Via SchiffGold.com,

The solution to a problem shouldn’t make the problem worse.

But apparently, California’s policy makers missed that memo.

On April 1st, the state instituted a $20 minimum wage for fast food workers, the highest in the US. With California’s absurdly high cost of living, the policy appeared to make life more manageable for low-income residents. Unfortunately, as the adage goes, “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.” California’s new minimum wage is poised to hurt the same fast-food workers it aims to help.

The Economic Problem of a Minimum Wage

The counterproductivity of a minimum wage is demonstrated by a simple analysis of the labor market. Companies “purchase” labor from workers through a wage. The more value a worker adds to a company, the more they will be paid. If employers are allowed to set wages freely, and the labor market is competitive, workers can expect to be paid close to their value added to the company.

A minimum wage hijacks this process. If a worker is worth $15 an hour to an employer, but a $20 minimum wage is introduced, the company will no longer hire the worker, and both parties are harmed. A $20 wage floor means that workers must at least add that much value to the company. For many laborers, this means saying goodbye to their industry and hello to unemployment.

The Effects of California’s Minimum Wage

The ripple effects of California’s $20 minimum wage have proved these dismal predictions all too true. Several chains, including Pizza Hut and Starbucks, have laid off workers in response to the wage increase. Michaela Mendelsohn, the CEO of El Pollo Loco, claimed the company would have to reduce employee hours due to increased labor costs. McDonald’s employees are likewise seeing their hours substantially reduced. In the tight margins of the fast-food industry, where even a small increase in the price of labor can destabilize a production chain, the effects of the wage hike have been exacerbated.

Fast-food workers are particularly susceptible to layoffs because of the rise of automation within the industry. Automation creates a simple alternative for companies struggling to meet the wage requirement. Many fast-food restaurants have already implemented mobile ordering stations, and if labor costs continue to rise, the incentive to further automate will increase. Restaurants around the world have already introduced machines to replace waiters, cashiers, and cooks.

A higher wage also increases the risk of hiring new, untested workers. In service industries, such as fast food, it can be difficult to distinguish the productivity of individual workers. It can take a while to find the weak link at the root of a location’s unproductivity, and this delay equals lost revenue. While an untested applicant may potentially boost productivity, a heightened minimum wage increases the risk of giving that worker a chance.

Proponents of the new minimum wage argue that food chains will absorb the wage increase by raising prices. Some companies, such as Chipotle and Jack in the Box, have already raised their California prices in response to the new policy. However, this is not a concrete solution. Any price increase will necessarily decrease consumer demand, which could harm profits further. A step too far and the workers’ already dire plight will be exacerbated.

If California’s economic and political conditions continue to worsen, many franchises might simply leave the state. While California has a massive potential market, if labor costs become prohibitively high, chains could simply focus their resources on more economically-friendly states. Leading the way are MOD Pizza and Starbucks, who respectively closed five and seven of their California locations in April.

The Minimum Wage: A Cure that Exacerbates the Sickness

The ethos of the minimum wage is to support the poor and lessen wealth inequality. Social class discrepancy is not a trivial issue, as a lack of generational wealth constrains the opportunities of millions of Americans. Children of parents without college degrees are more likely to not obtain a degree themselves, and less educated workers are on average less productive than their educated counterparts. However, the minimum wage increases inequality by cutting off anyone who falls below a mandated productivity threshold. This means removing many of the underprivileged from the workforce altogether, causing families already hampered by societal constraints to see their opportunities shrink even further. It’s like a hospital diverting its care from its sickest patients to pamper the healthy.

Interventionist policies usually sound good. Politicians love to swoon about how their measures will reduce inequality and to paint opponents as money-grubbers who don’t care about assisting the poor. The cold reality is that when the government institutes a sweeping economic reform, there will always be unintended consequences. In the case of the minimum wage, the “cure” exacerbates the sickness.

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Friday weighed in on the April 13 Iranian attack on Israel, which was the Islamic Republic’s first-ever direct attack on the Jewish state.

It included some 300 drones and missiles launched at Israel – the vast majority of which were intercepted by Israeli anti-air defenses, but also with US and Western help, and the deployment of warplanes which shot inbound drones out of the sky. Austin in a press briefing appeared to mock the Iranian attack as weak and ineffective. This comes following Tehran officials deriding Israel’s apparent ‘limited’ retaliation which came on April 19.

