Begin with the final days of the Obama-Biden administration. We have yet to learn the complete truth concerning what was discussed in the Oval Office when a coterie of top officials including Obama, Biden, and Comey met there on January 5, 2017.

This was only weeks before Donald Trump and Mike Pence took the reins of the Executive Branch on January 20, 2017. Moreover, Republicans were destined to take control over the House of Representatives and the Senate with a clear majority in the former body, and much slimmer control over the latter. Much might have been lost for key Democrats and their allies in the bureaucracy, had the incoming Trump administration enjoyed free rein to direct investigations into suspicious activities of many in the Obama-Biden administration. During eight long years while “fundamentally transforming America,” Barack Obama and others likely had positioned themselves to garner outsized financial returns in retirement from public service, following the examples set by Bill and Hillary Clinton from 2001 onwards. With so much at risk and with so many domestic and foreign challenges and uncertainties swirling, one wonders exactly why Joe Biden decided to take a brief trip over to Ukraine and to Switzerland for the World Economic Forum, returning to Washington, D.C. right before Inauguration Day.

Without doubt, a raft of paper and electronic records exists somewhere that will eventually shed light upon why Biden needed to spend crucial last-minute time with principals whom some believe have been orchestrating financial payments to the Biden family and their associates using murky means for years. These records, which IRS and FBI investigators surely considered examining at some point since 2017, remain relevant to any fair inquiry into the Biden family for monetizing Joe Biden’s influence over key American policies while he held high elective offices. According to public accounts, Biden and Obama lunched regularly at the White House to compare notes and coordinate making progress implementing key policy initiatives. Perhaps Obama and Biden (who each used alias email accounts while serving in the White House) marveled at the bold ways in which Hillary Clinton and her aides operated while she served as Secretary of State, and as Bill Clinton claimed that he directed affairs of “his” presidential foundation.

Yet, unlike the Clintons, Biden had little to show financially from his long career in politics when he departed the vice-presidential residence.

According to detailed information, Joe and Jill Biden declared a total of $4,122,376 in pretax income on their federal tax returns for tax years 2001 through 2016 — this works out to an average of $257,648 annually during the sixteen-year period when he finished his career as senator and, later, became vice president. Leaving aside, for the moment, fair questions concerning how Biden managed to sustain living costs for his large family from his home in Wilmington and also save for retirement, his years with educator Jill Biden do not appear to show proven ability to derive investment income, or garner outsized compensation. Yet, things were to change dramatically and for the better, days following the beginning of the Trump-Pence administration.

Trump and Pence inherited a stumbling economy after the anemic Obama-Biden recovery and the disastrous final years of the Bush-Cheney administration. According to data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey put out by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the top ten percent of households in America saw their pretax incomes decline 8.3 % from $269,644 (on average) in 2016 to $247,174 (on average) in 2017.

In stark contrast, Joe and Jill Biden saw their pretax income climb from $338,464 in 2016 to a whopping $9,578,639 in 2017 — an amount that was more than 28 times Biden pretax income for the prior year and more than twice, in just one year, total Biden pretax income for a 16 year period from 2001 through 2016.

What accounted for this enormous Biden family windfall in a single year, when even the top 10% of American households suffered pronounced declines in their pretax incomes? Initial answers found in Biden tax returns warrant further inquiry, including whether the IRS line agents trying to investigate suspicious Hunter Biden activities were restricted in plowing what appears now to be fertile ground in his father’s joint tax filings for 2017. Buried back on page 23 of a 103-page tax filing for 2017, we learn that two subchapter S corporations, each formed in 2017, somehow managed to send more than $10 million dollars together in their first partial years of operation, to the Bidens.

The first entity — CelticCapri Corp — generated $9,490,857 for the Bidens in just eleven months of existence during 2017. This total amount is more than $860,000 per month, which represents a heroic if not completely unbelievable result for a start-up. What products or services did CelticCapri provide? Who else was involved operating this business? How were other participants compensated? And, what pre-formation actions were taken before late January 2017, when CelticCapri was formally organized in Delaware? The second entity — Giacoppa Corp — made $557,882 for the Bidens in nine and one-half months, or more than $58,000 per month in a start-up year and the same sorts of questions raised about CelticCapri should be answered about Giacoppa. The American people deserve to understand why the IRS, FBI, and Department of Justice rarely target difficult-to-explain wealth-building by dynastic political families such as the Bidens and Clintons, but mount furious assaults against families like Donald Trump’s which built outsized wealth for decades, well before entering politics. Let truly serious investigations begin.

With 130 million Americans under a heat advisory, and tens of millions more on watch for or received a warning of excessive heat by the National Weather Service, one group of people is especially at risk of the negative consequences of very high temperatures: city dwellers.

As Statista’s Anna Fleck reports, according to a new study by NGO Climate Central, 41 million Americans in 44 major cities – the equivalent of around half of these cities’ populations – habitually see outside temperatures in their Census tracts rise by an average of more than 8° Fahrenheit above those in surrounding areas. This is due to heat intensifying in densely populated and built-up areas that lack vegetation. For 5.7 million Americans in the studied areas, temperatures where they live even exceeded non-city temperatures by more than 10° Fahrenheit on average.

The city in the study where most people face this problem was New York, with 7.1 million people or 78 percent of inhabitants subject to these so-called heat islands. New York was also the city where the most people have to endure heat islands with average temperature increases of more than 10° F – 3.8 million – or even more than 12° F, which affect 48,000 New Yorkers.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Cities in the Southern United States known for their concrete jungles also ranked high on the heat island index, for example Houston, Los Angeles and Dallas.

