The official tally is in and it is brutal: Americans suffered the biggest drop in household income in 2022 in a dozen years.
Real median household income was $74,580 in 2022, a drop of 2.3 percent from the prior year, the Census Bureau said Tuesday.
This is the biggest drop in household income since 2010, when it household income fell 2.6 percent. That means it is worse than the pandemic decline of 2.2 percent. It is the fourth worst year in records going back to 1985.
The declines were driven by high inflation. The measure of inflation that is used to calculate real income rose 7.8 percent, the worst inflation since 1981.
The real median earnings of all workers—including part-time and full-time workers—declined 2.2 percent between 2021 and 2022. Median earnings of those who worked full-time, year-round fell 1.3 percent in 2022.
The figures are even worse once taxes are figured into the equation. Real median post-tax household income in 2022 fell 8.8 percent in 2022.
Income inequality also got worse in 2022 once taxes are calculated. Pre-tax, income inequality—as measured by an gauge of income distribution called the Gini index—declined for the first time since 2007. After taxes, however, the index increased 3.2 percent. An increase in the Gini index signals increasing income inequality.
The official poverty rate in 2022 was 11.5 percent, with 37.9 million people in poverty. This was unchanged from the prior year.
A few weeks before Interior Secretary Deb Haaland announced that she would withdraw more than 336,400 acres of public land from mining and drilling with a 10-mile buffer around Chaco Culture National Historical Park, Navajo Nation lawmakers passed legislation opposing the move.
Although Haaland’s action was applauded and supported by environmentalists and tribal members from the Navajo Nation and Pueblo tribes, not everyone is happy. Among the critics are Navajo allotment holders who are worried about what this will do to their livelihood.
Navajo tribal leaders also voiced displeasure, including Speaker Crystalyne Curley and President Buu Nygren, who both released statements about the 10-mile radius buffer zone.
“The Secretary’s action undermines our sovereignty and self-determination,” said Nygren. “Despite my concerns and denunciation, the Department of Interior has moved forward, which is highly disappointing. Secretary Haaland’s decision impacts Navajo allottees but also disregards the tribe’s choice to lease lands for economic development. Ultimately, this decision jeopardizes future economic opportunities, while at the same time placing some 5,600 Navajo allottees in dire financial constraints.”
The legislation, passed in April by Navajo Nation lawmakers, rescinded the previous administration’s bill opposing H.R.2181 and S.1079, the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2019, and recommending the proposed buffer zone be reduced to five miles, rather than 10 miles that encompass the 336,400-acre land withdrawal.
The new bill does not support any buffer zone and opposes the intent for any withdrawal.
Haaland said the decision to create the buffer came after “significant consultation” with other tribes, and she noted that the 20-year withdrawal applies only to public lands and federal mineral holdings and does not apply to minerals owned by private, state or tribal entities.
It also does not affect valid existing leases. Production from existing wells could continue, additional wells could be drilled on existing leases, and Navajo Nation allottees can continue to lease their minerals.
But former Navajo Council Delegate Mark Freeland had reported during an April 2022 government-to-government consultation meeting that those who could be most deeply affected are those who live around Chaco Canyon, and who are the ones being ignored on this issue.
“The White House, as did Congress, stated that the rule would not apply to individual Indian allotments or to minerals within the area owned by private, state, or tribal entities,” Freeland said. “In reality, the rule would have a devastating impact because the indirect effect would make the allottees’ land primarily worthless from the standpoint of energy extraction.”
He reported that withdrawal of land affects 53 individual allotments, generating $6.2 million a year in royalties for approximately 5,462 allottees. Many Navajo families rely on this income to meet their daily needs. It is estimated that 418 unleased allotments are also associated with about 16,615 allottees, and the withdrawal could adversely affect well over 22,000 allottees.
“Collectively, leadership of the Navajo Nation is equally concerned that environmental organizations have made a point to target Chaco Culture National Historical Park for political or financial gain,” Freeland said, “without listening or taking into account the people who are from the region. Chaco Canyon is located on Navajo Nation lands.”
At the forum, he noted that the National Park Conservation Association has been one of the primary advocacy groups to launch a campaign for buffers around national parks most threatened by oil and gas production, and Chaco Canyon was on top of their list.