“They should be questioning the effectiveness of their weapons systems and their planning,” Austin told reporters in reference to the Iranians and their military.

Via AP

“Hopefully they don’t walk away from this over-confident that they can do this at will, because I think Israel has demonstrated that it has a significant ability to defend itself,” Austin added.

While it’s clear that some of Iran’s ballistic missiles did hit a couple of Israeli airbases in the central and south of the country, many more were intercepted or fell harmlessly in the desert.

A fresh report in Jerusalem Post notes that people are still randomly finding nearly intact missiles in the Negev desert:

…the missiles launched towards Nevatim and other targets in the Negev fell in the South but far from the targets they were aimed at. When they are lying in the Negev devoid of the warheads, they are just metal scraps, which the IDF slowly collects for research and analysis of the enemy’s capabilities.

Travelers who were walking in the Arad area of the Judean desert, enjoying the starry night, were surprised to find themselves standing next to a ballistic missile, a remnant of the major attack that Tehran launched against Israel, which included more than 300 suicide drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles.

This is not the first missile discovered in the south since the attack. Similar missiles were discovered nearby in the Dead Sea area immediately after.

Below via Reuters/JPost: A man stands next to the apparent remains of a ballistic missile, as it lies in the desert near the Dead Sea, following a massive missile and drone attack by Iran on Israel, in southern Israel April 21, 2024

Via Reuters

Despite Austin’s criticisms and mockery aimed at Tehran, the Biden administration is breathing a sigh of relief that the whole thing ended in a one-off tit-for-tat which subsided after each side got its strikes in, and not runaway escalation leading to major war. Both sides telegraphed their responses and limited them, in order to ensure the likelihood of avoiding a bigger regional war.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

UCLA medical school is under fire for forcing students to attend ‘health equity’ classes where ‘fat positivity’ is promoted, and reading material claims that the medical term ‘obesity’ is a slur “used to exact violence on fat people.”

Yes, really.

The Washington Free Beacon obtained the  entire syllabus for the mandatory course, titled Structural Racism and Health Equity, which one medical expert who has reviewed it describes as “education designed to ideologically indoctrinate physician-activists.”

As part of the required course, all first year medical students are made to read an essay by ‘fat liberationist’ Marquisele Mercedes (pictured), who uses made up terms like “fatphobia” to argue that the medical profession is biased against fat people, and that trying to lose weight to be more healthy is a “hopeless endeavor” because it is a disability that cannot be reversed.

‘Pedagogical Malpractice’: Inside UCLA Medical School’s Mandatory ‘Health Equity’ Classhttps://t.co/lucuX8hFbM

— Washington Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) April 24, 2024

The essay titled ‘No Health, No Care: The Big Fat Loophole in the Hippocratic Oath,’ claims that weight has become “pathologized and medicalized in racialized terms,” and that fatties are discriminated against by the medical profession, particularly “Black, disabled, trans, poor fat people.”

Unhinged.

The syllabus states that the essay provides guidance on “resisting entrenched fat oppression.”

WFB writer Aaron Sibarium breaks down the syllabus, which is replete with extreme Marxist, gender ideology, and critical race theory positions, in this thread (click through to read):

NEW: UCLA medical school’s mandatory health equity class teaches students that weight loss is a “hopeless endeavor” and that “ob*sity” is a slur “used to exact violence on fat people.”

The full syllabus has shocked prominent doctors—the former dean of Harvard Medical School.🧵

— Aaron Sibarium (@aaronsibarium) April 24, 2024

The findings have been slammed by Jeffrey Flier, former dean of Harvard Medical School, who warned that the curriculum “promotes extensive and dangerous misinformation.”

Flier charges that UCLA “has centered this required course on a socialist/Marxist ideology that is totally inappropriate,” adding that “As a longstanding medical educator, I found this course truly shocking.”

“This is a profoundly misguided view of obesity, a complex medical disorder with major adverse health consequences for all racial and ethnic groups,” Flier further urged, adding that indoctrinating medical students with such “ignorant” notions constitutes “malpractice.”

