Tag Archives : Build House

US should seek to mend the broken relationship with Pakistan

The United States should seek to build — over the next five to 10 years — a new partnership with Pakistan similar to the sort of partnership the U.S. has with Bangladesh. We are never going to be “best friends” with Pakistan, but we should reengage from this moment of very low trust to work towards a partnership beyond security interests.  

The U.S. and Pakistan have long held a complicated relationship primarily focused on security issues, such as counterterrorism.   

Pakistan has recently undergone a significant political transition, marking an opportunity to reevaluate and adjust the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. Shebaz Sharif, was elected Prime Minister following a vote of no-confidence on Imran Kahn. Sharif will likely remain Prime Minister until the 2023 election. Pakistan is actively looking to bolster its relationship with the U.S., while also seeking to improve its relationship with India. Regardless of how we engage with Pakistan, Pakistan will continue to maintain very close ties with China for economic and geopolitical reasons. The U.S. invited Pakistan to the Summit for Democracy in December, but the government, led by former Prime Minister Khan, declined.  

Pakistan is the fifth largest country in the world in terms of population and is one of the most rapidly urbanizing countries in South Asia, boasting the 42^nd largest economy in 2020 in terms of GDP and the 24^th in terms of purchasing power parity. It has a growing reputation for high-tech innovation. In 2021 an estimated 63 percent of Pakistan’s population were between the ages of 15 and 33, signaling high potential for economic growth.

While the U.S. has close and multi-dimensional relationships with countries with similar footprints to Pakistan — such as Indonesia and Ethiopia — Pakistan is often only approached when considering geopolitical dimensions with Afghanistan, China, and India. Without U.S. troops in Afghanistan, United States interests in Pakistan have changed.   

I would have preferred that the U.S. maintain a presence in Afghanistan, but that is water under the bridge. Pakistan’s hosting of over 3 million refugees from Afghanistan and its documented relationship with the Taliban are further reasons to engage — especially in the interest of protecting humanitarian issues and restoring human rights, including women’s rights in Afghanistan, potential growth in the region, and counterterrorism objectives.  

The United States has always been a consistent economic partner for Pakistan and is Pakistan’s largest export market (i.e., approximately $6 billion). The U.S. has also been one of its top investors in consumer goods, chemical industries, energy, agriculture, transportation, and communications. However, despite some improvements to the business climate, security considerations and reputational issues still limit U.S. partnerships within Pakistan. In addition, nearly 1 million Pakistanis now live in the United States.

To engage with Pakistan, the United States should aim to prevent misperceptions and totally groundless conspiracy theories from gaining further traction in Pakistan. For example, former PM Imran Khan recklessly accused the U.S. of manipulating the no-confidence vote that led to Mr. Khan’s fall from the PM post. This accusation is totally false. Mr. Khan is already positioning himself to run in the 2023 elections. Despite Pakistan’s need to continue IMF loans and economic aid from the U.S. and others, very negative public opinion in Pakistan towards the United States has the potential to limit Pakistan’s engagement.

Although it may not seem apparent at first glance, it is in the American interest to build a more broad-based relationship with Pakistan.  Such a relationship would not just be anchored around security issues, but would have much more engagement on areas of trade, energy, climate, women’s and girls’ education, science and technology and health. In addition, we should be seeking to encourage more educational exchanges between Pakistan and the United States. For example, it is hard to believe that there are more Iranian students studying in the United States than there are Pakistani students.

For its part, Pakistan should recommit to structural reform of the Pakistani economy, addressing longstanding issues of revenue collection and attractiveness for foreign investment. It can build on the “geoeconomics” initiative of the previous administration to make Pakistan live up to its considerable economic potential. The United States and Pakistan should repair, and restore our broken relationship, dispel misconceptions and take a long view seeking stronger ties based on economics and other non-security issues.  

