The following is a preview of Daily Signal Politics Editor Bradley Devlin’s interview with Rep. Pat Harrigan, R-N.C., on “The Signal Sitdown.” The full interview premieres on The Daily Signal’s YouTube page at 6:30 a.m. Eastern on Jan. 22. America has hit another record, but it’s not a good one. Last year, the median age of the first-time home buyer in America hit 40 years old. In the 1980s, the average age of the first-time homebuyer in America was just 28. What happened? Higher interest rates in recent years have taken their toll, but today’s interest rates are nothing compared to the 1980s when the first time buyer’s age was much lower. The answer is that housing prices have gone up, and for many different reasons. While an average house was around three times the average annual American wage, the average house now costs around seven times the average annual income.  Part of the reason that home prices have shot up is that large, multi-billion-dollar institutional investors are increasingly snapping up homes. These institutions have crowded out younger families who can’t compete, which has contributed to older first-time homebuyers. It’s an issue that Rep. Pat Harrigan, R-N.C., has thought a lot about, and he joins us this week on “The Signal Sitdown” to explain how this happened and his proposal to fix it. “During the Great Recession, you had the middle class losing their rear ends because they were getting underwater on their houses,” Harrigan told The Daily Signal.   In response, both the Bush administration and the Obama administration were, “really encouraging institutional investors to come into the market, particularly in certain zip codes. And in many respects that was actually very helpful because it actually propped up and helped to stabilize market prices, and probably prevented a lot of middle class Americans from getting kicked out of their homes, honestly,” Harrigan explained. But in Harrigan’s telling, there was a cultural understanding that underpinned this new arrangement. “There was also kind of a cultural understanding that as soon as the market stabilized, they were supposed to divest of those investments,” Harrigan continued. “Instead, they liked the appreciation, they liked the revenue coming in from it, and when you amass enough homes in a certain zip code, you actually start kind of controlling the market a little bit. And so, they actually bought more.” These financial institutions have increased the number of homes they own by eight times since the Great Recession. “At the end of the great recession, there were about a hundred thousand homes that were owned by institutional investors,” Harrigan claimed. “Today, by some accounts, it’s almost 750,000 homes across the country.” “Just in my state of North Carolina, in Charlotte, 18% of the single family homes on the rental market are institutionally owned,” Harrigan added. “I do think we can all recognize it’s now gotten to a point where it is crowding out middle class home buyers, particularly in certain zip codes across the country that are more popular than others,” Harrigan said. “That is having a very negative impact on the wealth-building trajectory of our middle class.” As Americans pursue the dream of homeownership, they “shouldn’t be competing against the company that’s managing your 401k.” “The longer that you delay somebody from getting into that first house, the longer you delay their wealth-building trajectory towards actually putting themselves in a very solid, fiscally responsible position, which is where you want the middle class,” Harrigan said of delaying homeownership. In the House, Harrigan has just introduced the Families First Housing Act with Rep. Josh Riley, D-N.Y., in an attempt to give American families a leg up on institutional investors. The Families First Housing Act, Harrigan explained, requires government entities auctioning homes “to provide 180 day first look to non-institutional investors.” “We want to narrowly tailor this to get to a point where we don’t think it’s unconstitutional [or] gets thrown out by the courts at some point later down the road,” Harrigan added. “I think that the solution that we laid out on the table, either in its current form or a slightly expanded form of it is something that’s palatable,” Harrigan said, “I think it’s something that’s reasonable. I think culturally it’s something that all Americans could say, ‘Yeah, I think that’s a good idea.’ And I think that that serves the interests of the middle class.” The post How the American Dream of Homeownership Became Unaffordable appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Trump Hitting Davos Like a Wrecking Ball, Announces a Framework for Greenland Deal

