When the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the Biden-Harris administration’s latest student loan bailout scheme, it potentially saved American taxpayers nearly half a trillion dollars. Now, the Supreme Court has spoken. By unanimously rejecting the administration’s request to lift the lower court’s injunction, it effectively blocked this loan-cancellation gambit while underlying litigation proceeds—and prevented Americans from footing the bill for an Ivy League bailout. The seven-state lawsuit challenged the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan, which the states argued was just another version of the bailout scheme that the Supreme Court struck down last summer. The 8th Circuit apparently agreed, even scolding the administration for flouting previous rulings and directing it to put further attempts at “forgiveness” on ice. 2024-8-9-Eighth-Circuit-Student-Loan-WinDownload To be clear, so-called forgiveness is just a euphemism for foisting these student loans onto the backs of taxpayers. The administration’s SAVE plan aimed to do just that for millions of borrowers, who would have their loans “forgiven” after 10 years, without paying a single dime toward either principal or interest. In many cases, interest wouldn’t even accrue. But by the time this latest injunction was handed down, the Biden-Harris administration had already used the SAVE plan to conduct $5.5 billion in student loan bailouts. That price tag almost makes the administration’s previous plan—which could’ve cost more than $1 trillion, but was struck down by the Supreme Court—look like a bargain. Young adults, including college graduates, have soured on the economic policies of this administration. Runaway government spending has created a veritable cost-of-living crisis with 40-year-high inflation, record low levels of homeownership affordability, and the highest grocery prices in history. A quarter of renters skipped meals in the past year to pay their rent on time. The financial situation for young Americans is so untenable that they are moving back in with family members at the fastest rate since the 1940s. That kind of retrogression is why—for the first time since the Great Depression—a generation of Americans believes it will have a lower standard of living than their parents enjoyed. The Biden-Harris administration should be performing a mea culpa, acknowledging how its disastrous overspending worsened the burden on young borrowers. Instead, it’s trying to paper over the problem with even more government spending and borrowing. The SAVE plan was allegedly based on the 1992 amendments to the Higher Education Act, which provided congressional authorization for income-driven repayment plans. But as the 8th Circuit pointed out, the administration’s newest scheme was of “an order of magnitude broader than anything that has come before” and unsupported by the original statute. The education secretary was never given the authority to construct new repayment plans in such a way that borrowers could make no payments and then see their debt canceled. The judges rightly noted in their opinion that such a drastic change would require authorization by Congress. Unfortunately, the administration still intends to flout statutory law and remains committed to forcing millions of Americans who never went to college—or those who paid their college loans in full—into paying off the debts of more recent college grads. Instead of putting borrowers back onto normal repayment plans, the Biden-Harris administration has effectively frozen more than 8 million accounts. They are now in interest-free forbearance, which is to say that taxpayers are once again paying the price as those borrowers need make no payments or worry about interest accruing on their outstanding balances. Foregone student loan revenue has already cost taxpayers over $400 billion. Now, those losses will continue. Such forbearance is also unnecessary since borrowers still have access to income-driven repayment plans, even after this latest court injunction. Payments under such schedules are capped at 20% of discretionary income. While the courts have delivered a win for taxpayers, the war over student loan bailouts isn’t over. The Biden-Harris administration is still hellbent on sticking you with the bill for other people’s student loans and has indicated that it intends to fight the ruling. If so, the Supreme Court is its only available option for redress. Mercifully, since that court has already struck down one of the administration’s cockamamie bailout schemes, American taxpayers may soon be breathing a sigh of (permanent) relief. Copyright 2024 Tribune Content Agency LLC The post Federal Court to Biden on Student Loan Bailout: It’s (Still) Illegal appeared first on The Daily Signal.

UCSF Researchers Identify Major Driver Behind COVID And Long COVID, With Potential Treatment