Daniel F. Runde is a senior vice president and William A. Schreyer chair in Global Analysis at CSIS. He is the author of “The American Imperative: Reclaiming Global Leadership Through Soft Power” to be published in December by Bombardier Books.

Source: TEST FEED1

A push for wildfire-resilient homes

Wildfires are a significant and increasing threat to our nation. Based on statistics from the National Interagency Fire Center, as of Aug. 2, a more than 5.7 million acres have burned, already surpassing the 10-year average of 3.6 million acres. Yet, the wildfire season peak is still to come, with forecasted higher-than-normal fire potential, due to the historic drought conditions, above-average temperatures and below-normal precipitation.

Recently, the White House amplified its efforts to address the growing wildfire crisis and launched multiple initiatives with a primary focus to prevent and minimize ignition of wildfires and increase our nation’s response capacity. There are measures homeowners and the building industry can take to better prepare homes in the wildland-urban interface (WUI).

Homeowners are not powerless against wildfire

While no home is fireproof, a home constructed with mitigation measures can limit the catastrophic reach of wildfire, as it approaches neighborhoods. Building codes, often referred as the I-Codes developed by the International Code Council (ICC), are the basis of laws and regulations in communities across the United States. These codes establish the minimum requirements necessary to provide building safety for the public. ICC first promulgated the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code (IWUIC) in 2003, and the latest edition was published in 2021. The IWUIC establishes the baseline requirements with constructing wildfire-resilient homes, generally including non-combustible roofing and fire-rated cladding, glazing, as well as underfloor protection; assurance of water supply; defensible space; and, in some places, residential sprinklers.

Based on the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves study, complying with the IWUIC is one of the important mitigation measures that homeowners may take, and on a national average, it could save $4 for every $1 of additional construction and maintenance cost.

In June, the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) launched Wildfire Prepared Home, a beyond-code mitigation program that allows homeowners to show they’ve taken a set of science-based actions to meaningfully reduce their home’s wildfire risk. Wildfire Prepared Home is the first-ever designation program and includes built-in homeowner education, a suite of science-backed mitigation actions, and a verification process, all distinguishing a property from those that are partially or unmitigated against wildfire. In short, it offers a chance to return home after a fire.

Construction cost and financial incentives for wildfire-resilient homes

Where the threat of wildfire is high, the need for statewide codes exists. Of the top five states with the greatest wildfire risk as identified by Verisk — California, Texas, Colorado, Arizona and Idaho — only California has a statewide code, and it only applies in areas identified as “high risk” on maps developed in 2008 that are in the process of being updated.

Although Colorado has a myriad of state and local regulations, a statewide and uniformly enforced wildfire-focused code does not exist. Likewise, Idaho does not have a statewide code, but a number of its individual counties have adopted NFPA standards.

Cost is one of the important factors that communities have to consider in code adoption decisions. When a home is built to be more resilient against environmental hazards, additional expenses can be expected. The cost of wildfire resilient measures can vary, depending upon the location, risk exposure, building size and features, as well as other factors. According to a report co-authored by IBHS and Headwaters Economics, it may add as little as $2,800 to the cost of building a new wildfire-resistant home in California. Using estimates from NIBS’ Mitigation Saves Study, retrofitting or upgrading an existing home can be more costly, ranging from $4,000 to $80,000. While every dollar matters in a family budget, delaying these wildfire-resistant actions only shifts the burden to the future homeowner who will, undoubtedly, need to address the survivability of their home later.

Following the Colorado Marshall fire rebuild effort, a series of innovative financial incentives are available for homeowners, including incentives from private energy and solar companies, as well as potential incentives from government programs.

On a national scope, we can help lenders should explore financial products that support resilient buildings, as NIBS has done in partnered with Fannie Mae.

This approach can help developers properly evaluate risk and recognize the value of resilient buildings, collaborate with insurers to promote insurance programs that reward safer structures, and support communities to develop layered mitigation investment packages.