Freeland reemphasized that those living in the Chaco Canyon area have been ignored, and for the past six years Congress has considered multiple proposals to create a buffer zone around the historical park at the additional request of the All Pueblo Council of Governors.
“Protecting Indigenous lands is important for future generations to understand our country and to respect the Pueblos’ sacred culture,” said Theresa Pierno, president and CEO of the National Parks Conservation Association after Haaland announced her decision.
“There are limits to this administrative protection, as 20 years is significant but also the equivalent of an eye blink on this timeless landscape,” Pierno said. “The National Parks Conservation Association calls on Congress to finish the job and approve legislation championed by the entire New Mexico delegation to permanently protect the region.”
Those who live around Chaco Canyon, who were born there before it became a National Historic Park, and are descendants of those who lived in the area for generations have always expressed their dismay about a buffer zone and Haaland’s stance on the issue.
Delora Hesuse is a Navajo allottee and has been advocating on the allotments and the challenges of what fellow allotment owners are trying to let people know. One conflict is Haaland’s position on Chaco Canyon and whether she would be able to really listen to those living in the area.
“There is a conflict with everything that is going on,” said Hesuse, adding that Haaland “never once met with us when she was a congresswoman. I say this too, as another Native woman, does she have respect for other tribes? Does she have respect for us?”
She described the elders who receive royalty payment from oil and gas and said they are grateful. This income from oil and gas is income that Navajo allottees depend on and they are living a better life because of it. She also noted she has never heard of anyone getting sick from the effects of oil and gas production.
Within the Navajo Nation, 35.8% of households have incomes below the federal poverty threshold, and about 10% live without electricity. The Chaco Canyon drilling ban would strip an energy source from the Navajo Nation, and could cost Navajos an estimated $194 million over the next two decades.
“We have all these environmentalists coming in and telling us how we should be or how we should live,” Hesuse said. “Remember, we are the first people here.”
Navajo Leaders Challenge Chaco Canyon Drilling Ban -- Climate Advocates Should Listen https://t.co/J115gWShkD
Voter fraud?
Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer
Poor baby. Maricopa County Recorder Complains That Following Signature Verification Law Will Require More Work.
The county recorder ( a never Trumper ) is crying because he got caught taking the easy way out when he, Hobbs, and the Arizona AG took the easy way out on signature verification.
It looked as if they skirted Arizona law and decided to use any form for verification. I guess you could even use a note from your teacher and that would count ( I think you get my point. ). We have this from The Arizona Independent.
The additional responsibility for county recorders became clear after Yavapai County Superior Court Judge John Napper declared in ruling last week that the 2019 Election Procedures Manual (EPM) by Hobbs “create[d] a process that contradicts” the law. That ruling rejected Secretary of State Adrian Fontes’ motion to dismiss an Arizona Free Enterprise Club lawsuit alleging that Fontes’ interpretation and enforcement of signature verification law, which aligned with that of Hobbs, did not match the actual statute’s language.
In response to Napper’s ruling, the press raised alarm among voters in its coverage featuring Richer. Arizonans were warned their early vote may not count because election officials would be required to verify signatures using registration records only, versus signatures from other documents or past ballots. Echoing Richer, their reporting speculated signatures could be rejected en masse due to the signature on file being an older variation, or warped by MVD digitization.
That means for two major elections, an unlawful signature verification process was enforced. Napper reminded Secretary of State Adrian Fontes that he has a “non-discretionary duty” to properly instruct county recorders on lawful vote tabulation.
FILE - California Attorney General Rob Bonta fields questions during a press conference, Aug. 28, 2023, in Los Angeles. Marcio Jose Sanchez / AP Photo
Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina and Texas had bills introduced in 2023 that would require districts to disclose a trans student’s gender identity to parents.
And why shouldn’t a parent have a right to know if a teacher or a school is hiding from parents this personal information? California requires a school to contact a parent if they want to give a child an aspirin, but you have an AG who wants to sue school districts that notify parents on what goes on in reference to schools who want parent notification.