Earlier this month, UCLA’s ‘Structural Racism’ course also mandated first-year medical students to sit through a crackpot lecture by a screaming masked up pro-Hamas activist who told them pray to ‘mama Earth’.

In a mandatory course on “structural racism”, UCLA Med School lecturer Lisa Gray-Garcia, forced students to kneel down and pray for “black,” “brown,” and “houseless people” who die because of the “crapatalist lie” of “private property.”

SOURCEhttps://t.co/4MLFxmhpsE pic.twitter.com/dbJekwenld

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) April 3, 2024

The Washington Free Beacon reported that when one student refused to participate, a faculty member “inquired about the student’s identity, implying that discipline could be on the table.”

UCLA Med School Requires Students To Attend Lecture Where Speaker Demands Prayer for ‘Mama Earth,’ Leads Chants of ‘Free Palestine.’https://t.co/P0d9MD2brJ pic.twitter.com/6IwQ8V62Z3

— Washington Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) April 3, 2024

The course also prompted a civil rights complaint back in January after students were separated into race-based discussion groups, with one for white students, another for African Americans, and a third for “Non-Black People of Color.”

It was only when a Wall Street Journal editorial publicised the complaint, that UCLA moved to cancel the exercise.

Last month, The Daily Wire also published portions of the course’s openly socialist syllabus, including units on “settler colonialism” where students were made to read an essay titled Decolonization Is Not A Metaphor that describes the “epistemic, ontological, cosmological violence” of “the settler.”

2/ These emails come from a mandatory class called “Structural Racism and Health Equity.” UCLA med students are told to read about wars of “Indigenous resistance” – in which Native Americans killed thousands of white people – to “imagine what liberation could look like.” pic.twitter.com/0E9RWS7C5w

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) March 1, 2024

4/ The emails from this first-year class also reveal that students are encouraged to listen to a podcast entitled “Indigenae,” which covers an array of unscientific nonsense, including people identifying as “two-spirit” and “womxn.” pic.twitter.com/0Y8tRh1VqV

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) March 1, 2024

6/ In the context of a medical school, these materials aren’t just irrelevant — they put lives at risk. Medical students are being taught to disregard science, and instead to build resentment towards many of their patients.

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) March 1, 2024

This is all just the tip of the iceberg as far as DEI on college campuses goes. Yale, Stanford and Columbia all have similar programs in place, to name just three institutions.

Imagine the fallout of this when today’s students become part of the fabric of the workforce and government of the country.

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

First, the feminists claimed that they “don’t need no man” and promoted a culture of “strong independent women,” the idea being that men were holding women back from their true potential.  The “patriarchy” conspiracy was an all prevailing issue for woke activists for years, and their answer was to attack and sabotage men and masculinity with a terroristic fervor.  Masculinity, they argued, is the root of all historic evils.

However, as feminists gained the backing of governments and massive corporate financiers the idea of women being “oppressed” in western countries seemed even less probable than it did before.  What rights under the law do men have that women don’t have?  Ask a feminist this question and she’ll have no idea how to answer.  Feminism and woke movements in general rely on the image of being the underdog; a heroic revolutionary effort by people who are fighting to gain a voice.  But woke activists aren’t fighting “the man”, they are “the man.”  You can’t be a revolutionary when you’re the oppressor.

In response, men started giving feminists exactly what they said they wanted:  Equal treatment.  The old days of chivalry and the expectations for men to support women financially quickly faded, and suddenly feminists discovered that men were no longer spending their cash as freely as they used to.  Everything is half-and-half today, and feminists don’t like that.

So, hypocritically, the same woke promoters that once pontificated about women being treated equally took to the internet to attack men who embraced the idea.  The “Sprinkle Sprinkle” narrative was born, with feminists demanding that men submit to feminism while also paying for everything a woman desires as if they are walking ATMs.  Those men that don’t are accused of being “broke losers” who don’t deserve companionship.

Yes, it’s bewildering, but this is the nature of Cultural Marxism – The goal of activists is to break down the target population until they are slaves to collectivist whim.  No matter what you do, no matter how you accommodate them, it’s never good enough because the true purpose is control.  In the case of feminism, being a man is the same as original sin and every man must pay the price for that sin for as long as they live.  Meaning if men want access to women they can’t just treat them equally, they also have to pay.