Homeowners and public policymakers also need consistent, science-based and verifiable ways to reduce wildfire risk, such as IBHS’ Wildfire Prepared Home resiliency tool. The program’s technical standard and other materials can be converted into ordinances; incorporated into grant programs and other financial incentives; and used to educate homeowners on the system of mitigation actions that can help drive down their risk. This science-based solution is of particular value to local communities, which bear nearly half (46 percent) of the long-term costs of wildfire.

The wildland-urban interface fire situation differs from flood, earthquake or wind. It requires a more systematic approach, as the likelihood of a house suffering 100 percent loss in a fire situation is much higher, compared with other natural disasters. This issue has only been systematically addressed in the past few decades. The building industry will need to keep developing science-based actions that could meaningfully reduce a home’s wildfire risk, while also better communicating the values of wildfire-resilient homes and letting the market recognize and demand it.

Jiqiu (JQ) Yuan, Ph.D., PE, PMP, is the executive director of the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council (MMC) and Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) of the National Institute of Building Science (NIBS).

Anne Cope, Ph.D., PE, is the chief engineer with the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS), and she serves as vice chair of the NIBS MMC.

Source: TEST FEED1

Former Virginia police officer sentenced to more than 7 years for role on Jan. 6

A former Virginia police officer on Thursday was sentenced to over seven years in prison for his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Thomas Robertson was convicted on April 11 of obstruction of an official proceeding, civil disorder, entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds while carrying a dangerous weapon, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building while carrying a dangerous weapon, tampering with a document or proceedings and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building.

“Thomas Robertson, despite swearing an oath of office when he became a police officer, joined the violent mob at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and did so while armed,” said U.S. Attorney Matthew M. Graves in response to the sentencing. “Today’s sentence holds him accountable for his role in the violence that day.”

Robertson will be placed on three years of supervised release after his 87 months in prison, in addition to paying $2,000 in restitution.

The former police officer wielded a wooden stick when he rushed the Capitol last January, with which he intimidated Metropolitan police officers.

Fellow Rocky Mount, Va., officer Jacob Fracker also pleaded guilty in March to a federal conspiracy charge.

After being notified of his arrest, which occurred on Jan. 13, 2021, Robertson destroyed his and Fracker’s phones in an effort to hide evidence of their actions the previous week.

Robertson and Fracker are two of over 860 people who have been arrested for crimes related to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

More than 260 individuals have been charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement, according to the Justice Department, which said that the investigation into Jan. 6 remains ongoing.

Source: TEST FEED1

Watch live: House debates ahead of vote on Inflation Reduction Act

Representatives in the House will debate and vote Friday on the ‘Inflation Reduction Act.’

The event is scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. ET.

Watch the video above.

Source: TEST FEED1

Watch live: House Intelligence ranking member Mike Turner holds briefing on Mar-a-Lago search

House GOP members will hold a press conference Friday morning on the FBI’s raid of Former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

The event is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. ET.

Watch the video above.

Source: TEST FEED1

A fair judge would matter more than a special counsel if Trump is charged with a crime

In the waning weeks of the Trump administration, when it was clear that the Justice Department soon would be run by President-elect Joe Biden’s appointees, there was clamor for Attorney General Bill Barr to appoint a special counsel for what the media refers to as the “Hunter Biden investigation” — but what should be regarded as the Biden family investigation, in which Hunter is the least consequential Biden, and his tax liability the least consequential aspect.

Barr refused to name a special counsel. It was the right call. His reasoning was straightforward. There was no conflict of interest in the Trump Justice Department’s investigation of a close relative of Biden, Trump’s arch political rival.

“Conflict of interest” is a term that easily can be distorted when ripped out of its context because its usage is in tension with its literal meaning. A criminal investigation is adversarial by nature. A defendant has no right or legitimate expectation in having a friendly prosecutor.

On the contrary, conflicts arise only when interests are aligned: When the Justice Department is in the position of investigating the incumbent administration of which it is a part, and in particular the president or someone closely tied to the president. The problem is patent: Not only is the Justice Department subordinate to the president, but the power it wields, which is executive in nature, derives wholly from the president, in whom the Constitution vests all executive power.

