Real Estate Market Going Up Concept Illustration. (Photo: AdobeStock)
The NAHB//Wells Fargo Housing Market Index (HMI) finds builder confidence rose 3 points to 62 for February, beating the consensus forecast.
The National Association of Homebuilders said it is the second consecutive month in which all the HMI indices posted gains.
“Ongoing reduction in mortgage rates in recent weeks coupled with continued strength in the job market are helping to fuel builder sentiment,” said NAHB Chairman Randy Noel. “In the aftermath of the fall slowdown, many builders are reporting positive expectations for the spring selling season.”
Forecasts ranged from a low of 54 to a high of 60. The consensus forecast was 58.
“Builder confidence levels moved up in tandem with growing consumer confidence and falling interest rates,” said NAHB Chief Economist Robert Dietz. “The five-point jump on the six-month sales expectation for the HMI is due to mortgage interest rates dropping from about 5% in November to 4.4% this week.”
The index measuring current sales conditions also gained 3 points to 67. The component for expectations in the next six months rose 5 points to 68 and the metric charting buyer traffic gained 4 points to 48.
“However, affordability remains a critical issue,” Mr. Dietz added. “Rising costs stemming from excessive regulations, a dearth of buildable lots, a persistent labor shortage and tariffs on lumber and other key building materials continue to make it increasingly difficult to produce housing at affordable price points.”
Methodology
The HMI is a weighted average of separate diffusion indices for these three key single-family series. The first two series are rated on a scale of Good, Fair and Poor and the last is rated on a scale of High/Very High, Average, and Low/Very Low. A diffusion index is calculated for each series by applying the formula “(Good-Poor+100)/2” to the present and future sales series and “(High/Very High – Low/Very Low + 100)/2” to the traffic series. Each resulting index is then seasonally adjusted and weighted to produce the HMI.
Based on this calculation, the HMI can range between 0 and 100.
U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, left, and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe testifying before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in Washington. (Photos: Reuters)
On Sunday, CBS “60 Minutes” aired an interview with Andrew McCabe, in which the former FBI deputy director admitted to a plan to remove Donald J. Trump as President of the United States.
Now, more voters than ever think it is likely a crime was committed against President Trump, and want a special prosecutor to investigate the investigators.
Fifty-six percent (56%) of likely voters believe senior officials at the Justice Department (DOJ) likely broke the law planning to oust the president, including 36% who say it is very likely and another 20% who say it is at least somewhat likely.
Rasmussen Reports has tracked public opinion surrounding the genesis of the investigation into President Trump, which led Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointing Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Mr. McCabe said in the interview that Mr. Rosenstein was “absolutely serious” when they discussed wearing a wire to record the president, and that a cabal was “counting votes” all in an effort to use the 25th Amendment to remove him.
The 25th Amendment was meant to answer a series of questions raised by the original U.S. Constitution’s treatment of presidential and vice-presidential vacancies, and presidential disability.
It was not meant to remove a president with whom the federal bureaucracy disagrees. Text and email messages show top officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and DOJ wanted an “insurance policy” for themselves in the event Donald J. Trump won the 2016 presidential election.
Thirty-six percent (36%) didn’t agree a crime was likely committed, with only 19% saying it’s not at all likely and another 17% saying it’s not very likely.
Further, 51% think a special prosecutor should be named to investigate, while 38% disagree and 11% were undecided.
Only 36% say no disciplinary action should be taken against the senior law enforcement officials who discussed removing the president from office. Twenty-one percent (21%) say they should be fired, while even more (25%) think they should be jailed.
Twelve percent (12%) are calling for a formal reprimand of these officials.
Most of the players involved in what is proving to be an unfounded investigation into Donald Trump, have been fired or have resigned in disgrace.
Mr. McCabe was fired for lack of candor and leaking to the media for personal gain, and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) referred him to the U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia for criminal prosecution. Rank-and-file FBI agents have offered to testify against him, and he has offered to provide emails incriminating to his former boss, James Comey, in exchange for immunity.
Mr. Comey was fired by President Trump. Mr. Rosenstein reviewed the handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, and provided the recommendation to fire Mr. Comey.
Peter Strzok, the former head of the FBI counterintelligence unit that started the counter-intel probe against the president, has been fired.
Lisa Page, Mr. Strzok’s extramarital lover and former FBI lawyer, resigned in disgrace and is cooperating with investigators. She resigned along with and at the same time as Peter A. Baker, the former FBI general counsel who told investigators about the plan to remove the president.
