I’m a little bit AhAhAlex

A young couple in England, the day before they were due to exchange contracts on what was to be their first home, received two phone calls in quick succession. The first was from their estate agent. The second was from their solicitor. The information was the same in both. The local council had outbid them for their house, by £20,000. The seller had accepted. The couple had been bidding for the house since the asking price was £150,000. The bidding had taken the price up to £190,000, already, by their own account, the upper edge of what they could afford. The council had come in at £210,000, a level they could not match. Their offer was abandoned. Their survey, costing £900, was wasted. They still owe legal fees of £2,200 plus VAT regardless. The fixed-rate mortgage offer they had secured, in a market where rates have been rising again, will now expire before they find another property. Their landlord has new tenants moving in to their current rental in the second week of June. They are looking, on the calendar in front of them, at potential homelessness inside two months. The reason the council bought the house was disclosed to them, after some pushing, by a councillor they happened to know personally. The council needed urgent additional accommodation for asylum seekers. The property they had been buying was already previously registered as a House in Multiple Occupation, which made the conversion straightforward. The taxpayer money the council used to outbid them comes from a £500 million national pilot scheme, established under the present government, in which local authorities are funded to buy properties on the open market in order to house asylum seekers and reduce the cost of asylum hotels. In other words, local government is, on the order of central government, using your own money to give housing that you should It's a representative case. 134,760 British households were in temporary accommodation as of September 2025, which is a record. 4,793 people were sleeping rough on a single night in autumn 2025, also a record, and 171% higher than in 2010. 28% of all new social housing lettings in England in 2024/25, approximately 75,000 households, went to people deemed statutorily homeless. The number of new social housing lettings that included a member of the Armed Forces community was, in the same year, approximately 2,600. The number of new lettings that went to non-UK nationals, on the basis of the nationality data published by central government, was substantially in excess of that veteran figure, by, depending on how the data is cut, about 10x. This is the British state, in 2026, using the working tax contributions of two young people in the first weeks of trying to buy a home, to outbid those same two young people for that same home, in order to provide free accommodation for foreign nationals whose claims to be in this country have not yet been assessed and may well be completely worthless. The young people will, on the present trajectory, be made homeless in the same June in which the asylum seekers move into the property they were trying to buy. The young people will be paying, through their council tax for the rest of their working lives, for the accommodation in which the asylum seekers will live. It is likely, given the number of migrants to Britain whose lifetime tax contribution is net negative, that they will be paying tax to offset these new arrivals for the rest of their lives. It goes without saying that we need the most fundamental imaginable reconstruction of our asylum, housing, planning, and immigration laws to prevent such travesties of justice from happening again. We all know what is required by way of change in those areas. Progress has written a more extensively policy testament on this subject than any other political organisation in Britain. Beyond that there is one last thing worth saying. The young couple, on the available account, are not in a position to fight any of this through the courts. They cannot afford to. Their solicitor, on their telling, was pressing them for the legal fees on a debit card before the rest of the conversation was over. They will, in all likelihood, lose the home, the deposit, the survey, the rate deal, and the remainder of their tenancy in a single short summer. They will then watch the property they were trying to buy be filled, at the public's expense, by the people the British state has decided to prioritise over them. If that does not make you furious enough to do something about what is happening in Britain, nothing will.

