Drunk driving remains one of the leading causes of traffic deaths in the United States, claiming an average of 34 lives every day — a total of 13,429 in 2023, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Nearly one-third of all road fatalities are alcohol-related. But as new data from The Suzuki Law Firm shows, the problem is far from evenly distributed. Certain states, cities, and even car brands are far more likely to be associated with drunk driving incidents than others, revealing stark regional and behavioral trends.

Among the 50 largest U.S. cities, Omaha, Nebraska, has the highest rate of drunk driving citations, with 4.48 per 1,000 drivers — more than double the 50-city average of 1.9. San Jose and Sacramento, California, follow closely at 3.68 and 3.55 per 1,000 drivers, respectively, according to Suzuki Law Offices.

Several other California cities, including Fresno, Long Beach, Bakersfield, and Oakland, also rank near the top, reflecting the state’s combination of car dependence, warm weather, and limited public transit options. Meanwhile, Chicago, Tulsa, and Philadelphia have among the lowest DUI citation rates, each with fewer than one per 1,000 drivers.

When fatal crashes are considered, Texas emerges as the country’s deadliest drunk driving hotspot. El Paso leads the nation, with 60.8 percent of fatal accidents involving an impaired driver, followed by Fort Worth, Houston, Dallas, and Arlington — giving Texas five of the top ten cities for drunk-driving-related deaths. The study attributes this to the state’s extensive road networks, strong drinking culture, and comparatively uneven enforcement of alcohol-related laws. Conversely, cities like Milwaukee, Miami, and Tampa report the lowest percentages of fatal crashes involving drunk drivers.

The Suzuki Law Office article notes that car brand data paints an equally striking picture. Luxury automakers dominate the list of vehicles most frequently cited for DUIs, with BMW drivers leading at 3.09 drunk driving citations per 1,000 drivers, followed by RAM (3.00), Acura (2.69), Audi (2.42), and Volvo (2.42).

At the opposite end, Mercury (0.86), Land Rover (1.16), and Lincoln (1.16) drivers have the lowest DUI rates. The Suzuki Law Firm’s analysis references a University of California, Berkeley study that supports this trend, noting that “fancy cars were less likely to stop, and BMW drivers were the worst,” linking luxury ownership to more aggressive or careless driving behaviors.

Tesla drivers stand out in another way — not for DUIs specifically, but for the highest overall number of driving incidents nationwide. In 2024, Teslas were involved in 36.9 incidents per 1,000 drivers, up from 31.1 in 2023. RAM and Subaru followed closely behind. When examined state by state, RAM drivers were the worst in 16 states, especially New Jersey, where they recorded 74.2 incidents per 1,000 drivers.

Regionally, Nebraska, California, and Texas remain the most prominent DUI hotspots, each for different reasons. Nebraska’s high rate likely reflects both heavy drinking and stricter enforcement. California’s mix of sociable, outdoor culture and limited transit access contributes to its problem, while Texas’s vast highways, strong car culture, and lenient policies exacerbate risk.

The full study is here.

Authored by Andrew Moran via The Epoch Times,

The country’s top housing regulator said the Trump administration is considering another tool that could address America’s affordability challenges.

“We are actively evaluating portable mortgages,” Bill Pulte, Federal Housing Finance Agency director, said in a Nov. 12 post on X, providing no further details.

This comes days after he suggested that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were “evaluating how to do assumable or portable mortgages, in a safe and sound manner.”

Portable mortgages would allow homeowners to transfer their existing mortgages—rates, terms, and amortization schedule—to a new residential property.

The concept, in theory, would help borrowers avoid penalties and possibly save on interest.

It is unavailable in the United States but is an option in Canada, the UK, and parts of the European Union.

Assumable mortgages refer to when a homebuyer takes over the seller’s existing mortgage, including the interest rate, balance, and repayment terms.

Unlocking the Golden Handcuffs

For the past few years, the supply of existing homes has been a challenge for the real estate market.

Despite a year of gradual gains, housing inventory remains historically low, totaling about 1.55 million units—well below the long-term average of 2.2 million units recorded from 1982 to 2025.

With months’ supply at 4.6—the number of months it would take to exhaust current housing stocks—the market still favors sellers, underscoring persistent market supply constraints.

Although the United States has struggled with years of underbuilding, a sizable factor has been the lock-in effect that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the Federal Reserve slashed interest rates to zero percent to help cushion the economic blows from the country’s shutdown.

Shortly afterward, 30-year mortgage rates cratered, reaching an all-time low of 2.65 percent in January 2021.

First-time homebuyers and homeowners took advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity when home prices were lower than they are today.

Today, approximately half of all current U.S. mortgages originated during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. Additionally, many homeowners refinanced at the lower mortgage rates.

However, this has made it difficult for public policymakers to unlock the golden handcuffs.