We need to remember these principles now, when some are suggesting that Attorney General Merrick Garland should appoint a special counsel to conduct what are quite obviously, whether the Department of Justice admits it or not, investigations of Donald Trump.

There is no conflict of interest in the Democratic administration’s investigation of the nation’s most prominent Republican, a former president and likely future presidential candidate — right now, the odds-on favorite to be President Biden’s opponent in the 2024 campaign.

Is there a danger that the incumbent administration’s law-enforcement powers will be weaponized for political purposes — indeed, that they are already being so weaponized? Of course there is. There always is. But to suggest that this creates a conflict of interest for the Justice Department as an institution is to misconstrue both the prosecutorial role and the criminal justice system.

The constitutional safeguard for a criminal suspect or defendant is not the prosecutor. It is the judge. Our system anticipates that each branch of government will overstep its authority; the other branches, by design, check and balance this tendency. In a real conflict of interest situation, the legitimate fear is that the Justice Department will fail to do its job with appropriate energy, not that the prosecutor will be overly aggressive.

The defendant’s principal protection from prosecutorial overreach is the court. In fact, in a case fraught with partisan politics, the conflict of interest to worry about is not an overzealous prosecutor, but a judge who is a partisan adversary of the defendant, or too closely aligned with the president’s party.

In connection with the search warrant just executed at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, for example, there is more cause for concern that the magistrate judge who issued the warrant is an openly anti-Trump progressive than that the warrant was sought by a politically-motivated Biden Justice Department. Due process and the vital appearance of justice do not break down when the prosecutor goes too far; they break down when the court is fairly perceived as biased against the suspect and thus can’t be trusted to check prosecutorial excess.

Regrettably, there is not much that can be done if a judge who should recuse himself in the case of a search warrant application fails to do so. Search warrant issuance is a brief proceeding. Once it’s done, the search is quickly executed. That bell can’t be unrung. Nevertheless, Congress also checks prosecutorial excess by bolstering fair-trial rights. If Trump were to be charged with a crime, statutes and due process rules would enable him to seek to suppress evidence seized pursuant to the warrant if it were found to be unlawfully granted. He also would be able to seek the recusal of the judge assigned to the case if there is bias, to seek dismissal of the charges or other relief based on claims of prosecutorial misconduct, and to appeal to higher courts if the judge fails to give him a fair proceeding.

As far as the prosecutor is concerned, a conflict of interest occurs only if the public interest in a properly thorough investigation and prosecution of criminal wrongdoing is undermined by affinity between the Justice Department and the suspect.

Barr’s judgment call on the Biden investigation was correct because there was no conflict at the time he had to make the judgment. The case, moreover, was in the hands of a well-regarded prosecutor, Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss. On the special counsel question, Barr properly deferred to his successor, Garland, rather than saddle the Biden administration with a special counsel of Barr’s choosing. After all, it was the Biden Justice Department’s conflict, not the Trump Justice Department’s. If Barr had played politics, Garland might well have removed the Barr-appointed special counsel and reassigned the case away from Weiss. Instead, Barr did the right thing and Weiss is still the prosecutor.

Garland, by contrast, should appoint a special counsel under the regulations. I say that reluctantly because the special counsel is a pernicious institution that should be avoided when practical. But the Biden Justice Department cannot credibly oversee the Biden investigation: Not only does Weiss now answer to the suspect-president’s appointed AG, but because the investigation is, in part, a tax case, it also is being overseen by Justice’s Tax Division, which is run by Biden appointees.

That said, Garland and the Biden Justice Department are not conflicted in investigating Trump. The possibility of overzealousness is addressed by impartial judicial oversight. In fact, if Trump is eventually charged, the political motivation of the Biden Justice Department would give him powerful jury arguments to make — claims that are unavailable to most defendants, but claims that are always made in the utterly typical situation in which the Justice Department under one party brings a case against a political figure from the opposition party.