“It’s disgusting that we now have union-controlled politicians fighting to keep sexual secrets from other people’s children,” said Corey DeAngelis, a senior fellow at the American Federation for Children, in an email to The Center Square. “These radicals believe children are the property of the State, and many of them won’t reverse course any time soon because it’s part of their deeply held socialist views. The far left has infiltrated the government school system and they are using it for ideological indoctrination as opposed to education. These extremists see the school system as a means of raising other people’s children with their own worldview, and they won’t stop without accountability.”
The Free Speech Movement Cafe entrance sign located on the University of California Berkeley Campus, San Francisco Bay area Sundry Photography / Shutterstock.com
California colleges struggle in free speech rankings.
The Center Square) – According to national free speech rankings published by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, 59% of California colleges rate from “below average” to “poor,” with only one California college of 27 — California State University, Los Angeles — ranked “above average.”
The survey was conducted from a selected group of 55,102 undergraduates enrolled at 254 four-year degree institutions across the United States drawn from more than 750,000 verified undergraduate students and recent alumni by college opinion research firm College Pulse.
“Each year, the climate on college campuses grows more inhospitable to free speech,” said FIRE Director of Polling and Analytics Sean Stevens in a public statement. “Some of the most prestigious universities in our country have the most repressive administrations. Students should know that a college degree at certain schools may come at the expense of their free speech rights.”
Scores were largely based on students’ comfort expressing ideas, tolerance for liberal speakers, tolerances for conservative speakers, prevalence of disruptive conduct towards speakers, administrative support for free speech amid controversy, on-campus conversation openness regarding political issues. Select actions, such as supporting or disinviting speakers, supporting or sanctioning student groups for speech, or supporting or sanctioning scholars whose speech rights were threatened during controversy, could earn or lose further points.
Coming in at 33 of 254 universities ranked nationwide but first in California, California State University was the only California university to rate as slightly above average, and was followed within California by the University of California, Merced, then Claremont McKenna College. Meanwhile, the worst-rated school in California, the University of California, Davis, ranked 237 nationally, was the one school in the state to receive a “poor” speech rating, and placed 250th for tolerance of disruptive conduct and 221st for tolerance for conservative speakers.
According to FIRE, the University of California, Davis, disinvited two campus speakers between 2019 and 2023. During one cancelation in 2022, administrators canceled a Turning Point USA speaking event when a fight broke out before the event in front of the venue.
Excluded from relative rankings for its bottom-barrel “warning” rating, Pepperdine University was criticized for a speech code that bars speakers from “statements that disparage God, Jesus Christ, or religion; language that demeans and exploits any identities; explicit lyrics; and references to sex, alcohol, and narcotics/drugs,” or using “profanity or tell obscene jokes or stories of any kind whatsoever during the performance.”
What a loser. US President Joe Biden holds a press conference in Hanoi on September 10, 2023, on the first day of a visit in Vietnam. Biden travels to Vietnam to deepen cooperation between the two nations, in the face of China’s growing ambitions in the region. (Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)
Biden Says He “Just Follows Orders” During Vietnam Conference.
President Joe Biden appeared in a press conference where he said “I’ll just follow my orders here.”
On Sunday, the 46th president spoke at a conference in Hanoi Vietnam and met with General Secretary Nguyễn Phú Trọng of the Communist Party of Vietnam.
Biden stood at the podium and read his prepared remarks while looking at his notes for the majority of the time.
After the speech, the Democrat delivered a press conference where he opened up another discussion by reportedly making a joke about the Vietnam War and asking for questions from reporters.
Biden stated that he would take questions from five reporters, but he could not locate the paper list of particular reporters he was supposed to call on that was prepared by White House officials.
He then proceeded to say that he will just “follow his orders from staff.”
At the end, Biden declared that he was “going to bed,” appearing more irate and mentally disoriented.
Due to Biden’s senile mannerisms, his critics have frequently called him “Sleepy Joe,” and online users have commented and poked fun at the press conference footage.
“I’ll just follow my orders here. Uh — Staff, is there anybody that hasn’t spoken yet? I ain’t calling on you! I told you, I only have five questions!” He shouted.
In the months since the coup d’etat that ousted James O’Keefe from Project Veritas earlier this year, the conservative group has spiraled out of control as it weathers mass layoffs and board member resignations under the leadership of Hannah Giles, who took the helm in June, Mediaite reported.
“Her actual journalism experience is murky.”