Bruce Ohr, then the fourth highest-ranking official at DOJ, was demoted not once but twice. His wife worked for the shadowy smear firm Fusion GPS, which hired former British MI6 officer Christopher Steel to compile the dossier.
It was deceptively used to obtain warrants to spy on Team Trump, without disclosing it was opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee (DNC).
The national telephone and online survey of 1,000 likely voters in the U.S. was conducted February 17-18, 2019 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
On this episode of Liberty Never Sleeps, Tom explains America’s enemies will never stop their continuous onslaught, and so Americans must be forever vigilant. He lists the front’s of the attack.
*Game on With the Wall *The Scourge of Anti-Semitism *Lara Logan’s Career Suicide *Why is Rosenstein Still There? *Mueller? Mueller?
Bumper Music:
Creep- Radiohead Celebrate- Three Dog Night Solisbury Hill- Peter Gabriel Only the Good Die Young- Billy Joel Maggie May- Rod Stewart Aint No Rest for the Wicked- Cage the Elephant
The money pledged thru Patreon.com will go toward show costs such as advertising, server time, and broadcasting equipment. If we can get enough listeners, we will expand the show to two hours and hire additional staff.
All bumper music and sound clips are not owned by the show, are commentary, and of educational purposes, or de minimus effect, and not for monetary gain.
No copyright is claimed in any use of such materials and to the extent that material may appear to be infringed, I assert that such alleged infringement is permissible under fair use principles in U.S. copyright laws. If you believe material has been used in an unauthorized manner, please contact the poster.
Special Thanks To:
James L. Scott L. Edmund P. Craig B. Vanessa A. Dixie M. Vincent F.
Additionally:
Annie E. Eric M. Cameron U. Patricia P. Chris H. Toni M. Jason S. David A. Darryl R. William M. Mary M. Jennie V. Mirraku Scott W. Michael L. Michael C. Matthew G.
Bernie Sanders Enters a Crowded Field as Socialism Kills, Collapses in Venezuela
Vermont Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders announced in an interview with Vermont Public Radio on Tuesday that he will seek the 2020 Democratic nomination for president.
“We began the political revolution in the 2016 campaign, and now it’s time to move that revolution forward,” he told Vermont Public Radio.
The full interview will be released later Tuesday morning.
Senator Sanders, 77, launched an unsuccessful bid for president in 2016 against eventual Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) colluded with the Clinton campaign and Big Media to handicap the nomination.
Nevertheless, he fell in line behind Mrs. Clinton at the Democratic National Convention, which saw massive protests by grassroots supporters
But this time he joins a crowded field including Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Cory Booker, D-N.J..
Further, two of the most progressive U.S. Senators in the upper chamber– Sherrod Brown, D-Oh., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.– are also considering presidential bids, and are reportedly leaning toward getting into the race.
His campaign will not be without serious questions.
In recent months, Senator Sanders has been forced to defend and apologize for sexual harassment and mistreatment involving his 2016 campaign. He has also expressed support for the regime in Venezuela and the system of socialism at a time when the nation is collapsing.
President Donald Trump has taken aim at socialism and communism, and visited a Venezuelan community in Florida on Monday to proclaim “a new day” in the Western Hemisphere.
“We’re here to proclaim a new day is coming in Latin America,” President Trump said. “In Venezuela and across the Western Hemisphere socialism is dying and liberty, prosperity, and Democracy are being reborn.”
According to Mercy Corps, Venezuela has one of the highest crime rates in the world, and 90 percent live in poverty. According to the United Nations (UN), more than 40 people have died in recent protests and at least 850 people have been detained.
Senator Sanders once said food lines in Venezuela were “a good thing.”
With the exception of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, audits conducted on the official Twitter accounts belonging to the top 2020 presidential candidates revealed scores of fake followers.
Moreover, a comparison of audits conducted prior and subsequent to one candidate’s announcement indicated deception.
How Audits Were Conducted
Each audit was conducted using the well-known online tool Twitter Audit, which draws a sample of up to 5000 or more, unless you subscribe to the Pro Twitter Audit service, which we do.
Followers for a user are scored based on the number of tweets, the date of the last tweet, and the ratio of followers to friends. Those scores determine whether any given user is real or fake.
“Of course, this scoring method is not perfect,” Twitter Audit states openly on the site, “but it is a good way to tell if someone with lots of followers is likely to have increased their follower count by inorganic, fraudulent, or dishonest means.”
Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders
As previously stated, audits of the official Twitter accounts belonging to Republican President Donald Trump and Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, D-I-Vt., indicate real support and interest.
While the number of fake followers is significant, it is somewhat expected for a former presidential candidate and target of the status quo.