NPR Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep is bringing his long-standing Obama-polishing interview style to the early contenders for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is the latest beneficiary, after Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. The primary subject was, inevitably, Donald Trump as a threat to democracy.  The online headline was er, helpful to the usual Democrat paranoia: Gretchen Whitmer says it's not 'paranoia' to fear Trump using homeland security personnel in elections Inskeep proclaimed at the top of the nearly eight-minute segment "she said her swing state is preparing for any efforts to disrupt elections this fall." GRETCHEN WHITMER: We know that there will be efforts to compromise the election or to dissuade people from showing up, to scare people away, to threaten people. We cannot let that stand. I'm concerned about it. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't. INSKEEP: Some people spin out theories, and they will say, well, Homeland Security people are everywhere, and they might be used in some way. WHITMER: I don't think it's paranoia to have that concern. The Morning Edition anchor also pushed this DHS/ICE angle on X:  Gretchen Whitmer warns in an NPR video that it’s not “paranoia” to fear immigration agents interfering in the 2026 elections. Her remark exposes a longstanding link between the immigration debate and election results. Read it here or watch at the link below. pic.twitter.com/nMcNOZSrC2 — Steve Inskeep (@NPRinskeep) January 21, 2026 Inskeep's questions were often just "you go, girl" prompts to whack Trump:  INSKEEP: Just before our interview, Trump's administration had promised not to prosecute immigration agents while also investigating Democrats, including a Michigan senator. [To Whitmer] What does that all add up to? WHITMER: I think an abuse of power. I think that's pretty clear. That's the through line there, and I think it's a very serious and scary moment in this country. The toughest NPR questions nudged Whitmer to explain why the Democrats aren't currently in a terrific position in the polls. INSKEEP: Democrats have the advantage of facing an unpopular president and his party, but Democrats are unpopular themselves. There are a lot of people who voted for Trump, not because they love him, but because they wanted drastic change. Do Democrats have anything to say to people who want drastic change in the way the country has been run? WHITMER: I think drastic change might be an oversimplification. I think that people want leaders who understand them and care about them. You know, I've met a lot of Michiganders who voted both for me and Donald Trump twice. I don't understand everything that makes that voter tick. But when I talk to them, they tell me, I think you're the one that understands what I'm going through. You're the one that's talking about the issues that matter to me. INSKEEP: Democrats did really badly with men in 2024. And then, in your State of the State speech in early 2025, about a year ago, you warned about a generation of men falling behind their fathers and their grandfathers. What were you saying, and is anything better now? Whitmer explained they couldn't get men to participate in some economic programs to the same degree as women, such as first-time home-buying help. There's nothing about transgender controversies, one mover of male voters: INSKEEP: There's a whole conversation about the demoralization of men, about men feeling left out, not seeing a way forward. Is society doing something to men? WHITMER: You know, I don't know all of the different pressures. I've been studying it. I'm listening to probably a lot of the same podcasts that you are to understand... INSKEEP: (Laughter). WHITMER: ...What can we do? How do we bridge this gap? Inskeep concluded the on-air story by asking Whitmer if Michelle Obama was right that America isn't ready for a female president. Unsurprisingly, for a potential 2028 candidate, she gently disagreed on that. A longer interview was posted on YouTube (with the same paranoid push): 

"I gotta start out with a confession," Joe Allen said. "Human beings get on my f**king nerves."He paused for effect. "I think the only creatures on earth more annoying are mosquitoes, AIs, and robots."It was an unexpected confession from a man who has spent the post-COVID years as a sort of John the Baptist for the cause of the human race. Joe Allen, a contributor to Steve Bannon's War Room and author of "Dark Aeon," has been on a speaking tour, warning against the machinations of tech titans and how they intend to turn the human race into a sort of human/machine hybrid, a mix of genetically optimized meat meshed with artificial intelligence.A comprehensive worldview where humanity either upgrades or disappears.Here's the thing: They really believe in this stuff, and Joe has the receipts. Heady stuff for a Thursday night in Nashville.The Emperor and the TwinkAllen frames the transhuman future around two figures he calls "the Emperor and the Twink": Elon Musk and Sam Altman. Augustus and Hadrian. The productive empire-builder and the more, as Allen puts it, "degenerate" aesthete.Both are building toward the same goal through different paths: a future where humanity merges with machines or gets left behind. Maybe eliminated entirely.Altman's funding a start-up called Conception that would let two men produce biological children together through synthetic ova. He's backing Genomic Prediction for algorithmic eugenics. Scraping embryos for height, IQ, looks, then selecting the "best" ones. "Sanitized eugenics," Allen calls it. "At scale, it would be an algorithmic filter for humanity."Then there's the AI work itself. OpenAI and ChatGPT aren't just productivity