This philosophy has led to a flurry of online trends, mainly on websites like TikTok, in which feminists give women relationship advice on how to view men as an easy income source while squeezing them for every available penny.  The term “foodie call” became ubiquitous as social media activists laughed about having various categories of men in their roster, some for sex and some for free food.  This is where the now infamous “Restaurant Refusal List” came from; a list of eateries that feminists say women should never go to on a first date because they are “cheap.”

List of restaurants women refuse to go on a first date to is going viral 👀 pic.twitter.com/4myU4nsL0O

— Daily Loud (@DailyLoud) October 24, 2023

And don’t think for one second that these internet fads have no bearing on the real world, because they absolutely do.  The ignorance of older generations to the online social ecosystem is one of the reasons why the woke movement seemed to strike out of nowhere a decade ago.  Everyone thought it was fringe and funny until it suddenly began dominating every element of the web and pop-culture. 

The Sprinkle-Sprinkle trend blew up, with scores of women taking to TikTok to complain about how men don’t fulfill their needs monetarily and proudly boasting about the privileges they’re entitled to.  The double standard was now complete.  Women were all victims all the time.  Men were all victimizers all the time.  But women were also “powerful” and independent, yet they required men’s finances to feel respected.  Meaning, under feminism men can truly never win, even if they give in.    

Thankfully, grassroots counter-movements are learning and adapting to the online environment that woke activists have been thriving in, often with hilarious results.  Instead of “Sprinkle Sprinkle”, now it’s “Drizzle Drizzle” – The “Soft Guy Era” movement parodies feminist talking points, taking those arguments and flipping them around to show how ridiculous these women sound.

Men demand equal treatment, and feminists better have their cash and credit cards handy or they get no access. Men are now “the prize.”

Obviously these are all jokes and none of the men are serious, but not surprisingly a lot of feminists are furious anyway.  As the saying goes, the left can’t meme and they’re incapable of laughing at themselves.  

If you take, for example, common BLM arguments about white people and you flip the script by replacing the word “white” with the word “black”, those same arguments come out sounding incredibly racist.  Activists don’t like it when you use their methods against them.  The guys out there making Drizzle-Drizzle videos are using a similar debate technique, only with feminists.  

At bottom, feminism is a narcissistic and sociopathic ideology that is destroying western relationships and the nuclear family.  It is at the core of the current downfall of civilization and should not be taken lightly.  That said, sometimes ridicule is the most effective weapon for stopping social saboteurs.  Drizzle Drizzle, kings.   

Authored by William Woodruff via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Whether Presidential Immunity is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing Shouldn’t Depend Upon Party Affiliation

“Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?” That is the question the Supreme Court will answer when it hears oral argument in Trump v. U.S.  on April 25, 2024.

Legacy media and the ladies of “The View” nearly lost their collective minds when the Court agreed to hear Trump’s appeal of the D.C. Circuit’s decision denying him immunity for his actions surrounding the events of Jan. 6, 2021. However, even Jack Smith, the Special Counsel prosecuting the case, argued that it was of “imperative public importance” that the Court resolve the immunity question before trial.

But forget about Trump for the moment. The issue is bigger than Trump and his legal woes. As the partisan divide between the left and the right grows larger, there is a real risk that the criminalization of policy differences could raise our current state of “lawfare” to a new level.

Several retired four-star generals and admirals, as well as former cabinet officials, have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court arguing that granting immunity to former presidents for actions within the outer perimeter of their official duties would raise questions about the ability of the United States to peacefully transfer power from one administration to another, and thereby pose a grave risk to national security.

The retired officials’ brief also argues that granting immunity would undermine civilian control of the military and undermine trust and confidence in the military as an institution.

The “parade of horribles” in the retired officials’ brief assumes that a future president would instruct subordinate military officers to carry out illegal orders for which they, but not the president, would be criminally liable. The brief also suggests that an unrestrained incumbent would use the military to retain power and, thus, destabilize America’s diplomatic and military standing among nations.

Of course, none of the hypotheticals feared by the brief writers occurred in the case pending before the Court. Apparently, they are afraid not of Donald Trump but of some unidentified future president.