Similarly, President Donald Trump has roughly the same percentage of fake followers as Senator Sanders, though it is pretty clear both are high risk accounts given their controversial positions.
More than Half of Cory Booker’s Followers Are Fake
While there is no updated audit score available for Senator Cory Booker, D-N.J., we do have audit results dated to the height of the confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
More than half, or nearly 2.5 million, of the user accounts following Senator Booker, are fake. Less than 1.7 million were deemed real.
Senator Booker currently has 4.18 million followers on Twitter, roughly the same as when the audit was conducted.
We found similar results for the account belonging to Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., though her new 2020 presidential campaign account does not yet have the track record to audit.
More than Half of Elizabeth Warren’s Followers Are Fake
Reflecting the same period as Senator Booker, the audit found more than half of Senator Warren’s followers were also fake.
In raw numbers, nearly 2.2 million are fake juxtaposed to 1.9 million real users. Also like Senator Booker, their accounts have not updated since their announcements.
But one has updated, and the audit indicated clear deception.
Kamala Harris’ Audit Indicates Deception
As stated above, a comparison of audits conducted prior and subsequent to Kamala Harris’ announcement indicates likely deception.
Below are the results of the audit conducted prior to the announcement, also during the height of the confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Senator Harris’ sample indicated nearly 740,000 of her less-than 2 million followers on Twitter were deemed fake. Her audit score came in at 60%, a generous rating considering.
It’s worth noting she was called out on Twitter by Jack Posobiec, an anchor for One America News Network (OANN) on January 29. Perhaps that explains the new available data, but it’s unclear.
Below we can see the results of the audit conducted after Senator Harris announced she is running for president, which received significant journalist fanfare and coverage.
The audit, which reflects results from just 5 days ago, found a significant improvement in her score, up to 94%. That was driven largely from the number of fake followers falling by roughly 600,000.
Why Does This Indicate Deception?
There are two main ways for a user to reduce the number of fake followers on their Twitter account. First, the fake follower themselves unfollows the user, or the followed account blocks them.
Either way, as the organic follower count increased, Senator Harris’ account began bleeding fake followers, reducing the number significantly and increasing the audit score to 94%.
But at 2.36 million, Senator Harris has not gained in followers since the announcement. She simply gained organic followers and swapped out the fake followers, leaving her overall count roughly flat.
Former Vice President Joe Biden Fares Slightly Better
More than a quarter of those following former vice president Joe Biden, are fake. His Twitter Audit scored him at 73%, with roughly 760,000 fake followers and just over 2 million real followers.
That certainly tops some of the aforementioned candidates, but not Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.
In the interest of transparency, an audit of my own Twitter account came in at 98%, though I and most other users are not the bot targets you’d expect politicians’ profiles to be.
Seven Members of Parliament (MPs) quit the Labour Party on Monday over Jeremy Corbyn’s “betrayal” on Brexit, “institutional anti-Semitism,” and the main opposition party’s hard turn to the left.
Lawmaker Chris Leslie said at a news conference he resigned in part because Labour has been “hijacked by the machine politics of the hard left.”
“The Labour Party we joined that we campaigned for and believed in is no longer today’s Labour Party,” he said, adding “it has now been hijacked by the machine politics of the hard left.”
The seven lawmakers include Mr. Leslie, Luciana Berger, Angela Smith, Gavin Shuker, Chuka Umunna, Mike Gapes and Ann Coffey.
Ms. Berger, a MP for Liverpool Wavertree, said “this has been a very difficult, painful, but necessary decision.”
The MPs will now sit under the banner “The Independent Group” and, in a direct challenge to the opposition leader, said they will court others to leave Mr. Corbyn.
The opposition leader expressed his disappointment, citing the results of the last election as affirmation they “inspired millions” The opposition party saw its biggest vote share gain since 1945 and won 262 seats.
But it’s unclear whether it was an affirmation of Labour or a rebuke of the Conservative Party led by Prime Minister Theresa May, who has struggled to negotiate the nation’s exit from the European Union (EU).
In June 2016, the British people voted 52 percent to 48 percent in a shocking upset to leave the then- 28-nation bloc. Article 50 was triggered on March 29, 2017, giving them until March 29, 2019, to agree on a deal.
On January 29, MPs took a series of key votes in the British Parliament on that were meant to signal the beginning of the end to the impasse on Brexit negotiations.
The main hurdle to the initial framework put forward by Prime Minister May was the so-called “Irish backstop,” a proposal unsupported and downright despised by members of her own Conservative Party.
It would’ve prevented a customs border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland if the UK doesn’t agree on a future trade deal with the EU.