Nearly 53 percent of U.S. households enjoy a mortgage rate lower than 4 percent, so they have been reluctant to list their homes for sale, effectively constraining supply.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency estimated in a 2024 paper that the lock-in effect prevented about 1.72 million home sales between 2022 and 2024 and increased home prices by 7 percent.

A townhouse for sale in Elkridge, Md., on Sept. 27, 2024. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

The average contract interest rate for a 30-year mortgage is 6.34 percent.

In addition to exacerbating housing affordability problems, it also creates broader economic issues, including the restriction of labor mobility, which affects productivity and limits household formation.

“These factors may combine to reduce utility for borrowers and underscore the importance of understanding the extent to which borrowers are locked-in,” the paper states.

Housing affordability became one of the top priorities for the current and previous administrations.

President Donald Trump recently proposed creating 50-year mortgages, a move designed to help more Americans priced out of the market to get their feet in the door of homeownership.

Trump later told Fox News host Laura Ingraham that a 50-year mortgage is “not even a big deal.”

Pulte called it a “game changer.” However, after some pushback on social media, Pulte said a 50-year mortgage option was “simply a potential weapon in a wide arsenal of solutions that [the Federal Housing Finance Agency is] developing right now.”

In an interview with Fox News on Nov. 10, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett defended the proposal, saying that it could lower monthly payments for middle-class Americans.

“What it does is, it reduces the monthly payment quite a bit for a typical home for middle America by a few hundred dollars a month,” Hassett said. “We need to help people get back into homes.”

In the four weeks ending on Oct. 26, the median U.S. monthly housing payment was $2,530, according to data gathered by Redfin. This is down by 1.4 percent year-over-year, the sharpest decline since November 2024.

“This is out-of-the-box thinking,” an Israeli official has been quoted in Axios as saying. “We want to change the way we handled past agreements and put more emphasis on US-Israel cooperation. The Americans like this idea.”

The comment stems from what many on the American Right increasingly see as a very asymmetrical relationship based on Washington’s seeming longtime ‘blank check’ approach to its number one Mideast ally. Israel typically does what it wants, and the American taxpayer funds it – currently to the tune of around $4 billion per year in military aid. And then there’s extra Gaza war-related aid on top of that stemming back to 2024.

In the wake of the Trump-brokered ceasefire in Gaza, which Prime Minister Netanyahu appeared to resist at first, there’s been emerging evidence and commentary pointing to the White House applying unprecedented pressure on Israel to conform.

Axios is reporting Thursday the Israel wants to double the length of the next round of the security funding agreement with the Untied States, in a report which has far been denied by Netanyahu:

Israel is seeking a new 20-year security agreement with the U.S. — doubling the usual term and adding “America First” provisions to win the Trump administration’s support, Israeli and U.S. officials tell Axios.

While the past agreement promised Israel around $4 billion per year in military aid, and Israel is likely to seek at least that much going forward, passing such a deal will now be more complicated because of growing frustrations with Israel, including within Trump’s MAGA base.

The current 10-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed in 2016 under Barack Obama, expires in 2028. Israel wants to conclude the new deal over the next year.

It must be remembered that in 2024 under the Biden administration Congress signed off on a multibillion-dollar emergency military assistance package for Israel in addition to the annual foreign aid/military assistance package.

But the atmosphere has changed among Trump’s Republican base, as especially more and more young people are calling out such massive support for Israel as the opposite of America First.

This pushback is being led by voices like Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie… and even Nick Fuentes is growing in influence, in terms of mainstream popularity among young conservatives.

AIPAC is sending fundraising emails attacking me for saying, “the most truthful and easiest thing to say that Oct 7th in Israel was horrific and all hostages must be returned, but so is the genocide, humanitarian crisis, and starvation happening in Gaza.”

Well this is the sign… pic.twitter.com/AF3RUrAWAY

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) August 7, 2025

They question why American bombs have been used to obliterate civilians in huge numbers in Gaza, while also warning against entangling alliances which bring blowback on US interests and security.

It looks like Israel is responding to this in some ways, for example by seeking to use the language of America First in order to try and satisfy Trump admin officials, to arrive at the best deals.

Authored by James Bovard via The Mises Institute,

During the recent government shutdown, the temporary interruption of benefits to 42 million food stamp recipients was hyped as practically the greatest human rights violation of our time. A Nation magazine headline howled: “The United States Is Letting Its People Starve.” But the delayed payments had scant impact in part because many states offered supplemental benefits, many recipients had leftover benefits on their Electronic Benefit Cards (EBTs), and because vast numbers of food pantries and other private charities provided relief.

Democrats accused Trump of “weaponizing hunger.” But the real problem is that politicians going back more than half a century have weaponized dependency to destroy limits on government power.

Most Americans support giving government assistance to people who are unable to feed themselves. But politicians profited by multiplying the number of people who relied on Washington for their next meal.