To analyze the pros and cons of immunity, however, there is no need to speculate about what some future president might do. We need only look at actual events from our recent history.

Situation #1

President Obama ordered a drone strike in Yemen to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen and Islamic Imam critical of American foreign policy in the Middle East. Before releasing the drones that killed al-Awlaki and two others, the White House sought and received a Memorandum from the Department of Justice providing legal justification for the attack.

Several questions come to mind.  Should the memo from DoJ authorizing the killing of an American citizen abroad without judicial due process immunize President Obama for violating the federal criminal statute that imposes criminal penalties for the extra territorial killing of an American citizen?

Could a subsequent President, a member of the opposing political party, direct a new Attorney General to investigate whether the killing of the U.S. citizen by drone attack in Yemen violated federal criminal law? If an indictment is returned against the now former President for that killing, should President Obama be allowed to claim immunity or be forced to stand trial?

Situation #2

President Biden revoked many of President Trump’s Executive Orders addressing border security when he took office. He also halted construction of physical barriers intended to secure the southern border and stem the flow of illegal border crossings and the smuggling of dangerous drugs.

The number of illegal border crossings skyrocketed. Instead of remaining in Mexico until asylum claims were adjudicated, migrants were “paroled” into the interior of the United States and given a court date for their asylum claim years into the future.

The quantity of illegal drugs, and the deaths of American citizens from accidental drug overdoses smuggled across the southern border, escalated astronomically. Federal law imposes criminal penalties on those who enter the United States illegally. It also punishes conspiracies to violate federal law.

So, if the White House switches parties when President Biden leaves, should the new president’s Attorney General seek an indictment against Biden for conspiring with the Secretary of Homeland Security to violate U.S. immigration laws by facilitating the illegal entry of millions of migrants into the United States? Or should those policy choices be protected by a cloak of immunity?

Situation #3

Eager to deliver on a campaign promise, President Biden announced a policy to “forgive” billions of dollars in student loan debt. The Supreme Court struck down the President’s plan and held that Congress had not authorized the Executive to unilaterally forgive student loan debt.

Instead of seeking legislative authority, President Biden reworked his plan to rely upon a different statute for authority. Assume the courts dismissed lawsuits challenging Biden’s “Plan B” because the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. “Plan B” went forward and billions of dollars in federal student loans became “grants” instead of loans that had to be repaid.

The federal Anti-deficiency Act imposes criminal penalties on anyone who authorizes the expenditure of federal funds without a valid congressional appropriation. When President Biden leaves office, can he be indicted and tried because his “Plan B” loan scheme violated federal law?

Presidential Immunity Analysis

Each of the foregoing situations illustrates how  a former President could be subject to indictment for actions taken within the outer perimeter of his official duties as President. Never happen, you say? Surely, no one would try to force these facts into violations of existing law. But Alvin Bragg, Fani Willis, and Jack Smith have all engaged in creative lawyering to bring novel criminal charges against Trump. Apparently, some see creative lawyering as a feature and not a bug in our legal system.

While the former Presidents have substantive defenses to the charges and the novel theories advanced in the indictments may be rejected by the courts or nullified by a jury, should the former presidents and the country be put through the spectacle of a criminal trial?

One of the major attributes of immunity is that it avoids the trial in the first place. Instead of placing one’s fate in the hands of a jury and hoping they will accept one or more defenses or justifications for the alleged violations, immunity prevents the trial at the outset. In other words, if the process is the punishment, immunity avoids the process.

Presidential immunity for actions within the outer perimeter of official duties allows a president to make difficult policy and operational decisions without concern for his personal liberty once he leaves office. It also eliminates the temptation to exact a tit for tat when the next election goes to the opposition party.

On the flip side, the existence of presidential immunity may provide unwarranted protection for the actions and decisions of a president who does not really have the best interests of the country at heart. But the Constitution provides two significant checks on that unseemly circumstance: impeachment and the ballot box. Furthermore, the Constitution specifically provides that upon conviction by the Senate in an impeachment trial the person impeached “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”

It is tempting to favor or disfavor presidential immunity in criminal cases depending upon the political or personal like or dislike one may have for the indicted former President. Republicans get immunity but Democrats don’t; or vice versa. But if we are to be a nation of laws every former president should be entitled to presidential immunity for alleged criminal acts committed within the outer perimeter of official duties, or no former President should be so immune.