One last question for those suggesting Garland must appoint a special prosecutor: To whom do you think the Biden Justice Department would turn? Do you suppose Trump would be in better shape if Garland appointed, say, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, or some other prominent Democratic former prosecutor to take on the assignment?

Former President Trump has no right or reason to expect a friendly prosecutor. He has every right to expect a fair and impartial judge — and if there is still justice, he will get one if he is charged with a crime.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at National Review Institute, a contributing editor at National Review, a Fox News contributor and the author of several books, including “Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad.” Follow him on Twitter @AndrewCMcCarthy.

Source: TEST FEED1

Yes, ‘single use’ masks are recyclable. Here’s how

One of the many fallouts from the COVID-19 pandemic was the sheer volume of plastic medical waste used by both health care professionals and everyday individuals.

In 2021, researchers found that of the 8 million tons of plastic waste created during the pandemic, most ended up in the ocean, with the United States and China being the main perpetrators.

Furthermore, additional data estimated over 1.5 billion face masks ended up in the ocean in 2020 alone, endangering both wildlife and marine ecosystems. 

While some conscientious consumers hoped to avoid creating excess waste by donning cloth masks, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has since proclaimed these are less effective at stopping the spread of COVID-19 compared with disposable options like N95 or KN95 respirators.

But these alternatives are expensive and can only be used a limited number of times. Cheaper, albeit just as short-lived options, like disposable polypropylene-based masks have thus become ubiquitous. 

And pictures of these masks entrapping wildlife, swirling in waterways, and peppering sidewalks all underscore the need for more efficient disposal routes for these plastic-heavy products. 

On an individual level, several companies have taken the initiative to collect and recycle masks discarded in-home. Since masks cannot be recycled with traditional streams of plastic and metal, one organization based out of Trenton, New Jersey, TerraCycle, sells Zero Waste Boxes to customers who can then send back a full box of used personal protective equipment (PPE). 

But legal restrictions preclude the company from collecting PPE from medical facilities, hospitals, or doctor’s offices. After 72 hours, TerraCycle sorts the waste based on material and sends it to a third party where non-woven plastics become plastic pellets and metals are made into bar stock or metal sheeting.

“The polypropylene-dominant mixture from the face mask is densified into a crumb-like raw material that’s used in plastic lumber and composite decking applications,” TerraCycle’s website reads, while “the elastane or rubber band portion is ground into a fine mesh regrind and mixed with recycled plastics as an additive to provide flexibility and malleability to products.”

Additional organizations operate similar systems around the world.

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

Not only are masks hazardous to animal life, but their plastic makeup means they cannot easily break down in the natural environment and, if littered, eventually become microplastics and pose an additional set of problems. 

When disposed of in the garbage, the masks can take up limited landfill space and contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, or be incinerated, compounding the release of emissions and negatively impacting human health. 

In addition to personal recycling of discarded PPE, large-scale solutions can tackle the hefty ramifications of irresponsible disposal and the high volume of waste created by the health care industry. 

In the 2021 report, authors found waste generated by hospitals “dwarfs the contribution from personal protection equipment,” while the industry as a whole has come under fire as it accounts for around 8.5 percent of the country’s total carbon emissions. 

In light of these figures, scientists have stepped up to design sustainable ways of upcycling used PPE, particularly masks. 

Researchers in Australia met the challenge by assessing the feasibility of transforming masks into roadways, and found the product could be used to create two of the four layers typically used in the construction process. 

An additional study published in April 2022 took PPE waste, including masks, and showed the materials could be used to create white light emitting diodes (LEDs). 

Scientists have also assessed the effects of treated face mask chips in granular soil, used most commonly in backfill, railways, and construction, and found it to be a suitable ingredient. 

Several proof-of-concept investigations have looked into the utilization of discarded facemasks as concrete additives to design greener, more efficient buildings and structures. 