In 1969, President Richard Nixon was sharply expanding US bombing of southeast Asia. Nixon sought to bolster his humanitarian image by vastly increasing federal food handouts. He held a White House Summit and received glowing press coverage for proclaiming, “The moment is at hand to put an end to hunger in America itself for all time.” That year, 3 million Americans received food stamps, a burgeoning federal program that cost $228 million. Last year, the program cost $100 billion.

Why did food stamps become so expensive?

Government surveys in the 1960s showed that most of the poor did not need federal aid to have an adequate diet. But it was politically profitable to pretend that low-income Americans were helpless by definition. To further that goal, Washington launched a war on self-reliance.

Even though food stamp enrollment quadrupled between 1968 and 1971, Congress mandated an outreach program for states to recruit more recipients. A USDA magazine reported in 1972 that food stamp workers could often overcome people’s pride by saying, “‘This is for your children’. . .the problem is not with welfare recipients but with low-income workers: It is this group which recoils when anything even remotely resembling welfare is suggested.” The magazine triumphally announced: “With careful explanations. . .coupled with intensive outreach efforts, resistance from the ‘too prouds’ is bending. More and more are coming to the conclusion that taking needed assistance does not mean sacrificing dignity.”

In 1974, the Food Research and Action Center—a federally-funded activist group—successfully sued USDA to require the agency to further increase its food stamp outreach efforts. The USDA suggested sending food stamp workers to unemployment offices to distribute leaflets, and in Pennsylvania food stamp aides went to supermarkets to hustle shoppers. By 1976, twelve states had conducted door-to-door recruiting campaigns, and seventeen had conducted telephone campaigns. Door-to-door food stamp advertising became a favorite project for Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) workers.

In Wisconsin, 2,000 copies of the Food Stamp Nursery Rhyme Coloring Book were distributed. In Kentucky, a traveling puppet show told folks how and why to sign up for benefits. A typical 1975 USDA brochure announced, “You are in good company. Millions of Americans use food stamps.” A leaflet distributed in Maryland and paid for by the federal government showed a gaunt face on the cover with the question, “Did you know some people would rather STARVE than seek HELP. . .” On the inside, the brochure said,

PRIDE NEVER FILLS EMPTY STOMACHS . . . Are you one of thousands of Maryland residents who. . .have too much pride to consider applying for help? Then you need to know more about the Food Stamp program.
Food Stamps should NOT be confused with CHARITY! In fact, food stamps are designed to help you help yourself.

The Community Services Administration funded scores of local and national food stamp advocacy organizations to increase enrollment in food programs. The federal Office of Economic Opportunity called in 1971 for community action agencies to “prick the public conscience” over the need for more food handouts, declaring, “food stamps are not used as often as they ought to be, particularly by the intermediate income families among the poor.”

During the Clinton administration, AmeriCorps played a leading role in food stamp recruiting. The Mississippi Action for Community Education (MACE) was one of the most prominent food stamp recruiters—at least on paper. Its 1999 grant application promised that its AmeriCorps members would “conduct door-to-door canvassing to identify potential food stamp recipients” and would also provide “assistance in completing necessary applications for food stamps.” The goal of the program was to enroll “75% of surveyed rural Mississippi residents who are eligible for food stamps, but are not receiving them.”

I dropped in on MACE headquarters in Greenville, Mississippi to ask a few questions for a Readers Digest article I was writing. MACE’s Fanny Woods was evasive about their AmeriCorps program and her answers contradicted MACE’s statements in its reports to AmeriCorps headquarters. I mentioned those evasions to the AmeriCorps Inspector General. They launched an investigation that was joined by the FBI and resulted in MACE’s executive director being sent to federal prison. Rather than doing food stamp recruiting, MACE simply had ghost employees on its AmeriCorps payroll.

Ironically, that was a better result for taxpayers than if the food stamp recruiting actually occurred.

At the end of the Clinton era, 17 million Americans received food stamps—a sharp decline from the 28 million recipients in 1994. A 1996 welfare reform act was decisive in curbing dependency. However, President George W. Bush took office in 2001 and sought to vigorously expand food stamp enrollment as part of his “compassionate conservatism” sideshow to his war on terrorism atrocities.

In 2008, food stamps were renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program1SNAP—to sound more wholesome and attractive. But the program remained a junk food entitlement and food stamp recipients were twice as likely to be obese as eligible low-income people not receiving food stamps.

Food stamp recruiting went into overdrive with the Obama administration. USDA bankrolled state government propaganda campaigns. A North Carolina social services agency won a USDA “Hunger Champions Award” for its ad campaign attacking “mountain pride” as a reason for not accepting government handouts. In Alabama, people received fliers proclaiming: “Be a patriot. Bring your food stamp money home.” A USDA brochure advised its field offices to, “Throw a Great Party…. Putting SNAP information in a game format like BINGO, crossword puzzles. . .is fun and helps get your message across in a memorable way.” USDA promoted a 10-part Spanish-language radio “novella” to encourage immigrants to go on the dole. The Obama administration also made food stamps more inviting by banishing the requirement for able-bodied recipients to seek to get a job.