The issue before the Supreme Court is one of first impression. While immunity has been litigated in the context of civil claims, no former President has been indicted for criminal acts while in office, until now. In an ideal world, the answer to the question presented in Trump v. United States would remain nothing more than an interesting topic of discussion among law professors.

But if the last seven or eight years have proved anything it is that we are not living in an ideal world.

William A. Woodruff is a retired Army lawyer who, as Chief of the Army Litigation Division, was responsible for defending Army policies, programs, and operations in federal courts around the country. He retired from active duty in 1992 and taught law for 25 years at Campbell University School of Law in North Carolina.

Authored by Fred Roeder via RealClearMarkets,

On a Friday night in March 2011, I stayed at an upscale W Hotel on Lexington Avenue in New York City for $124. That hotel later became The Maxwell, but sadly it didn’t survive the pandemic and is now permanently closed. Today the average hotel stay in that same neighborhood costs between $400 and $500 on a Friday night. The surge in hotel prices, particularly for upmarket accommodations, has caught the attention of travelers and investors worldwide. What led to this spike in hotel rates post-pandemic?

Several factors have been at play for the hospitality industry since COVID entered the rearview, resulting in higher prices for travelers.

Supply and Competition

Competition within hospitality plays a crucial role in determining hotel prices. While it might appear that there’s no shortage of lodging options for travelers, the regulatory crackdown on platforms like Airbnb in big cities has redirected travelers back into the arms of traditional hotels, thereby increasing demand. 

As the Consumer Choice Center has pointed out, 80 percent of properties were already delisted from Airbnb by October 2023 thanks to New York City’s stringent new short-term rental policies. Because of the new restrictions on temporary rentals, which state that only two paying guests at most can stay for up to 30 days under certain conditions (unobstructed access to the whole residence, short-term registration, owner present on site), many families have no choice but to look for a hotel room during their NYC stay. 

Not to mention the massive buying up of hotel room blocks by the city in order to house newly arrived migrant populations. This warps the market for hotel rooms in profound ways. NYC has at least 140 active contracts with city hotels to fill all their vacant rooms, normally valued around $110 per night, but marked up by 73 percent to $190 for a room. Vacancies mean lower prices, but if surrounding inns are full, hotel prices rise for consumers. 

This arrangement may not be what hoteliers had in mind for their business, but it has proven highly lucrative for the properties cooperating with the city in these contracts. 

Closures of smaller hotels along with industry consolidation reduce the number of options for consumers, which empowers larger hotel chains to raise prices. Moreover, high interest rates on financing discourage the construction of new hotels, leading to an even more constrained supply of rooms. All the while, prices creep even higher. 

Consolidated hotel groups have found innovative ways to manage yields and hence increase revenue. This would explain higher average daily rates despite similar or even lower occupancy rates for NYC hotels pre-pandemic.

Traveler’s Tastes Change 

Higher prices are also related to consumer preferences, which have evolved significantly in recent years. The pandemic prompted a shift towards safer and more luxurious options, with travelers prioritizing enhanced safety measures and amenities. This shift, coupled with pent-up demand from periods of lockdown, has resulted in a willingness among travelers to pay a premium for upmarket hotels. 

Consumers also tend to book closer to their travel dates and are proving reluctant to commit far in advance. A few years of uncertainty around travel has created a more cautious average traveler. On top of that, the normalization of remote work has blurred the lines between business and leisure travel, leading to longer average stays. 

People are taking personal vacations and then staying there longer while they transition back into work mode.

Supply Chains and Labor

Amidst all these trends, operational costs rise with minimum wage hikes, labor shortages, crunched supply chains overseas, and ever-increasing taxes in America’s largest cities. The labor shortfall is not insignificant and leaves hotels struggling to meet the high demand for rooms. The costs are likely being passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. 

It’s also very possible that hotels are eager to recoup losses incurred during the pandemic period, driving them to maximize revenue through price adjustments as demand rebounds in major travel markets. 

It’s a perfect storm of industry trends, regulatory pressures on competitors, and consumer behavior driving up the average price of a hotel stay in NYC and other large cities. Is there anything that can be done? 