94 US Banks Burdened by Uninsured Deposits – Risk of Bank Runs

Dear Diary, It’s Me, Jessica: Part 17

Boston Globe columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr and New York Times counterpart David Brooks agreed on Friday’s PBS News Hour that Donald Trump’s recent visit to Arlington National Cemetery was “really one of the lowest political moments” they could recall. Host Geoff Bennett set the scene by recalling that “The Army said in a statement, a rare statement, ‘that the campaign was made aware of federal laws prohibiting political activity at the cemetery.’ And they confirmed the reporting that a campaign staff — Trump campaign staffer—abruptly pushed aside an employee of the cemetery. This was a female employee who, according to the Times, didn't want to press charges because she was afraid of retaliation from Trump supporters.”     Bennett should have added that the campaign claims it had permission to bring a photographer and that Trump was invited by Gold Star families who lost loved ones during President Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan. With vital context missing, Stohr began, “You know, there was a time that being disrespectful in any way at Arlington National Cemetery, one of the most sacred places in our nation, would have put an end to a political career.” She continued, “But we have seen Donald Trump time and time again disparage members of the military, Gold Star families. And so this seems par for the course. I really would love to return to a time where people would look at this in a bipartisan way, in a nonpartisan way, say this is absolutely outrageous. He is not an official at the moment. He is a civilian. He had no business being there.” Finally, Stohr claimed, “He certainly didn't have any business trying to shoot a video, a campaign video, that would have knocked Kamala Harris for not being there. I mean, it's really one of the lowest political moments that I have seen in my 20-plus years in covering politics.” Brooks concurred, “Yeah, lowest political Trump moment I have seen in the last 48 hours, I think. You know, one of the things that strikes me, obviously, it's to transgress Arlington as a serious thing. But one of the things that strikes me is, will it have a political effect? And the answer is no. And that's partly because people are used to Trump. They like Trump. But partly it's just because of the change in our politics.” Wrapping up, Brooks further lamented, “When George H.W. Bush was running for president in 1988, he went into his convention 17 points down and, obviously, he went on to win. So that's when you could have these big public swings in public opinions, that daily events really mattered. That's no longer the case.” Another reason why daily events might not matter as much as they used it is because voters don’t trust the media to give them the full picture, like PBS declined to do on Friday. Here is a transcript for the August 30 show: PBS News Hour 8/30/2024 7:44 PM ET Geoff Bennett: In the time that remains, I want to put a marker on something that happened this week, the U.S. Army issuing a stark rebuke of the Trump campaign over this incident at Arlington National Cemetery. The Army said in a statement, a rare statement, “that the campaign was made aware of federal laws prohibiting political activity at the cemetery.” And they confirmed the reporting that a campaign staff — Trump campaign staffer— abruptly pushed aside an employee of the cemetery. This was a female employee who, according to the Times, didn't want to press charges because she was afraid of retaliation from Trump supporters. Kimberly, your thoughts on all this? KIMBERLY ATKINS STOHR: You know, there was a time that being disrespectful in any way at Arlington National Cemetery, one of the most sacred places in our nation, would have put an end to a political career. But we have seen Donald Trump time and time again disparage members of the military, Gold Star families. And so this seems par for the course. I really would love to return to a time where people would look at this in a bipartisan way, in a nonpartisan way, say this is absolutely outrageous. He is not an official at the moment. He is a civilian. He had no business being there. And he certainly didn't have any business trying to shoot a video, a campaign video, that would have knocked Kamala Harris for not being there. I mean, it's really one of the lowest political moments that I have seen in my 20-plus years in covering politics. BENNETT: David? DAVID BROOKS: Yeah, lowest political Trump moment I have seen in the last 48 hours, I think. You know, one of the things that strikes me, obviously, it's to transgress Arlington as a serious thing. But one of the things that strikes me is, will it have a political effect? And the answer is no. And that's partly because people are used to Trump. They like Trump. But partly it's just because of the change in our politics. And so when George H.W. Bush was running for president in 1988, he went into his convention 17 points down and, obviously, he went on to win. So that's when you could have these big public swings in public opinions, that daily events really mattered. That's no longer the case.

For years, the Democratic Party has treated the black vote as if it were a given — a locked-down, guaranteed asset in its electoral strategy. But as the 2024 election approaches, this assumption is proving dangerously naïve. Among Generation Z, particularly young black men, there is a growing shift toward supporting Donald Trump, a trend that Democrats can no longer afford to ignore.The narrative that the Democrats have a monopoly on the black vote is crumbling. We are witnessing a significant change in political allegiances, driven by dissatisfaction with the status quo and a realization that the Democrats have taken the black community’s support for granted. This shift is evident in the increasing number of young black men who are questioning the party’s track record and turning toward Trump as a viable alternative.As the Democrats scramble to address their failures, Republicans have a golden opportunity to welcome these voters, who are disillusioned with broken promises.Don Lemon highlighted this trend in a very public way. The former CNN host spoke with various black voters who voiced their support for Donald Trump, despite the media’s negative portrayal of him. These voters, many of whom belong to Gen Z, articulated their frustration with the Democratic Party, feeling that it has failed to deliver on its promises and has taken the black vote for granted. For them, Trump represents an alternative — someone who, despite his controversies, speaks directly to their concerns about economic opportunity, safety in their communities, and respect for their individual rights.The Democrats' failure to secure the loyalty of young black voters is no accident. It’s the direct result of years of broken promises and empty rhetoric.For too long, the Democratic Party has relied on identity politics, assuming that merely showing up and checking the right demographic boxes would be enough to win elections. But Gen Z, particularly young black men, are not so easily swayed. They are looking for tangible results, and they are willing to cross party lines to get them.Consider the economic policies that have left so many black communities behind. Democrats have long promised to uplift marginalized communities, but the reality is far different. In cities across America, which have been under Democratic control for decades, black neighborhoods are still struggling with high unemployment, poor schools, and crumbling infrastructure. The party’s focus on welfare programs and government dependency has done little to create real economic mobility. Instead, these policies have kept many black Americans trapped in a cycle of poverty, dependent on the very politicians who claim to be their advocates.Kamala Harris, who should be a beacon of hope for the black community, has instead been a disappointment. Her record as a prosecutor in California is riddled with policies that disproportionately targeted black men. While she now claims to be a champion for racial justice, her past actions tell a different story.Harris has failed to address the systemic issues that plague black communities and has done little to prove that she can deliver the change she promises. It's no wonder that many young black men are skeptical of her leadership and are turning to Trump as an alternative.Democrats have also failed to address the growing concerns about safety in black communities. Crime rates are skyrocketing in cities controlled by Democratic mayors, and the party's response has been weak at best. Rather than focusing on effective law enforcement and community safety, Democrats have been more concerned with appeasing the far-left factions of their base, who advocate for defunding the police and other radical policies that do nothing to protect black lives.This growing support for Trump among young black men is a wake-up call for the Democratic Party. It’s a sign that the Democrats' grip on the black vote is slipping, and if they don’t address the underlying issues driving this shift, they could face a rude awakening in November.It’s not just about Trump; it’s about the broader political landscape. Gen Z is reshaping the way we think about political allegiance, and the Democrats can no longer take their support for granted. If they want to win back these voters, they need to offer more than just lip service, which they cannot do. They need to deliver real, substantive change — something they’ve failed to do for too long, and voters are catching on.As the Democrats scramble to address their failures, Republicans have a golden opportunity to welcome these voters, who are disillusioned with broken promises. By focusing on policies that create economic opportunity, ensure safety in communities, and respect individual rights, the GOP can solidify this growing support and redefine the future of American politics. The tide is turning, and the Republicans are ready to lead.