Sir Graham Brady, the influential head of the Conservative Party’s 1922 Committee, proposed to overcome the hurdle by replacing the Irish backstop, arguing it would give Prime Minister May “enormous firepower” when demanding concessions from Brussels.
It was approved 317 to 301.
Yvette Cooper, Labour chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, proposed a second amendment seeking to prevent a “no-deal” Brexit by extending the deadline if there is no agreement by February 26.
On this episode of Liberty Never Sleeps, discuss how the era of personal politics is now upon us, and how dangerous that is in the modern age.
*Hating on the Emperor *McCabe and Possible Sedition *What We are All Missing on Smollett *The Problem with Incompetence *National Emergencies
Bumper Music:
Help!- Beatles Eight Days a Week- Beatles Church of the Poisoned Mind- Culture Club It’s Now or Never- Elvis In the Ghetto- Elvis She Blinded me With Science- Thomas Dolby
The money pledged thru Patreon.com will go toward show costs such as advertising, server time, and broadcasting equipment. If we can get enough listeners, we will expand the show to two hours and hire additional staff.
All bumper music and sound clips are not owned by the show, are commentary, and of educational purposes, or de minimus effect, and not for monetary gain.
No copyright is claimed in any use of such materials and to the extent that material may appear to be infringed, I assert that such alleged infringement is permissible under fair use principles in U.S. copyright laws. If you believe material has been used in an unauthorized manner, please contact the poster.
More than $2M in Bribery Payments for Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E)
This May 19, 2014 photo shows a a sign in front of the Veterans Affairs building in Washington, DC. (Photo: Reuters)
A former Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) official was sentenced on Friday for his role in a bribery scheme involving an education program for disabled veterans.
James King, 63, of Baltimore, Maryland, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge John D. Bates of the District of Columbia (DC) to serve 132 months in prison, followed by 3 years of supervised release.
He was also ordered to pay $155,000 in restitution to the VA.
“James King blatantly betrayed his responsibility with the VA to provide job and educational counseling to disabled military veterans who turned to him for help,” U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu said. “Instead of helping our veterans, he lined his own pockets by taking bribes to send them to three sham schools that brought them only pain and frustration.”
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E), commonly referred to as Voc-Rehab [pronounced: voke rehab], provides eligible disabled veterans with education benefits and employment-related services.
A VR&E counselor’s role is to advise those veterans under their supervision on schools to attend, and to facilitate payments to those schools for tuition and necessary supplies.
The Justice Department (DOJ) said Mr. King demand and received bribes from the owners of Atius Technology Institute (Atius), Eelon Training Academy (Eelon), and School A, a school purporting to specialize in physical security classes.
According to admissions made in connection with his plea, the former official facilitated over $2 million in payments from the VA using veterans’ federal education benefits from 2015 – 2017. Mr. King facilitated over $2 million in payments to Atius, over $83,000 to Eelon, and over $340,000 to School A.
Last week, Judge Bates sentenced the three school owners and employees who admitted to bribing Mr. King.
Albert Poawui, the owner of Atius Technology Institute, was sentenced to serve 70 months in prison and ordered to pay $1.5 million in restitution. Sombo Kanneh, who worked for Mr. Poawui, was sentenced to serve 20 months in prison and ordered to pay $113,000 in restitution.
Michelle Stevens, the owner of Eelon Training Academy, was sentenced to serve 30 months in prison and ordered to pay $83,000 in restitution.
“James King and his associates exploited an important VA program that provides valuable services to our disabled military veterans,” said Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski.
Mr. King had separate agreements with each school owner to commit bribery and defraud the VA. Mr. Poawui and Ms. Stevens both agreed to pay 7 percent of the money they received from the VA, in case.
In return, Mr. King steered veterans to their schools and facilitated payments from the VA, and similarly accepted cash payments in exchange for the same from the owner of School A, who is identified as Person A in federal court records.
All three school owners sent false information in order to receive the largest possible payment, which Mr. King in turn submitted to the VA knowing full-well the information about the education provided to the veterans was inaccurate.
According to federal court documents, he also admitted to repeatedly lying to veterans under his supervision in order to convince them to attend one of the three schools.
“King tried to use his position to enrich himself at the expense of veterans who have honorably served our country,” FBI Special Agent in Charge Matthew J. DeSarno said.
In one instance, Mr. King falsely instructed one veteran that his VR&E benefits would “lapse” if he didn’t attend school A.
Further, he insisted the veteran enroll despite a physical disability preventing him from engaging in physical security work, and despite the the veteran enrolling in the VR&E program to pursue his dream of becoming a baker.