The Biden administration ramped up both welfare recruiting and benefits, helping maximize the number of dependents. In 2022, President Biden proclaimed a goal “to end hunger in this country by the year 2030.” Biden did not explain why a hundred-fold increase in federal food aid spending since Nixon’s 1969 proclamation had failed to end hunger.

Political demagogues have long invoked the number of food stamp recipients as proof of the failure of the market economy and the injustice of capitalism or neoliberalism or whatever they are calling the system that week. As long as more than 40 million people depend on food stamps, politicians can exploit push-button hysteria to claim that any interruption in their spending or power will result in vast suffering and (hint, hint) starvation, especially of children and minorities and women.

The Trump administration is taking some steps to curb food stamp abuses, reviving the work requirement, cracking down on fraud, and approving state-level reforms that end junk food purchases. Simply returning to the program standards of the late 1990s would radically decrease enrollment. As Mises Institute’s Ryan McMaken recently noted, “Nearly half of households headed by illegal-immigrants receive food stamps”—a benefit that was banned in the 1996 welfare reform bill.

Unfortunately, since the Reagan era, any high-profile proposal to curb food stamp spending is accepted as sufficient proof of mass hunger and imminent catastrophe. Reducing the number of dependents is a vital first step to curbing Leviathan. But how many politicians will have the savvy or the courage to resist the Hunger Hysteria Industrial Complex?

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Thursday that an individual allegedly tried to confront acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Alina Habba and destroyed property.

Bondi vowed to find and prosecute the person.

“Last night, an individual attempted to confront one of our U.S. Attorneys,” she said, before confirming that the U.S. attorney was Habba. The person then allegedly “destroyed property in her office, and then fled the scene,” Bondi added. “Thankfully, Alina is ok.”

“Any violence or threats of violence against any federal officer will not be tolerated. Period. This is unfortunately becoming a trend as radicals continue to attack law enforcement agents around the country,” Bondi wrote in a post on X.

Bondi did not provide details about the incident. A description of the suspect was not provided.

In a separate comment, Bondi vowed to find the perpetrator and said that they would be “brought to justice.”

“Our federal prosecutors, agents, and law-enforcement partners put their lives on the line every day to protect the American people, and this Department will use every legal tool available to ensure their safety and hold violent offenders fully accountable,” Bondi said.

In a post on X, Habba said she “will not be intimidated by radical lunatics” for doing her job, in response to Bondi’s post.

Minutes later, FBI Director Kash Patel confirmed on X that the FBI is involved in the investigation into the individual who confronted her and stressed there will be “zero tolerance” for such acts.

Habba is considered an ally of President Donald Trump, as she served as one of his personal attorneys, namely during his trial in New York City, and as a White House counselor before she was tapped to serve as the acting U.S. attorney for the state.

The Senate has not yet confirmed Habba as the U.S. attorney for the state, and the White House withdrew her nomination in the upper chamber in July as part of a procedural maneuver to allow her to remain in an acting role. The judge’s order said that her actions since July could be declared void, but put his order on hold so that the Department of Justice (DOJ) could appeal.

On Oct. 20, a three-judge panel of the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals questioned the administration’s decision to keep Habba as the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey but didn’t immediately issue a ruling after the arguments.

According to the DOJ, Habba’s office supervises hundreds of federal prosecutors and other officials. That includes offices in Newark, Camden, and Trenton, New Jersey.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The Trump administration expanded its crackdown on far-left violent extremist networks Thursday, as the State Department designated four far-left militant groups as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs) and announced plans to formally add them to the Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) list next Thursday.

The four radical left groups include:

Antifa Ost

• Antifa Ost (also known as Antifa East and Hammerbande) is a Germany-based militant group. Antifa Ost conducted numerous attacks against individuals it perceives as “fascists” or part of the “right-wing scene” in Germany between 2018 and 2023 and is accused of having conducted a series of attacks in Budapest in mid-February 2023.

• On September 26, 2025, Hungary declared Antifa Ost to be a terrorist organization and added the group to its national anti-terrorism list.

Informal Anarchist Federation/International Revolutionary Front (FAI/FRI)

• FAI/FRI is a militant anarchist group that primarily operates in Italy with historical self-proclaimed affiliates across Europe, South America, and Asia. FAI/FRI declares the necessity of the revolutionary armed struggle against nation states and “The Fortress Europe.”

• Since 2003, FAI/FRI has claimed responsibility for threats of violence, bombs, and letter bombs against political and economic institutions, including a courthouse and other “capitalist institutions.”

Armed Proletarian Justice

• Armed Proletarian Justice is a Greek anarchist and “anti-capitalist” group that has attempted and conducted improvised explosive device (IED) attacks against Greek government targets.