Mediaite (no doubt chortling about it) obtained audio from an August 22 meeting between Giles, Project Veritas board president Joe Barton, and several staffers. At the meeting, held just days after 23 staffers were fired and two resigned, Giles can be heard explaining that the organization is in financial ruin.
“It’s devastating,” Giles said. “I’ve got to get back into the bank accounts to see what’s real and what’s not real because I have been getting presented with things that were not making sense and then when I’m presented with okay there’s only a thousand dollars left in the 501(c) (3) and I thought we had until October. We did a half a million dollar transfer and that was this period. But, like, we’re bankrupt.”
Giles continued to paint a bleak financial portrait of the well-known conservative nonprofit that raked in $22 million of donor cash in one recent year.
“The bills that are owed and everything, and there’s lawyers threatening to like, to force us into bankruptcy, and come take all this stuff,” Giles said. “So, I do not want us, I do not want to declare bankruptcy or go into bankruptcy, but we have to imagine that’s where we’re at so how do we get to the point where we’re clawing our way out of that situation?”
“So, we’re under water?” one staffer asked. Giles responded: “Yeah.”
A recently departed Project Veritas staffer told Mediaite they believed Giles had mismanaged the organization since taking over in June. They said former CFO Tom O’Hara made clear that Project Veritas faced a grim outlook – which was ignored by Giles. The former staffer said O’Hara was “upfront about the dire state” the company is in, and cautioned Giles of the strong possibility that they were on the brink of bankruptcy.
“Since July, he was trying to convince the board to start considering a wind-down period in order to give employees enough notice — this was ignored,” the source said.
Another ex-staffer told Mediaite that Giles “lacked leadership skills” and suggested the board “did not do their due diligence” when they appointed her. “Her actual journalism experience is murky,” they said.
After O’Keefe’s exit in February of this year, Project Veritas launched an investigation into his use of funds. The Washington Post reported this week on an audit conducted by a law firm hired by the group which accused O’Keefe of using company cash for personal expenses – including $12,000 to charter a helicopter for a trip to Maine for a sailing trip, hundreds of thousands of dollars on high-end car service, and thousands on DJ equipment among other luxury items.
O’Keefe’s lawyer, Jeffrey Lichtman, told Mediaite that when O’Keefe was “forced out of Project Veritas in February of this year, they had between $6-8 million in their bank accounts. James had access to none of it. Six months later it’s apparently all gone. Instead of nameless sources blaming James for spending that money and bankrupting Project Veritas, perhaps their CEO and board of directors can let us all know how they blew through it all.”
Note: Mediaite is still trying to tar O’Keefe as a thief in their original article. He has since created a successful new investigative outlet: https://okeefemediagroup.com/ — TPR
The mayor of Newburyport, Massachusetts, decided he didn’t like the message being offered in his community by a parental rights organization.
That group, Citizens for Responsible Education, had concerns regarding public school indoctrination and certain troubling instruction happening locally.
So members planned a forum, called “What is Social-Emotional Learning? What every parent needs to know about SEL and culturally responsive teaching in our public schools.”
Subjects to be covered include critical race theory; gender identity ideology; sex education curriculum; and diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
That was a message Mayor Sean Reardon decided he would not tolerate. So when the parents posted flyers advertising their meeting, Reardon ripped them down.
Now the resolution to that fight has resulted in a significant victory for free speech, according to a report from the American Center for Law and Justice.
“In addition to receiving a monetary payment to cover the damages CRE suffered, Newburyport’s Mayor Reardon agreed to issue a public statement acknowledging that his actions in ‘remov[ing] flyers from bulletin boards’ and the city’s posting policies should have better promoted the constitutionally protected free speech rights of CRE and, in the future, postings may not be censored based on their content or the viewpoints expressed,” the ACLJ reported.
“Additionally, Newburyport has agreed to revise its posting policies by removing its prohibition on religious flyers and its vague flyer review and approval process.”
The ACLJ reported that Matt Petry, a reporter for The Daily News of Newburyport, posted on social media that Reardon had confirmed he was ripping down the flyers.
The mayor claimed, to the reporter, the content “was not in line with the city of Newburyport’s values of being an inclusive and welcoming community.”