Ideally, as prices rise, consumers will see a new wave of entrepreneurial competition offering market solutions and testing out new models for lodging travelers. For the sake of all our wallets, let’s hope that happens sooner rather than later.

Authored by Eric Lundrum via American Greatness,

With the November election less than 7 months away, mainstream media outlets are now choosing to misrepresent the current state of crime in the United States, claiming that crime is declining without providing full context or key details.

As the Daily Caller reports, there are two ways in which the federal government measures crime in the United States: The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR).

Whereas the NCVS asks roughly 240,000 Americans whether or not they’ve been a victim of crime in the last year, the UCR focuses on crimes that have been reported to police within the last year and shared with the FBI.

While more people are reporting to the BJS that they have been the victims of crime, the FBI is reporting fewer crimes through the UCR.

The UCR claims that violent crime dropped by 2% from 2021 to 2022, while the NCVS shows the exact opposite, reporting that the number of victims of violent crime increased by a staggering 42.4% from 2021 to 2022; this constitutes a rise from 16.5 victims per 1,000 people to 23.5 victims per 1,000.

Nevertheless, many mainstream media outlets such as CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, Reuters, and The Hill have all turned to the FBI’s data to claim, falsely, that crime is on the decline. All such reports have failed to mention the crucial data from the NCVS.

Even Joe Biden himself has turned to deliberately misrepresenting the facts by relying solely on the FBI’s data.

“This week, the FBI released data showing that crime declined across nearly every category in 2023,” said Biden recently.

“Thanks to the American Rescue Plan, which every Republican in Congress voted against, we made the largest-ever federal investment in fighting and preventing crime at any time in our history.”

This directly contradicts broad public sentiment in the United States, with a Gallup poll in December finding that 77% of Americans believe crime is getting worse.

Who could have seen that coming? (here, here, here, and most detailed here)

March will be lit:

1. Reverse repo ends
2. BTFP expires
3. Fed cuts (allegedly)
4. QT ends (allegedly)

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 8, 2024

Admittedly, we were a couple of weeks off, but trouble has been brewing in the banking sector and tonight – after the close – we get the first bank failure of the year.

The FDIC just seized the troubled Philadelphia bank, Republic First Bancorp and and struck an agreement for the lender’s deposits and the majority of its assets to be bought by Fulton Bank.

Republic Bank had about $6 billion of assets and $4 billion of deposits at the end of January, according to the FDIC (considerably smaller than the $100-200BN assets with SVB and Signature).

The FDIC estimated the failure will cost the deposit insurance fund $667 million.

As The Wall Street Journal reports, Republic First had for months struggled to stay afloat.

Around half of its deposits were uninsured at the end of 2023, according to FDIC data. 

Its total equity, or assets minus liabilities, was $96 million at the end of 2023, according to FDIC filings.

That excluded $262 million of unrealized losses on bonds that it labeled “held to maturity,” which means the losses hadn’t counted on its balance sheet.

Its stock, which was delisted from Nasdaq in August, had been near zero.

Republic Bank’s 32 branches across New Jersey, Pennsylvania and New York will reopen as branches of Fulton Bank on Saturday, according to a statement from the FDIC.

Depositors of Republic Bank will become depositors of Williamsport, Pennsylvania-based Fulton Bank, the regulator said.

You should not be surprised given that rates are higher now than they were at the start of the SVB crisis – which means, unless banks have hedged hard or dumped their bonds at a loss, they are even more underwater…

U.S. Banks finished the year with almost $400 billion of unrealized losses on held-to-maturity assets. The assumption is this wouldn’t be a problem because the Fed would cut A LOT this year but what if that doesn’t happen? pic.twitter.com/fsfMCisEd3

— Barchart (@Barchart) April 25, 2024

Add to this the fact that last week – seasonally-adjusted for tax-season – US banks saw the largest deposit outflows since 9/11 (yes, that 9/11)…

…and, as we showed earlier, absent the $126BN outstanding in The Fed’s BTFP bailout fund (which is now terminated and slowly running down as the term loans mature)…

…the banking crisis is back and now the question is “who’s next?”