• Armed Proletarian Justice claimed responsibility for planting a bomb near the Greek riot police headquarters in Goudi, Greece on December 18, 2023.

Revolutionary Class Self-Defense

• Revolutionary Class Self-Defense is a Greek anarchist and “anti-capitalist” group. The group links its actions to broader political and social issues and cites opposition to “capitalist structures,” “state repression,” and solidarity with Palestine.

• Revolutionary Class Self-Defense claimed responsibility for two IED attacks targeting the Greece Ministry of Labor (February 3, 2024) and the Hellenic Train offices (April 11, 2025).

The designations remove these radical leftists from the U.S. financial system, block their assets under U.S. jurisdiction, bar U.S. persons from doing business with them, and criminalize providing material support.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) commented on the State Department’s news release, indicating, “It’s a major step in our fight against Antifa’s terror network.”

Schmitt boasted, “I was proud to work with the administration to make it happen,” adding, “This is a huge deal.”

Seems like Schmitt has made some enemies with FTOs after those comments. 

Today, the State Department announced its plan to designate four violent Antifa cells as Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

It’s a major step in our fight against Antifa’s terror network.

I was proud to work with the administration to make it happen.

This is a huge deal. 🧵 pic.twitter.com/Vh7m1hxDRa

— Senator Eric Schmitt (@SenEricSchmitt) November 13, 2025

Schmitt continued in a series of posts:

Antifa is not an “idea.” It is a sophisticated, violent terrorist movement—and its network extends far beyond our borders. As I have outlined at length in the past, the Antifa violence we see on U.S. soil is driven by a global web of extremist groups.

He noted:

Americans should understand that these aren’t isolated local gangs. They are chapters in the same transnational movement that fuels leftist violence from Atlanta to Athens. These militants are in regular communication with each other, coordinating and mobilizing across borders.

And this:

Antifa operates as a decentralized, cell-based terror network. It has no identifiable “leader.” But that’s a feature, not a bug—an intentional structure employed by far-left terror movements since the Weather Underground.

As @ShidelerK noted in a recent congressional testimony: pic.twitter.com/bJabJPWmFM

— Senator Eric Schmitt (@SenEricSchmitt) November 13, 2025

This transnational network includes fundraising streams, encrypted servers, doxxing networks, safe houses and “squats” to hide fugitives, training camps, and cross-border coordination for violent attacks.

This, for example, is a segment from Europol’s 2023 Terrorism Report: pic.twitter.com/CcNdKaAFei

— Senator Eric Schmitt (@SenEricSchmitt) November 13, 2025

All of this is critical to the operations of Antifa cells in America.

It’s no coincidence that, at the “Stop Cop City” riots in Atlanta, authorities found the Antifa militants they arrested during the violence were an “international group”—traveling from France, Canada, etc. pic.twitter.com/4v2lMVbOYa

— Senator Eric Schmitt (@SenEricSchmitt) November 13, 2025

It’s no coincidence that, in Portland, the violent Antifa cells rely on the services of the Italy-based “radical left hacking collective” Autistici/Inventati to plan, coordinate and organize their attacks:https://t.co/OGWBqROlTM

— Senator Eric Schmitt (@SenEricSchmitt) November 13, 2025

The list goes on. But for the first time, thanks to President Trump and Secretary Rubio, the U.S. government is getting serious about confronting and dismantling this network.

Under U.S. law, a Foreign Terrorist Organization designation is one of the strongest tools we have.

— Senator Eric Schmitt (@SenEricSchmitt) November 13, 2025

Remember this? 

• Watch: Journalist Locates Portland Antifa Founder Hiding In Sweden

After the Trump administration designated Rose City Antifa as a terrorist group, I can now reveal that its founder has resurfaced in Varberg, Sweden.

Early this morning, I approached Johan Victorin for comment on the designation — and whether he fears prosecution. pic.twitter.com/RuBxT0MRwh

— Christian Peterson 🇸🇪 (English) (@christianpet_) October 6, 2025

U.S.-based Antifa-aligned cells have gained operational space and momentum over the past decade, aided indirectly by Democratic Party messaging – whether intentional or incidental remains the question – that has amplified Antifa’s framing by sustaining a prolonged information war portraying President Trump and the MAGA movement as “fascist,” reinforcing the group’s core justification for escalation and violence.

Coordinated. 

It’s no mystery how Charlie Kirk’s murderer was conditioned to think conservatives are fascists. pic.twitter.com/9ZItjQE1nr

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) September 12, 2025

Operational intentions are straightforward. The plan was also to sow chaos:

• “Planning War Against Fascists” – Socialist Rifle Association Boasts 10,000 Members

While the administration has pledged to dismantle violent far-left networks, the fight cannot stop at Antifa. The broader dark-money billionaire-funded NGO sphere has been driving a decade-long color revolution against MAGA, and conspired against the White House to derail Trump’s agenda at every turn.