tools. They're the foundation for what Altman believes will be artificial superintelligence. First the little-g gods, then maybe the big-G God. Artificial general intelligence self-improving into something that makes humanity obsolete.RELATED: Cash-starved OpenAI BURNS $50M on ultra-woke causes — like world's first 'transgender district' Photo by AaronP/Bauer-Griffin/GC ImagesTo keep humans relevant in that future, Altman's pushing World ID: biometric iris scans linking your eyeballs to a government ID and blockchain cryptocurrency. "One of the many tentacles," Allen said, "of the vast digital beast system slowly strangling the life out of everything we once knew to be human."He's also invested in Merge Labs, ultrasound systems to read brain waves and create higher-bandwidth communication with AI. A chance for some biological humans to keep up when the machines take over.The South African car dealerMusk presents himself as the alternative. The "based" option. xAI is the competitor to OpenAI's "woke" ChatGPT, because when we're all consulting chatbots to determine what's racist or sexist, you'll want "maximally truth-seeking" AI that hasn't been neutered by progressive ideology.Fair enough. But the destination's the same.Neuralink is the centerpiece. First sold as healing technology, helping the paralyzed walk and the blind see. But Musk's open about the long-term plan: hundreds of millions of normal humans drilling holes in their skulls to install high-bandwidth interfaces with AI. "If I'm not to be emperor," Allen said, "I'll at least be cooler than the gaybies wielding drones and flamethrowers around me."Then there's Optimus: the humanoid robots Musk promises will outnumber humans three or four to one within a decade or two. "Algorithmic immigrants," Allen calls them, "coming across the border from the platonic realm of mathematical possibilities and swarming into reality."Right now, they can barely fold laundry. But if the vision succeeds, we'll be surrounded by entities that can do everything we can do, only better. Which raises an obvious question: What are we for?Race, robots, and religionAllen organized his talk around three concepts: race, robots, and religion. Or as he rephrased it: bloodline, cultural transmission, and cosmic worldview. Genes, memes, and spirit.The bloodline question is straightforward enough when it comes to Altman's synthetic reproduction technology. But it applies more broadly. Who continues? What survives? The transhumanist vision explicitly embraces what Allen calls "cultural and perhaps even biological genocide": the gradual or rapid replacement of biological humans by superior cyborgs and AI."First the coders, then white-collar workers, then blue-collar workers," Allen said, echoing Musk and Altman's own predictions. "We're left completely economically unviable. Obsolete."The robots are the mechanism. They'll do our work. They'll fill our needs. They'll provide "radical abundance." A world where no one has to labor, where everything is taken care of, where we live as pets or preserve species while the AI spreads through the solar system and beyond.Or we get turned into biofuel. "Better to reconfigure our atoms into robot components," Allen notes, "than keep us around using up resources as pets."The religion part is where it gets really dark. This isn't just technology. It's theology. The conscious creation of artificial gods to rule over us or replace us entirely. A "sacred canopy" that fills the void in a godless universe.Allen quotes Bryan Johnson, whom he describes as a vampire who injects his son's blood to stay young, laying out the five goals every ambitious man should have: Found a company, found a country, found a religion, don't die, become God."It's a bold claim," Allen said dryly. "I am somewhat skeptical."The war against humanityChampioning humanity doesn't come naturally to Allen. He grew up in the hollers of Appalachia, developing "a keen sense of misanthropy and technophobia," where he related better to the trees and streams than to people.But we have to put that aside for what Allen sees as a war. "If we're not going to be replaced by machines, if we are not to become robotic entities ourselves, it's going to require a certain degree of tolerance for humanity."He means accepting human messiness. Human imperfection. The "dirtiness and nastiness of humanity" that makes us frustrating but also makes us us. Because the alternative is accepting that machines really are superior. That Silicon Valley's wealthiest men, backed by the most powerful governments on earth, are right about where we should go."Everyone is going to have to make a choice," Allen said. "Accept the status quo or reject it outright."The rejection requires something most of us aren't good at: forgiving people we disagree with. Looking past differences. Banding together. "When you are fighting a hyper-cooperative superorganism," Allen said, "you're going to need a gang."Allen argued that human solidarity, even with people whose beliefs or lifestyles or sins we can't stand, is the only viable resistance to algorithmic replacement."That person is a human being," he said, "and you will have to put humans first."The prophetsAt one point, Allen pitched a satirical product: transhumanist trading cards. Each card would feature a prominent figure in the movement (or occasionally an anti-transhumanist). Statistics like net worth, number of concubines, humans replaced. A small stick of gum "alternately dosed with LSD or nanobots."It was a bit. But like good satire, it made a point: These people have names. Sigmund Freud, who prophesied humanity becoming "a kind of prosthetic God." Julian Huxley, who coined the term transhumanism to describe a human race taking control of its own evolution through technology. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the priest who saw technological civilization as the face of Christ incarnating on earth.Then the modern saints: Ray Kurzweil and the singularity. Peter Thiel, the accused vampire with rumored interest in young-blood transfusions. Ben Goertzel with his leopard print cowboy hat, giving "dire prophecies of machines taking over with a kind of jolly glee."And of course, Yuval Noah Harari. "Looking like the demonic dark elf that he is," Allen said. "So often quoted, almost never understood, but probably the greatest anti-tech propagandist of our time. Which goes to show you how stupid people are that they believe he's a transhumanist himself."The point isn't the cards. It's that these aren't random technologists tinkering in garages. They're building toward a vision. A comprehensive worldview where humanity either upgrades or disappears.We're already transhumanAllen's message is bleak enough that you want to dismiss it as paranoia. Nobody's actually going to drill holes in billions of skulls. Sam Altman's not really going to create algorithmic master races. This is science fiction, not policy.Except they're building it right now. They're funding it. They're selling it. They're openly stating these goals.Allen compared it to communism. An insane vision that seems impossible until you realize people really believed it and acted on it and reshaped the world trying to achieve it. The reality that emerged wasn't the utopian dream, but it killed tens of millions of people and enslaved hundreds of millions more."These futures that these guys are putting forward," Allen said during the Q&A, "some approximation already exists. A greater degree of approximation will exist, and you just simply have to draw your lines where you will."Here's the uncomfortable part: Most of us have already crossed some lines. We're already cyborgs, as Allen admits. Smartphones, wearables, the constant digital interface with our brains. The question isn't whether to engage with technology. It's where the sacred boundary sits. How much is too much.Allen compared it to having "a pristine, simple cyborg on one shoulder and a very smelly Amishman on the other. And you're never going to be either of those things, but they're always vying for your decisions, trying to steer you one way or the other."Fair enough. But the cyborg has enough cheerleaders. We need more people willing to LARP as armed Amishmen.The middle pathAllen was asked: Is there a peaceful way to interface with these technologies? Some middle path between full rejection and full adoption?"I'm no fundamentalist," he said. "These sacred boundaries are really important, but they're always going to be bound against."His line for himself: zero use for AI in creative work. Anyone using AI to write, compose music, or create images should list the model alongside their name "as a mark of shame for being a hack and basically a vessel for an algorithmic parasite."That's harsh. But it's a clear boundary. And it matters because the question isn't just about capabilities. It's about what makes us human and what makes work meaningful. Whether the polished precision of algorithmic output is worth losing the messy, opaque, human quality of actual creation.Allen mentioned reading "Paradise Lost" and finding the confusing passages charming "because they're self-evidently the personal creation of John Milton." The alternative is flawless, efficient, and utterly dead.Allen mentioned James Poulos, a tech thinker he respects, who takes a different approach. Poulos argues we need to "identify the tools that are of use to you to protect against this sort of nightmare future" while cultivating deeply religious life and communities. But crucially, "not to reject technology out of hand and see it as somehow inherently evil." It's a middle path that acknowledges we're already compromised but still draws meaningful boundaries based on what actually serves human flourishing.What happens nextAllen's not optimistic about avoiding horror. "I don't suspect maybe that won't be the case," he said when asked about preventing a high-tech repeat of 20th-century atrocities. He sees deepfakes and AI erosion of trust requiring "a hyper-vigilant posture in which we don't trust anything at face value."His advice: Cultivate human relationships with people you trust. Develop channels where the person on the other end is verified. "Hope for the best. I'm not going to say all of us are going to make it. But enough of us are going to make it."But here's the thing he said that stuck with me: "This war against humanity, this war in favor of machines and more particularly in favor of the men who own the