It was Chicago, however, which subjects more people to intense heat islands where temperatures rise on average more than 10° F above those outside the city.

With 78 percent of inhabitants in heat islands, New York ranked second behind Detroit (86 percent). New Orleans came fourth at 74 percent of people living in heat islands. Miami had the highest share of people dwelling in extreme heat islands (>12°F above non-city temps): 1.5 percent, the equivalent of 12,700 people.

People experiencing heat are advised to drink plenty of water, stay in an air-conditioned area and not leave children or pets in cars. Kids, older adults as well as people with disabilities and those working outside are especially at risk for heat-related illnesses.

Authored by John Haughey via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Senate on July 25 overwhelmingly adopted two amendments to the proposed defense budget that would require American tech companies to notify the Treasury Department of any dealings with China-based companies and to prevent entities and individuals from four nations, including China, from acquiring agricultural land anywhere in the country.

The “Protection of Covered Sectors” amendment sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and five bipartisan sponsors was adopted in a 91–6 vote while the agriculture land preemption amendment, filed by Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), also with bipartisan backing, was approved in an 89–8 tally.

Both measures are among the 872 prospective amendments filed by senators since the proposed $886.3 billion Fiscal Year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), or annual defense budget, advanced in a 24–1 June 23 vote.

The Democrat-majority Senate began FY24 NDAA floor deliberations on July 18 with at least 90—including 51 submitted by Republicans—amendments set for floor debate.

No ‘Culture War’ Amendments

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) aims to have the Senate’s NDAA adopted by July 28 before the upper chamber adjourns, as the House did last week, for August recess. Neither chamber convenes again until Sept. 5.

Mr. Schumer, in remarks before the somewhat languorous votes on July 25, said he and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), among other chamber leaders, are developing “a second round of amendments” for floor discussion in the coming days.

The GOP-majority House on July 14 approved its preliminary version of the proposed defense budget in a 219–210 near-total partisan vote with an attached raft of “culture war” amendments unlikely to pass muster in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Those measures include repealing the Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) abortion travel policy, prohibiting DOD health care programs from providing gender transition procedures, a DOD “Parents’ Bill of Rights,” and a host of other proposed add-ons eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs to the must-pass defense budget that is normally approved in bipartisan accord.

None of those amendments were likely to pass in the Senate so it is no surprise that the upper chamber’s proposed defense budget does not include the House’s “culture war” add-ons.

Those differences between the adopted House defense budget and the version the Senate approves will be resolved in closely-tracked (if not watched) backroom conferences between the chambers. The goal is to present one NDAA for final adoption to both chambers ideally before the new fiscal year begins on Oct. 1.

None of those House “culture war” components are in the proposed Senate NDAA, nor have any Senate versions of the House amendments thus far made it to the chamber floor.

Mr. Schumer stressed the need for speed in getting the “must pass” defense budget adopted by the end of the week for conferencing to begin and the final budget to be in place at the start of the fiscal year.

“We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of good,” he said, praising what has been a smooth process so far that shows “the Senate can work productively on national defense in stark contrast to the race to the bottom we saw in the House.”

Both preliminary defense spending plans top out at the same $886.3 billion top-line figure submitted by President Joe Biden in March but vary in how that money is spent across the NDAA’s massive appropriations package. It is approximately $28 billion more than the FY23 NDAA.

Protecting American Tech, Farmland

In introducing Mr. Cornyn’s proposed amendment, Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) said the measure would establish a requirement that companies notify the Treasury and Commerce departments of intent to “invest in technology sectors in countries of concern.”

The NDAA reflects “the toughest challenges that face the nation and the technological competition with China is on top of the list. The Chinese communist government doesn’t play by the rules,” Mr. Casey said.

These “outbound investments” often imperil U.S. strategic interests and essentially amount to “technology transfers” that lead to “under-investment in domestic capabilities,” he said.

Mr. Casey said in 2020 alone, American companies invested $200 billion in China for research and development into artificial intelligence programs.

“That’s just in AI,” he said, noting U.S.-based entities invested $2 billion in semi-conductor production and $50 billion in biotech. “We need a targeted response to these threats to our national security.”

Read more here…

It was perhaps unfair that the teammates of trans swimmer Lia Thomas (originally William Thomas) were accused of being complicit in the destruction of women’s sports because they “refused” to speak out.  Their initial silence in the public eye was treated by some as an endorsement of biological men posing as women participating in women’s sports.  At the time, Lia Thomas was being held up by the corporate media as a hero (or heroine), the very model of the new trans-ification of sports; a rush by trans competitors into the women’s arena soon followed.  

However, the team members were trying to fight back.  And according to their recent testimony, Lia Thomas was made a priority by the University of Pennsylvania and they were given an ultimatum – Fall into line or risk being ostracized as “bigots.”  Furthermore, the women were told that they would have to share a locker room, changing facilities and bathrooms with the man, regularly forced to undress in front of him and be forced to watch him undress.  When they expressed concerns over this privacy issue, UPenn offered psychological services to “re-educate” Lia’s teammates so that they would feel more comfortable with the changing arrangements.   

The trans movement has proven time and time again to be a vehicle for censorship and thought control in the name of “protecting the feelings of marginalized people.” In reality, trans activists use a classic Marxist methodology: The exploitation of false victim status as a means to gain power over others.  And while intersectional feminism was the gateway drug to the trans movement we see today, it is now ironically women who face erasure as their entire biological reality is denied.  Hopefully the tide is turning as women speak out against dangers of trans ideology, no longer content to be used by the political left as pawns while their spaces are slowly diminished.