💸 Billionaire #1: GEORGE SOROS

Soros’s Open Society network directly contributed $72 million+ to official No Kings 2.0 organizers & partners. Soros is a primary architect of the “Riot Inc.” political protest model and a master of “color revolutions.” pic.twitter.com/nOLLmeHNZm

— Seamus Bruner (@seamusbruner) October 16, 2025

Conservative nonprofits have warned the administration about the collateral damage a sweeping crackdown on NGOs could cause, but the reality is that if reforms don’t come to the nonprofit universe, the Marxist movement will continue undermining the administration. 

• “At What Point Does This Become Treason?”

Capital Research Center and investigative researchers Peter Schweizer and Seamus Bruner of the Government Accountability Institute have already mapped out the NGO crisis in detail for millennial and Gen Z staffers in the White House to understand fully.

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

Between 1892 and 1954, approximately 12 million immigrants arrived at the now-iconic Ellis Island to enter the U.S.—or nearly 200,000 legal entries per year.

All were registered, documented, and given rudimentary health exams.

They arrived as rich and poor, white and non-white, and, without exception, legally.

With the gradual decline of such great influxes, Ellis Island finally ceased operating roughly 71 years ago.

Yet Ellis Island’s successful tenure offers a sharp contrast to the failures of our recent open-border catastrophes.

Americans will never know how many immigrants swarmed the southern border between 2021 and 2025, when Joe Biden and his impeached Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas destroyed federal immigration law as we once knew it.

By design, they allowed between 10 and 12 million foreign nationals to make a mockery of federal immigration laws by swarming the southern border.

Many crossers grew violent at any sign of even meek efforts by ICE officers to enforce the law. Border Patrol officers were often mocked, threatened, and assaulted by arriving illegal aliens.

Officers were unsure as to what was worse: the occasional violence from illegal immigrants or retaliation from the Biden administration if they sought to enforce federal law and block illegal entrants.

So the Biden administration pulled off the near impossible. In a mere four years, it had invited in almost as many illegal immigrants as had entered through Ellis Island legally over seven decades.

But unlike past immigrants, we now witness organized violence against ICE officials. We see Orwellian scenes of mobs burning the American flag—the flag of the country they demand to stay in—while waving the flags of the countries they have no desire or intention of returning to.

In sum, three generations ago, a smaller, poorer, but wiser America properly solved its immigration problem at Ellis Island—welcoming in immigrants orderly and legally with health and background screenings.

In contrast, during the Biden years, we, in our arrogance and affluence, engaged in a great experiment—or rather misadventure. Never in our history has the U.S. been home to roughly 53 million foreign-born residents.

Never have immigrants comprised nearly 16 percent of the population.

Never has California had 27 percent of its residents not born in the U.S.

Never have we allowed in up to 10,000 aliens a day, with little concern for whether they carried fentanyl, had criminal records, were sick, were unvaccinated, were traffickers, or belonged to violent gangs.

Worse still, the Biden administration made zero effort to acculturate, integrate, and assimilate this massive influx. In fact, they did the very opposite of Ellis Island’s protocols, which fostered pro-American values, melting-pot integration, and respect for American history and culture. Once upon a time, new arrivals were all expected to become Americans—or why else had they come?

Now, the moment an illegal alien has entered the U.S., he likely senses that his ethnicity or race will be essential to his identity. In the minds of the ruling DEI commissariat, claiming a tribal identity offers an easy pathway to generous housing, food, healthcare, legal, and educational entitlements.

So, under Biden’s immigration non-policy, almost all illegal immigrants were immediately categorized as victims in the Marxist binary ledger that now divides America into the oppressed vs. the oppressors.

If one devised a plan to damage America, he could not have done better than further dividing us by tribal chauvinism, overwhelming our fragile social services so essential to struggling Americans, and fueling the already dangerous neo-Confederate state and local nullifications of federal law and the growth of “sanctuary cities.”

Daily, we witness performance-art mayors and governors boasting of how they “resist” federal law enforcement. These modern rebels pose as if they are our own era’s versions of mini-Confederate states. They now brag of states’ rights as they dare the federal government to protect its own property and enforce federal laws within their parochial jurisdictions.

Why did Biden—or whoever was making policy in his place—destroy the border?

What was his utterly mad intent?

To alter the nation’s demography by importing future Democrat constituents dependent on state largesse?

To bow to the demands of his DEI base?

To mindlessly do the opposite of the prior Trump administration, which had closed the border and returned to legal-only immigration?

Virtue signaling while waving illegal aliens across an open border is easy.

But trying to close the border and return millions who entered unlawfully to their homelands is nearly impossible.