In early 2017, the VA initiated a fact-finding inquiry into Atius after receiving complaints student veterans regarding the quality of education at the school. In August 2017, Mr. King became aware of the inquiry and falsified a site visit report in an effort to obstruct it.
He told Mr. Poawui to send the created report to another VA official. In January 2018, Mr. King attempted to convince Poawui to lie to the grand jury about the purpose of the bribe payments.
“We are pleased to see Mr. King, a person who abused his position of trust and the veterans he was supposed to serve, sentenced,” Special Agent in Charge Kim Lampkins of the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG), said.
“This sentence sends a clear message that VA OIG is dedicated to prosecuting those that take advantage of VA programs that are intended to help our veterans and their families.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., talks to MSNBC about “Democratic Socialism,” and capitalism. (Photo: Screenshot)
When I wrote about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s so-called Green New Deal, I mostly focused on the very expensive fiscal implications. I also noted that AOC’s proposed 70 percent tax rate on the rich wouldn’t even pay for a tiny fraction of the multi-trillion dollar cost.
Others focused on some of the inane goals of the legislation, such as phasing out cows and air travel.
But the part of the plan that produced the most controversy was the promise to provide “economic security” to those “unwilling to work.” This generated so much mockery that it no longer appears in any supporting documents and some supporters even claim that it never was part of the plan.
But some true believers aren’t backing down. Let’s look at some excerpts from Christine Emba’s recent column in the Washington Post.
The rollout of the progressives’ Green New Deal has been less than smooth. One major reason: the release of an FAQ that listed“economic security” for those “unwilling to work” as one of the program’s goals. “Unwilling”? The now-retracted FAQ made other eyebrow-raising claims, but conservatives pounced on that word in particular. …welfare as a reward for laziness, it was called extreme, absurd…a “Communist Manifesto, 21st Century.”
Give Ms. Emba credit.
She didn’t pretend, like many other folks on the left, that the promise of no-strings handouts for the indolent wasn’t part of AOC’s original plan. For this reason, we should probably add her to our collection of honest leftists.
But while I applaud the honesty at the start of her column, the analysis that follows is profoundly awful.
She basically argues that the success of welfare should be judged by whether recipients are happy to get free money.
…is the idea of unconditional economic security really so extraordinary? …A state-dispensed, unconditional cash stipend for every single citizen — whether willing to work or not — has been touted as a way to…perhaps end deep poverty …most Americans look askance at the idea of giving anyone anything free, let alone something as intangible as well-being. It’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, after all. Actually getting it is up to you. But what if we thought differently? Well-being — happiness in some sense… Health is a key measure of well-being. Adequate food and housing support it. …Which outcomes do we really care about? …Work isn’t all that matters. Improving well-being is a more than respectable goal.
And she even cites the failed program from Finland to justify her position.
Finland recently completed a landmark basic income project… One of the main goals of the Finnish project was to test whether a basic income would promote employment. …the program wasn’t much of a success: During the first 12 months, at least, basic income recipients fared no better or worse at finding employment than a control group. But it made a radical difference in other ways. “The basic income recipients of the test group reported better well being in every way,” chief researcher Olli Kangas told Reuters.
For all intents and purposes, Ms. Emba is lowering the bar for success. Basic income no longer should be supported because it will encourage more work, as some claim. Instead, we should support it because non-working people will be happy to get more handouts.
Un mur de propagande, or a propaganda wall, promoting socialism behind Senator Bernie Sanders, D-I, Vt., left, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., right.
And I chose those nations deliberately because I used them as examples in this clip from a recent interview.
All of them are sometimes labeled as socialist countries, but if you look at the rankings from Economic Freedom of the World, you notice that this analysis doesn’t make much sense.
For example, the Nordic nations have a lot of economic liberty and are only slightly behind to the United States, which is why I explained last year that if those nations are socialist, then so is America.
And there is a big gap between the Nordic nations and France. And then another big gap before getting to Greece, and also a big gap before reaching Venezuela at the bottom. Should all of those nations get the same label?
So, where do we draw the line to separate socialist nations from non-socialist nations?
I confess that I don’t have an answer because–as I’ve notedmany times–we don’t have a good definition of socialism.
If socialism is central planning, government-determined prices, and government ownership of the means of production, then the only nations that really qualify are probably Cuba and North Korea. And they aren’t even part of the rankings because of inadequate economic data.
But if having a welfare state is socialism, then every jurisdiction other than Hong Kong and Singapore presumably qualifies.
Given this imprecision, I’m very curious to see where people think the line should be drawn.
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.