machines — this isn't something that will be solved or concluded in our lifetimes. This is something that began long before we were born, will continue long after we die."If you care about your children or other people's children, you have to accept this isn't ending anytime soon.Allen closed by urging us to write our own futures. Not to accept the vision laid out by Musk, Altman, and the rest. "Write it boldly," he said. "Write it without apology. Write it beautifully. And for God's sake, write it in a way that is not cliché or irritating."Then he added, "Because I don't think I can take any more."The question now is what we do about it. Whether we have the will to resist the most powerful technological and financial forces on earth. Whether we can tolerate each other enough to band together. Whether we can draw our sacred boundaries and hold them.Allen's asking us to make a choice. I don't know what mine is yet. But I know that men like Altman and Musk aren't waiting for us to decide.They're building the future right now. Whether we like it or not.Memento moriYou might expect Joe to be an angry misanthrope, but nothing could be further from the truth. I've known Joe for a few years now, and he's quite possibly the most upbeat, happy-go-lucky guy I know. Always the life of the party, always a joy to hear speak, and a walking encyclopedia of esoterica.After his talk, I was talking to folks in the crowd who would ask, "How did he memorize all that?" The thing about Joe is that he is always "on." What you see on stage is what you see in person: a happy warrior riding full bore into existential dread with a grin and a devil-may-care attitude.I asked Joe how he's able to retain such a sunny disposition in the face of seemingly insurmountable darkness. "Memento mori: In the end, it's all a momentary drama," he told me.

In his final hours as New Jersey governor, Democrat Phil Murphy issued 97 pardons and 51 commutations.Among Murphy's more controversial recipients of clemency was Harris Jacobs, the killer son of Democratic fundraiser and Atlantic City powerbroker Joe Jacobs. Jacobs is a friend of Murphy who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the failed 2024 Senate campaign of the then-governor's wife, Tammy Murphy.'When politics pervades justice, the rule of law becomes subordinate to influence and power.'Orlando Fraga — a Cuban who moved to the United States in 1980 in pursuit of a better life — was fatally struck by a vehicle when walking along Atlantic Avenue on Sept. 4, 2022.Harris Jacobs knew he had struck Fraga. Jacobs reportedly can be seen in surveillance footage pulling into a nearby Dunkin' Donuts, then repeatedly inspecting his bloody victim before fleeing the scene.Jacobs' defense attorney Lou Barbone suggested to WCAU-TV that the recognition that Fraga "had expired" was "simply too much of an emotional trigger" for his client to stick around and face the music.RELATED: 'This is First Amendment activity': Democrats give church-storming mobs their stamp of approval Photo by FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty ImagesProsecutors noted during Harris' first trial that between the time of the hit-and-run and Harris' arrest, the killer had called his father 10 times after the crash but not the police.Although jurors were unable to reach a unanimous decision last May in Harris' first trial, they reached a verdict on Tuesday, finding the 28-year-old guilty of second-degree knowingly leaving the scene of a fatal motor vehicle accident, reported WCAU. The conviction would have carried a sentence of five to 10 years.Barbone revealed that his client knew in advance that the jury's efforts to mete out justice were in vain."My client received a call from the governor's counsel at 7:30 a.m.," Barbone told BreakingAC. "The pardon was issued but not in our possession. We know it was issued before the verdict."Barbone indicated he is filing a motion to vacate the conviction on the basis that the pardon was granted prior to the jury's verdict.Murphy claimed that "each pardon and commutation represents a story of accountability, growth, and redemption.""By offering second chances to individuals who have demonstrated rehabilitation and a commitment to their communities, we have strengthened not only individual lives, but our entire state," added Murphy.A spokesperson for the Atlantic County Prosecutor’s Office told WCAU, "Unfortunately, when politics pervades justice, the rule of law becomes subordinate to influence and power. ... A conviction can be rendered meaningless not by the verdict of a jury, but by the intervention of political power and connections."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Gavin Newsom Seems Upset Trump's Not Going to Invade Greenland (RIP to Another Dem Talking Point)

Dumb Tantrum: Jasmine Crockett Loses Her Mind Over Officers Hurt on J6 While Ignoring Those Hurt by Dems

There You Go: Oversight Committee Votes on Holding Clintons in Contempt - They Won't Like the Result

Education Dept. Official Exposes the Scary Amount of Student Aid Fraud in MN... and CA

Making your own 3D printed parts lets you unleash your creativity, but not everything you print is going to be reliable - especially if you're using resin.