It is surreal that those who claimed moral superiority while systemically destroying federal law now condemn as immoral those striving to restore it.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A new report from the Intercontinental Exchange shows that nearly 875,000 homeowners now owe more on their mortgages than their properties are worth—the highest level in three years—as softening home prices and elevated borrowing costs squeeze household finances.

The surge in negative equity represents 1.6 percent of all mortgage holders and highlights a worsening affordability landscape that officials in the Trump administration say is weighing on the broader economy.

While the jump is notable, the Intercontinental Exchange said in the Nov. 10 report, the overall share of underwater loans remains comparable to long-term averages prior to the pandemic housing boom, with the exception of the Great Recession. Still, the company warned that certain markets are seeing concentrated pockets of borrower vulnerability as prices continue to retreat from their post-COVID peaks.

“While overall negative equity rates remain low, certain markets are showing signs of concern, particularly in the Gulf Coast of Florida and Austin, Texas,” the report noted.

In Cape Coral, Florida, for example, where home prices are down 15 percent from their peak, 11 percent of mortgages are underwater, including more than one-third of those that originated between 2023 and 2024, when rates were highest.

The rise in negative equity is concentrated among recent, lower-down-payment borrowers, particularly those with Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and Veterans Affairs (VA) loans issued in 2023 and 2024.

In some VA cohorts, more than 20 percent of borrowers are now underwater, the Intercontinental Exchange said—a reflection of both local price declines and the fact that these newer borrowers never benefited from the pandemic-era equity cushions that protected earlier buyers.

Another 6.9 percent of mortgage holders have less than 10 percent equity remaining, the highest share since mid-2020. While the Intercontinental Exchange noted that the figure remains below long-term averages, low-equity borrowers are typically more vulnerable to credit stress if home prices continue to fall.

At the same time, the report struck a more positive tone on the outlook for refinancing and equity access as borrowing costs begin to ease.

The Intercontinental Exchange said falling mortgage rates have “significantly expanded” the number of homeowners who could lower their monthly payments, while also reducing the cost of tapping home equity.

“The recent easing in mortgage rates has begun to open the refinance window for many borrowers, particularly those who originated loans in the past two years,” Andy Walden, head of Mortgage and Housing Market Research at the Intercontinental Exchange, said in a statement.

The Intercontinental Exchange’s data show the number of highly qualified refinance candidates—those with strong credit, at least 20 percent equity, and potential savings of 75 basis points or more—rose to 1.7 million in late October, the largest since early 2022.

Including broader borrower profiles, approximately 4.1 million mortgage holders are currently “in the money” to refinance, a figure that could approach 5 million if rates drift slightly lower.

Housing in ‘Recession,’ Treasury Secretary Warns

The equity deterioration comes amid growing concern inside the Trump administration that high mortgage rates are dragging the housing sector into a downturn.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a recent interview on CNN that parts of the economy “are in recession,” in particular housing, and that high borrowing costs are hitting low-income Americans the hardest.

“We have seen the biggest hindrance for housing here that are mortgage rates,” Bessent said. “So, if the Fed brings down mortgage rates, then they can end this housing recession.”

Bessent echoed warnings from Federal Reserve board member Stephen Miran, who told The New York Times in an earlier interview that keeping monetary policy “this tight for a long period of time” risks inducing a recession. Miran said he sees no reason for the central bank to delay further rate cuts with inflation cooling.

Borrowers Under Strain as Credit Stress Mounts

Beyond housing, other consumer-credit segments are flashing warning signs. Subprime auto-loan delinquencies hit 6.65 percent in October—the highest level on record since the early 1990s—according to Fitch Ratings. Two major auto-finance firms serving low-income borrowers filed for bankruptcy this fall.

Foreclosure activity is also creeping higher. More than 101,000 properties received filings in the third quarter, up 17 percent from a year earlier, according to ATTOM.

Mortgage delinquencies—while still low by historical standards—have also begun to rise from last year’s trough, according to data from VantageScore and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Reuters and Naveen Athrapully contributed to this report.

While President Trump reiterated earlier this month that he doesn’t want China getting its hands on Nvidia’s most advanced AI chips, a Chinese AI company has found a convenient loophole: Indonesia. 

An investigation by the Wall Street Journal reveals that around 2,300 of said chips have been procured by said Chinese AI company – and has traced how “a chain of deals across several countries got the chips inside the data center, which is wedged between a private school and an upscale apartment complex. A company that arranged the transaction is a subsidiary of a Chinese business on an American trade blacklist.”

And the kicker: none of it appears to have violated US law.

China has notably been barred from buying advanced US semiconductors since 2022 over national-security concerns. And while Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang insists that Nvidia’s market share in China has ‘fallen to zero’ from 95% due to the US export restrictions – which is clearly not the case. 

Some bring the chips physically into China using middlemen. Another increasingly popular workaround, which has been employed in Australia and Malaysia, is renting computing power abroad and bringing data out of China and back—sometimes by packing suitcases with hard drives, the Journal has previously reported.