This is the mansion that New Yorker writer Jia Tolentino grew up in before her parents were indicted for a massive human trafficking scheme that basically involved forcing Filipino migrants into slavery. Her parents trafficked hundreds of immigrants into the US, then threatened them with deportation if they spoke out against abusive living conditions and extremely predatory loans that basically forced the migrants into a form of indentured servitude or modern day slavery. Her parents ultimately stole almost $2.8 million USD in fraudulent visa fees before being indicted on 40 counts of money laundering, conspiracy to smuggle immigrants, and visa fraud. According to court records, the fraud worked like this: The Tolentino family took school administrators on free trips to luxury beach resorts in the Philippines. In exhange for the luxury holiday, school administrators would then ''interview'' Filipino teachers and agree to hire them to their school district. At first, the school district promised to employ 55 teachers. With this preliminary order, the Tolentino family charged each of the teachers $10,000 for a non-refundable deposit and extracted a promise to pay up to 50% of their US salaries for their first few years of employment. Before even making it to the US, most teachers were therefore placed in debt roughly equivalent to two years of median family income in the Philippines. This debt quickly became crushing because the Tolentino family business Omni Consortium worked with a predatory loan shark company called Blue Pacific to deliver loans at an annual interest rate of 60%. Blue Pacific required that each “recruit” have a co-signer in the Phillipines: co-signers were threatened with jail-time if “recruits” were unable to make monthly payments. The Tolentino family failed to secure employment for many of the teachers once they arrived in the US, so many of them failed to make their monthly payments. If "recruits" failed to make a payment the Tolentinos would charge an additional 10% penalty to the loan payment, plus an additional five-percent 5% interest. At least one victim of the Tolentinos filed for ''T nonimmigrant status'' which is a temporary immigration benefit for victims of human trafficking. While ultimately unsuccessful in their overall ''T nonimmigrant status'' appeal, US Citizenship and Immigration Services DID determine that the victim had been a victim of human trafficking at the hands of the Tolentinos: ''Upon review, the applicant has established that she has been a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons, and and that her physical presence in the United States is on account of a severe form of human trafficking in persons.'' So a DHS agency determined that the Tolentino family engaged in a severe form of human trafficking that basically involved forcing migrants into a kind of modern slavery. After a lengthy trial, lawyers hired by the Tolentinos secured a ruling of mistrial on a technicality because two of the jurors read some newspaper articles about the case. They ultimately pleaded to conspiracy to defraud the US government and received 3 months' probation each, not prison. According to the El Paso Times reporting on the August 2008 sentencing, the Tolentinos ultimately forfeited: - A $1.75 million house in Houston - $80,000 from five different bank accounts held under the names of parents and grandparents - A 1996 Mercedes Benz - A 1999 BMW - Real estate properties in Houston and McAllen Her mother Angelica Tolentino had her charges dismissed in August 2008 specifically in exchange for agreeing not to contest the forfeiture order. Jia's mother avoided prosecution by letting the assets go, which suggests the family treated the forfeiture as the real cost of the case rather than the criminal sentence (which was just 3 months' probation each for father Noel and grandmother Florita).

Hakeem Jeffries: “Not a single undocumented immigrant in this country gets a dime of federal taxpayer dollars for any part of Medicaid coverage.” Lying under oath is a CRIME. CHARGE HIM.

BREAKING: The UN has elected the Islamic Republic of Iran as VP of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Review Conference Just last year this very committee found Iran to be in violation of the committee’s policies. You literally cannot make this up.

After Paul Pelosi was attacked in 2022, Jake Tapper did an entire show on the dangers of stochastic terrorism and of systematically demonizing a person. Tapper blamed the right and QAnon for inciting the attack. He said calling someone a pedophile or claiming that someone is out to hurt people will result in violence. Hey Jake, the entire platform of the Democrat party for the past year has been to call Trump a pedophile and to claim that he is out to hurt people. It's also what Jimmy Kimmel does almost every night. Now after Jimmy Kimmel's "joke" about Melania being a widow, Tapper says that jokes are just jokes and are not calls for violence.

A pacific palisades fire victim named Sue Pascoe started her own investigation after the $100 million dollars in donation money from the FireAid concert ‘went missing’ She personally called all the NGOs to find out who they were giving the money to Not a single NGO had given any money to actual fire victims of the Pacific Palisades and Altadena fires Reminder, investigators were able to track roughly $75 million had been granted to 120–188 nonprofits. Not a dime went to victims directly Gavin Newsom created a NGO and got some of the money