Xianming Shi, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Washington State University, co-authored one of these papers. 

“Oftentimes, waste is just misplaced resources,” said Shi in an interview with Changing America, adding that upcycling these materials can help unlock their potential. 

In lab experiments, Shi and colleagues pretreated microfibers from face masks in a novel nano-material graphene oxide solution. Treated mask fibers were then added to cement paste constituting a 0.1 vol% for a water/cement ratio of 0.4. 

After testing the final product for durability and strength, Shi says the mixture actually benefited the concrete. 

The concrete’s resistance to damage was improved by 20 percent after the graphene oxide material was incorporated. In a typical coastal environment like Seattle, ordinary cement used in a pier would last for approximately 30 or 40 years, Shi said. 

“But if we add this graphene oxide treated microfiber, based on the lab testing results, you’re bumping that up to 55 years, so that’s a 63 percent increase in service life,” he said. This is due in large part to the synergistic effect between the treatment and mask microfibers.

If this process were to be implemented on a larger scale, masks would first need to be sterilized to kill any microbes or viruses, authors wrote. But one benefit to this solution is that any heavy metals or contaminants present in the masks would be concrete bound or “chemically locked up,” Shi said. 

“Concrete is a really good host material. Anything you put in…won’t leach out at any significant rate.” 

Concrete also happens to be the second most used material in the world among humans behind water. Each person uses about 3 tons of concrete annually, thanks to roads, buildings, bridges and other infrastructure.

Even though the process is technically feasible, “how to incentivize the private sector to invest in such technologies is beyond our control,” Shi explained. 

The passage of President Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which provides $550 billion in new infrastructure funding, might provide some opportunities. The IIJA specifically calls for increased action ensuring “energy efficiency of the production of paving materials and the ability of paving materials to enhance the environment and promote sustainability.”

Cement is an ingredient of concrete, widely used for road construction and paving. A report from the American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA) on the IIJA notes “the legislation authorizes $304 billion to the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) for roads and bridges over five years with approximately $100 billion in new spending for roadways specifically.”

Changing America has reached out to the ACPA to ask if it plans to incorporate any sustainable solutions at a national level in the wake of the legislation’s passage. 

For Shi, he hopes the law will spur agencies into action.

“Without sufficient funding, usually there’s plenty of deferred maintenance. There’s no room for innovation,” he said. “But with the increased investment, I think it’s definitely going to inspire both the public sector and the private sector to look for more long term solutions and more sustainable solutions.”

Shi also noted that even though the process used in his team’s lab experiments was innovative, he doesn’t plan to file a patent for it. 

“The whole purpose is to demonstrate the beneficial use of masks and inspire people to collect the masks knowing that it could be turned into a valuable resource,” he said. 

Even without using the new nano-material, significant improvements in cement tensile strength can be achieved just by grinding down masks into microfiber, he said. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Online shopping prices fall for first time in 2 years – especially in these categories

(NEXSTAR) – Gas prices are easing and inflation shows signs of cooling – but wait, there’s more good news: online shopping prices fell for the first time in two years, according to new data from Adobe Analytics.

On Tuesday, Adobe released its latest Digital Price Index report, which showed that July’s prices fell 1% year-over-year and 2% on a monthly basis. It was the first recorded period of deflation after 25 months in a row of rising prices for goods, Adobe found.

So if you opted not to splurge on Prime Day and regret it, or simply have a little room in your summer budget, just remember that all categories of online prices didn’t behave equally.

The five biggest declines month-over-month were:

• Apparel (-6.26%)
• Computers (-3.23%)
• Toys (-2.86%)
• Jewelry (-2.20%)
• Electronics (-1.98%)

Of the 18 categories Adobe tracks, the only ones that continue to see red-hot inflation numbers were Pet Products, Grocery, Nonprescription Drugs and Tools & Home Improvement. Pet Products led the pack month-over-month with a 1.72% jump.