Tech that recognizes faces, enabling the user to permanently track, say, you, is becoming ubiquitous — now a fixture of airport security, with stadiums the next big “market.” However, the full potential of facial recognition is unrealized due to a simple obstacle: children. Now, in the name of border security, that may be about to change — for everyone. “Facial recognition technology (FRT) has traditionally not been applied to children,” observed the MIT Technology Review in an extensive report this month, “largely because training data sets of real children’s faces are few and far between, and consist of either low-quality images drawn from the internet or small sample sizes with little diversity. Such limitations reflect the significant sensitivities regarding privacy and consent when it comes to minors.” Democrats have abandoned the party’s historically anti-corporate, pro-civil-liberties core, which considered the strong central government to be the people’s only bulwark against systematic injustice and exploitation. But the current thinking at the Department of Homeland Security, aired over the summer during at least one conference, suggests bureaucrats are committed to breaking the taboo on minor facial recognition. Despite denials that minor scanning is taking place, insiders approached by the Review warned that the practice could already be under way. At June’s Federal Identity Forum and Exposition, a yearly confab drawing together government employees and contractors in what’s called the “identity management” space, the assistant director of the DHS Office of Biometric Identity Management — one John Boyd — openly speculated that the agency’s so-called craniofacial structural progression initiative could soon be applied “down to the infant” at locations where the United States government receives and processes immigrants. “If we pick up someone from Panama at the southern border at age 4,” he asked, “and then pick them up at age 6, are we going to recognize them?” But “the border” effectively transcends the line between the U.S. and Mexico stretching from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico. Since last year, according to the Review, Customs and Border Protection “has been using a mobile app, CBP One, for asylum seekers to submit biometric data even before they enter the United States. ... After crossing into the United States, migrants submit to collection of more biometric data, including DNA.” Citing a Georgetown Law School report, the Review tallies at least 1.5 million DNA profiles in the CBP One database, “primarily from migrants crossing the border, to law enforcement databases since it began collecting DNA 'from any person in CBP custody subject to fingerprinting' in January 2020.” In stark terms, the “border” of the United States of America is becoming any place United States government technology digitally harvests the biometric identity of people considered to be entering or exiting its territory or jurisdiction. The transformation raises intense questions about the constitutionality of the identity-based surveillance and tracking model to which this approach to “border” security applies — one that, it’s all too easy to see, can promptly be scaled to incorporate any and all Americans, especially those targeted politically by the government or singled out for suspicion and enhanced scrutiny. For those on the political left, the use of the border to feed the biometric borg underscores how much establishment Democrats have abandoned the party’s historically anti-corporate, pro-civil-liberties core, which considered the strong central government to be the people’s only bulwark against systematic injustice and exploitation. But for those on the political right, who have long considered heightened border security a necessity in reclaiming American sovereignty from established elites bent on flouting the rule of law to strengthen their political and economic interests, the border-to-borg pipeline dramatizes how leading-edge security technology is being used in ways the regime can and does repurpose to nullify constitutional protections for citizens, especially critics of the regime itself. The DHS told MIT Tech Review it “ensures all technologies, regardless of type, are operated under the established authorities and within the scope of the law” while “protecting the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties of all individuals who may be subject to the technology we use to keep the nation safe and secure.” What’s more, according to the statement, it “does not collect facial images from minors under 14 and has no current plans to do so for either operational or research purposes.” Yet an anonymous former CBP official familiar with immigrant processing centers told the Review that each center he visited “had biometric identity collection, and everybody was going through it” without the facility “separating out children.”

Nancy Pelosi Says the Quiet Part Out Loud (Again) About What Should Be Done With the 'Undocumented'

Brazil started blocking Elon Musk's social media platform X early Saturday, making it largely inaccessible on both the web and through its mobile app after the company refused to comply with a judge's order.X missed a deadline imposed by Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de...