In a Friday interview with Howard Stern, President Joe Biden said he’d be “happy to debate” Donald Trump, telling Stern: “I am, somewhere, I don’t know when, but I am happy to debate him.”

Biden’s remarks appeared off the cuff, rather than something his handlers approved, according to the NY Times, citing a top Democratic official familiar with the campaign’s thinking.

🚨 Crooked Joe Biden says he’s “happy to debate” President Trump.

His handlers must be furious! pic.twitter.com/eOS9zm0G0U

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) April 26, 2024

Trump responded on Truth Social, posting: “Crooked Joe Biden just announced that he’s willing to debate! Everyone knows he doesn’t really mean it, but in case he does, I say, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, ANYPLACE.”

Trump suggested next Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday evening in Michigan, “a State that he is in the process of destroying with his E.V. Mandate.”

The former President also suggested doing it on Friday – writing “In the alternative, he’s in New York City today, although probably doesn’t know it, and so am I, stuck in one of the many Court cases that he instigated as ELECTION INTERFERENCE AGAINST A POLITICAL OPPONENT – A CONTINUING WITCH HUNT!”

Trump says the lawsuits are “the only way he thinks he can win.”

To that end, the former president said “let’s do the Debate at the Courthouse tonight – on National Television, I’ll wait around!”

Watch:

BREAKING: President Trump has officially invited Biden to debate, stating he is open any day of the week, including tonight.
pic.twitter.com/Y3RRSK853k

— Dinesh D’Souza (@DineshDSouza) April 26, 2024

Via The Cradle

The government of US President Joe Biden has decided against imposing sanctions on Israeli army units responsible for human rights violations against Palestinians, despite initial plans to do so. 

ABC News reported on Friday that a government assessment determined that three battalions in the Israeli army committed “gross human rights violations” against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank “but will remain eligible for US military aid regardless because of steps Israel says it’s taking to address the problem.” 

Image source: NY Times

The assessment, which has not been made public, was outlined in a letter written by US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken to House Speaker Mike Johnson, which the news network obtained. 

The rights violations committed by Israeli forces “will not delay the delivery of any US assistance and Israel will be able to receive the full amount appropriated by Congress.” Billions in US aid to Israel was approved by Biden just two days ago after passing in the Senate on Tuesday.

The violations in question were committed prior to October 7 and took place in the occupied West Bank. They include the execution of Palestinians by Israeli border police, as well as torture and rape during interrogation. 

None are related to Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza, which has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, the majority of whom were women and children. 

Yet the decision is expected to frustrate many critics of the Biden administration who believe Washington has not done enough to hold Israel accountable for war crimes. Under the US Leahy Law, Washington should withhold military aid to states committing severe human rights abuses. Yet the law allows exceptions if measures are taken to punish those responsible. 

An informed source told ABC that Israel and the US have a “special agreement” that Washington must consult with Tel Aviv over any decision relating to foreign assistance. The source added that these consultations are ongoing. 

Blinken’s letter states that four of the Israeli army units have undergone “remediation” steps, meaning that those within the units that are responsible for the crimes have been internally held accountable. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on April 21: “If anyone thinks they can impose sanctions on a unit of the IDF, I will fight it with all my strength.”

According to Hebrew news site Ynet, Israeli pressure on the US helped shape the decision not to impose sanctions on the units. “The reasonable estimate is that we will be able to convince the US not to impose these sanctions,” an Israeli official told the outlet. 

In addition to Netanyahu, opposition leaders Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid both called on the US not to proceed with the decision. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant reportedly promised Blinken that “steps” would be taken. 

How we got here: IMPUNITY. U.S. cancels sanctions against IDF units suspected of blatant war crimes. Because Israel pledged to do its own investigation. History show these “investigations” go nowhere except to find excuses; exonerate suspects.https://t.co/HfwJGcOwCj

— Jim Clancy (@ClancyReports) April 26, 2024

A special State Department panel proposed months ago to bar certain Israeli police and army units from receiving US funds over human rights abuses. A ProPublica report from last week indicates that Blinken disregarded the panel’s recommendations for action against the units. 

The Guardian reported in January, citing interviews and State Department documents, that “special mechanisms have been used over the last few years to shield Israel from US human rights laws.”