“Wavering consumer confidence and a pullback in spending, coupled with oversupply for some retailers, is driving prices down in major online categories like electronics and apparel,” said Patrick Brown, vice president of growth marketing and insights, Adobe. “It provides a bit of relief for consumers, as the cost of food continues to rise both online and in stores.”

The year-over-year numbers for July 2022 showed lofty deflation numbers in some categories, with spiking inflation in others. These were the top 5 decliners:

• Computers (-10.22%)
• Electronics (-9.32%)
• Toys (-8.22%)
• Books (-3.49%)
• Jewelry (-3.10%)

Other online shopping categories are still on a meteoric path of inflation after the last year, such as Grocery (13.40%), Pet Products (12.61%) and Tools & Home Improvement (10.84%).

Some of the price reductions can be tied to consumers changing their behavior after loading up on some items during the pandemic. Earlier this summer, Target and other major retailers like Macy’s, Kohl’s and Walmart confirmed they were seeing rising inventories, not all of it desirable product.

In June, Target announced that it was slashing prices and cancelling supplier orders to clear out “elevated” inventories before the all-important fall and holiday shopping seasons.

Overall, Americans spent $400 million less than they did in the prior month ($73.7 billion), Adobe found.

Adobe’s index is powered by Adobe Analytics, which “analyzes one trillion visits to retail sites and over 100 million SKUs” over 18 product categories: electronics, apparel, appliances, books, toys, computers, groceries, furniture/bedding, tools/home improvement, home/garden, pet products, jewelry, medical equipment/supplies, sporting goods, personal care products, flowers/related gifts, non-prescription drug and office supplies.

Source: TEST FEED1

Trump calls for 'immediate release' of Mar-a-Lago search warrant, says lawyers won't oppose DOJ move

Former President Trump late Thursday called for the release of the warrant allowing the FBI to raid his Mar-a-Lago home earlier this week.

“Release the Documents Now!” he wrote on his social media platform Truth Social.

Trump’s comments came hours after Attorney General Merrick Garland said that the Justice Department had moved to unseal the warrant.

The former president’s Mar-a-Lago residence was searched by the FBI on Monday, possibly to find classified information that the former president had illegally brought home after the end of his time in office.

Trump said he was “encouraging” the immediate release of documents related to the FBI search of his home, adding that he wanted the public to see the warrant despite its being written by “radical left Democrats.”

“Not only will I not oppose the release of documents related to the unAmerican, unwarranted, and unnecessary raid and break-in of my home in Palm Beach, Florida, Mar-a-Lago, I am going a step further by ENCOURAGING the immediate release of those documents,” he wrote.

“Even though they have been drawn up by radical left Democrats and possible future political opponents, who have a strong and powerful vested interest in attacking me, much as they have done for the last 6 years…” the former president added.

Shortly after Garland’s announcement on Thursday, a judge set a 3 p.m. deadline for Trump and his lawyers to oppose the move to unseal the warrant.

The Justice Department has not yet shared information explaining the reasoning behind the search, and many in addition to Trump are calling for the release of the search warrant to the public.

Garland said that he signed off on the move but did not provide further information on the reasoning behind the raid.

“Federal law, long-standing department rules and our ethical obligations prevent me from providing further details as to the basis of the search at this time,” Garland said.

The raid took place following a summer of public hearings arranged by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

“This unprecedented political weaponization of law enforcement is inappropriate and highly unethical,” wrote Trump in his post calling for the release of documents related to the Mar-a-Lago search.

In 2021, the Justice Department investigated the former president upon request from the National Archives after classified materials were found at his Mar-a-Lago residence.

Updated at 7:37 a.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden must stop the diplomatic babble and force Iran to release American hostages

President Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken are fond of saying that human rights are at the center of the administration’s foreign policy, but after nearly 18 months in office, Americans are still being held hostage in the Iranian prisons where they found themselves on Jan. 20, 2021. Hostage-taking is a violation of the fundamental principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, according to the president, a threat to U.S. national security. But the rhetoric, strategy and policy positions of the Biden administration are dangerously out of alignment.