The parents initially asked the city to change its posting policy, but the city refused to respond.
Then, the ACLJ reported, the Massachusetts Family Institute and Attorney Kenneth A. Tashjy served a demand letter on the city, warning the policy was unconstitutional and a willful violation of free speech rights.
1st amendment wins again. President Biden getting his COVID-19 shot. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images/File)
Winning. Biden weaponizing DOJ and Social Media ruled a violation of the 1st Amendment. It does my heart to see these rulings. What a way to end the week.
The Biden administration “ran afoul” of the First Amendment by trying to pressure social media platforms over controversial COVID-19 content, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled Friday.
In its 75-page ruling, the appeals court, said that President Biden, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI and the surgeon general cannot “coerce” social media platforms to remove content it deems problematic.
Fifth Circuit just unanimously affirmed Judge Doughty’s injunction against White House, CDC, FBI and others — giving Americans and #FreedomOfSpeech a major win against censorship, totalitarianism, and Biden. #FirstAmendment
By now, you have likely heard of the 12-year-old boy who was told that he may not display a Gadsden Flag in school because it has “origins with slavery.” Of course it absolutely does not have origins in slavery; it is a symbol and flag from the Revolutionary War era.
This level of ignorance—especially from an ‘educator’—ought to be embarrassing…but it should not be particularly surprising. There is a lot to know in this life, and no matter how much one learns, it’s just a few more drops in the ocean of things there are to learn. Add to that the fact that public-school teachers—in spite of the endless hagiolatry our society heaps upon them—are not generally an especially impressive lot. They are, in the aggregate, a little more educated and intelligent than the average, of course, but that is not saying all that much.
This woman had no knowledge of the Gadsden Flag. I’d bet money she’s never heard the name Christopher Gadsden. Chances are she is not particularly well-versed in American history, unless that is her speciality (and even then…). All she knows is that people she does not like—people whom she’s been told not to like—tend to fly and display this flag. Thus, it must have its origins in slavery. After all, everyone she does not like is afascist, a racist, a white supremacist, or literally Hitler.
Back in the late 90s, I had a somewhat similar experience…
One day, I was idly humming the Battle Hymn of the Republic when I was stopped and informed (just like that 12-year-old boy) that this song had its origins in “slavery.” This was a work environment and the person was a colleague, so I kept it cool and just pointed out—a little frustrated, of course—that the Battle Hymn of the Republic was written by an abolitionist and was popular in the Union.
Obviously the colleague knew enough to associate the song with the Civil War, but that was it. Her left-wing programming and intersectional status kicked in from there and filled in the blanks: Civil War…being hummed by a white guy…………slavery.
This wasn’t even particularly conscious. This was more a kind of programatic confabulation. Same thing with the teacher. She did not know where the flag comes from, but she’s a good Baizuo, so she filled in the blanks of her ignorance with a Baizuo’s kind of “knowledge.” My colleague did the same, but from the standpoint of an aggrieved victim.
This colleague was a very sweet person. I really liked her, and she liked me too. I have not seen her for more than 20 years, but I still think of her fondly. But what she did that day was uncool. If you’ve been paying attention at all, you know that truth has begun to mean less in such matters than the identity groups of the people involved. Truth is what The Party says it is. Truth is found in the personal narrative of the ‘victim.’ Grievance trumps reality, and people have lost their jobs for exactly this sort of thing. Under a different set of circumstances, getting caught in that web might’ve cost me my livelihood. All over a grievance that had been fabricated out of thin air.
An experiment conducted at Dartmouth (and repeated in similar studies elsewhere) demonstrated that for some people, feeling aggrieved comes all too easily. You can read for yourself and watch the video below, but the gist is simple:
Study participants had a disfiguring scar drawn on their faces and were told to go out into the world, interact with people, and then report on how those people treated them. Unbeknownst to the participants, however, the scar was removed prior to them going out into public. In spite of the fact that there was no disfigurement, the participants claimed that they experienced discrimination because of their appearance.
This was just one experiment. Imagine being told, day after day, year after year, decade after decade, that you are a victim solely because of your identity, that that will never change, and that even when people are not discriminating against you, they secretly are.
What the left has done to people is vicious. These are precious human beings who did not need or deserve to be psychologically programmed in this way.