In the Indonesia case, the Journal was able to trace the chips from start to finish, including the specific entities involved. American technology is being made available to a Chinese company through these four steps. -WSJ

Here’s how it works: 

1. Nvidia sells chips to a U.S. partner partly owned by a Chinese firm

   Nvidia supplies advanced AI chips to Aivres, a Silicon Valley server builder whose parent company is one-third owned by Inspur—a Chinese tech firm placed on a U.S. national-security blacklist in 2023. While Nvidia is barred from dealing with Inspur or its blacklisted subsidiaries, the restrictions don’t extend to U.S.-based entities like Aivres, allowing the business relationship to continue.

2. Aivres finds an overseas buyer for high-end Nvidia servers

   In mid-2024, Aivres negotiated a $100 million deal to sell 32 Nvidia GB200 server racks – containing roughly 2,300 Blackwell-generation chips – to Indosat Ooredoo Hutchison’s cloud-computing division in Indonesia. Indosat is jointly owned by Qatar’s Ooredoo and Hong Kong’s CK Hutchison.

3. The Indonesian buyer lines up a Chinese AI startup as the end user

   Indosat agreed to purchase the servers only after securing a major client facilitated by Aivres: Shanghai-based AI startup INF Tech. Negotiations also included representatives from Fudan University, where INF’s founder, Qi Yuan, directs an AI institute.

4. The Chinese startup intends to use the chips for finance and medical AI

   By October, the servers had arrived in Indonesia and were being set up. INF plans to use the computing power to train AI models for financial analytics and scientific research, including drug-discovery applications.

According to attorneys familiar with export-control rules, as long as the Chinese company isn’t directly using the chips to help China with military intelligence or weapons of mass destruction, the arrangement doesn’t violate any laws set by the Trump administration. 

Interestingly, the Journal reports that in the waning days of the Biden Autopen administration, a rule was created that would have tightened controls over the sale of advanced US chips to countries such as Indonesia that aren’t in a small group of US allies – yet, the Trump administration later said it wouldn’t enforce the rule, which would have given the US a chance to scrutinize the customer’s intentions, along with the exporter – particularly if they were on a national-security trade blacklist known as the “entity list.” 

One way or another, China gets their racks. (h/t Capital.news)

Authored by Vince Quill via CoinTelegraph.com,

The last penny, nominally valued at $0.01, was minted by the United States Mint in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on Wednesday, marking the end of 232 years of new pennies being coined and circulated.

US President Donald Trump directed the US Treasury to stop producing pennies in February, and the Treasury initially set a 2026 target for the last mint. However, the Treasury exhausted the templates used to manufacture the coins between June and September, according to Axios.

A penny costs about 3.7 times its face value to manufacture, meaning that each $0.01 coin actually costs over $0.03.

While it is no longer economically feasible to mint more US pennies, the coin will remain as legal tender, with the more than 250 billion physical pennies continuing to circulate.

“Inflation made the penny useless. Meanwhile, it’s making the sat more relevant every year,” Alexander Leishman, CEO of Bitcoin financial services company River, said, referring to the subunit of one Bitcoin.

Bitcoin as a solution to the erosion of fiat money’s value

Bitcoin was created as an alternative monetary system that has a supply cap of 21 million coins, meaning that as demand for BTC increases, so should the price per coin.

Technological development is a deflationary force that makes the production process more efficient and reduces the price of goods and services over time, according to author, economist and BTC advocate Saifedean Ammous.

Fiat currencies, in contrast, fail to capture this price deflation because their supply is constantly increasing, resulting in reduced purchasing power over time, which is reflected in the higher prices of goods, assets and services.

In other words, the price of goods and services is not increasing; the value of fiat currencies is declining relative to goods, services and hard assets, according to Ammous.

If those same goods, services, and assets were denominated in BTC or some other hard money standard, prices would go down over time, the economist argues.

Median home prices measured in BTC showcase how a supply-capped hard money benefits the holder through depreciating prices of goods, services and assets. Source: Priced In Bitcoin

The US dollar has lost over 92% of its value since the creation of the Federal Reserve Banking System in 1913, according to precious metals dealer The Gold Bureau.

Meanwhile, Bitcoin hit all-time highs above $126,000 in October, as the US dollar was on track for its worst year since 1973, according to market analysts at The Kobeissi Letter.

“The USD has lost about 40% of its purchasing power since 2000,” The Kobeissi Letter said in October, adding that it lost over 10% of its value year-to-date as of October.

Source: Anthony Pompliano

However, economist Paul Krugman, who has long been critical of cryptocurrencies and BTC, said the dollar’s power rests in how easy it is to use, compared to BTC, which is difficult for the average person to hold and transact with.

“The whole point about the dollar is it’s really easy to use, and Bitcoin is not easy to use,” Krugman told podcast host Hasan Minhaj.