Last month, the White House determined that hostage-taking is a “national emergency” posing “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States.” Yet President Biden has not taken the necessary steps to bring Americans home from Iran or to stop Iran from taking Americans hostage in the future. Instead, the Biden administration has been serving a steady diet of half-measures and diplomatic babble in which no firm commitments are made.

Rather than demanding that Iran release its hostages — including the remains of Robert Levinson — and formally renounce future hostage-taking as a condition for resuscitating the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Biden administration has been working in overdrive since its first days in office to restore the original Iran nuclear deal. The 2015 agreement did not secure the release of all hostages who were held at that time or create assurances that the policy of hostage-taking that Iran launched in 1979 would finally end — and while the U.S. was a party to the deal, Iran took more Americans hostage. Reporting on the details of the “final” deal designed by the European Union that is under consideration in Washington and Tehran indicates that it similarly leaves behind the hostages.

While the fate of hostages should not be tied to the fate of the JCPOA, neither should the JCPOA be up for discussion until the hostages are released.

The most forceful statement on the matter came toward the end of a hunger strike that I waged in January outside of the hotel in Vienna where the Iranian delegation was negotiating with world powers. Special Envoy for Iran Robert Malley told me and reporters that “it is very hard for us to imagine getting back into the nuclear deal while four innocent Americans are being held hostage by Iran.”

If Americans are being “wrongfully detained by the Iranian government” and hostage-taking constitutes a threat to our national security, the Biden administration should invalidate U.S. passports for travel to, in, or through the Islamic Republic. This would make travel to Iran by Americans as unlikely as travel to North Korea, which the State Department has banned without special permission. Iran, of course, has taken many more Americans hostage than North Korea, and its record on respecting human rights is just as laughable.

And rather than ratcheting up pressure on the regime running the police state that violates religious freedoms, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, freedom of speech and assembly, the U.S. appears to be content to issue reports and condemnations that have as much chance of changing Iran’s behavior as Iranian declarations against the U.S. have on changing ours. The Biden administration is even considering issuing a visa to Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi to enter the U.S., despite his being sanctioned for human rights abuses.

American adversaries such as Russia and China are getting away with making multibillion-dollar agreements with Iran, too. Russia is believed to be interested in using against Ukraine the drones that Iran uses to surveil its people and arm its terrorist proxies. China has bought billions of dollars worth of Iranian oil in violation of U.S. sanctions, without any consequence, and the revenue from those oil sales helps to fund the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’s (IRGC) Basij paramilitary forces that have followed orders to “eradicate” Iranian protesters and show “no mercy” to them. 

It is notable that in October 2020, the U.S. designated Iran’s Ministry of Petroleum, the National Iranian Oil Company, and the National Iranian Tanker Company for their financial support to the IRGC.

The United States can’t be content to have a failing strategy to deal with Iran’s nuclear program and no strategy whatsoever to deal with Iran writ large, and the Biden administration can’t claim that human rights are at the center of its foreign policy when human rights don’t factor into what it has determined is its most consequential goal in dealing with Tehran.

President Biden must recalibrate his approach. He must align his words with his deeds. He must bring the hostages home, protect the American people from being taken hostage, and make it as painful as he can for the Iranian regime to continue to be a global leader in violating human rights. That begins with filing a U.S. extradition request for convicted terrorist Assadollah Assadi, as his pending release from Belgium will only incentivize Tehran in taking more hostages. Without this, the U.S. reputation on human rights will decline and the suffering of innocents will continue, day after day and year after year.

Barry Rosen is a survivor of the 1979-1981 Iran hostage crisis, a senior adviser at United Against Nuclear Iran and a founding member of Hostage Aid Worldwide. Follow him on Twitter @brosen1501.

Source: TEST FEED1