Mark Levin: Biden’s mental fitness is a ‘serious issue’



There should be no question at this point that Joe Biden’s mental decline is accelerating, and Mark Levin believes this should be of grave concern to us all.

“This issue of dementia is a serious issue,” Levin says. “I should know. I’ve had two people in my family who’ve had Alzheimer’s and one who had moderate dementia. It’s not funny, it’s very upsetting.”

This is why, Levin says, that he’s “disgusted” that Biden is running for president.

“We’re talking about the president of the United States. We’re talking about one branch of government that controls whether we go to war or not and what type of weapons we use among a thousand other things,” Levin says.

While Biden has moments when he seems okay, it’s not unusual for patients with mental disorders to seem as though they’re back to normal sometimes.

“Everybody says, ‘See? He was great for 90 minutes, he was great for an hour, he was great.’ Many people who have dementia or Alzheimer’s early stages can do that sort of thing,” Levin says.

“There’s a reason Joe Biden has taken vacation 40% of his presidency, there’s a reason why he won’t have, give, and take press conferences on a regular basis. There’s a reason why his staff walks around him when he goes to and fro from the helicopter. There’s a reason why we’re seeing on television what we’re seeing and we’re hearing what we’re hearing out of the president’s mouth — because he’s not well,” he continues.

“It’s not funny, but it’s utterly unconscionable and irresponsible for the largest political party in this country to be nominating somebody for president who they nominated before when he wasn’t well, when the vast majority of its members know damn well that what I’m saying is the truth.”


Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Biden admin accused of 'making a power grab for the National Guard'



Republican Govs. Greg Abbott of Texas and Ron DeSantis of Florida penned letters Friday condemning a proposal that would effectively allow the Democratic administration to wrest control over National Guard units away from governors across the country.

The Republican duo was late to the party when signaling opposition to U.S. Air Force's Legislative Proposal 480. The governors of 48 states and the leaders of five American territories voiced their opposition to LP480 last month in a letter to the Pentagon.

An indecent proposal

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall approved the draft legislation on March 15. The Pentagon subsequently delivered LP480 to the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 29.

LP480 would enable the Secretary of the Air Force to transfer the covered space functions currently performed by the Air National Guard to the U.S. Space Force. The secretary would be enabled to change the status of an ANG unit to a unit of the USSF, to deactivate the unit, or to assign the unit to "a new Federal mission."

The proposed legislation also waives the requirement to first obtain a governor's consent prior to making such changes to a National Guard unit.

Kendall suggested to lawmakers that the legislation would not set a precedent that would enable other services to cannibalize elements of the National Guard without gubernatorial consent, reported Breaking Defense.

"This [issue] is an artifact of the creation of the Space Force," said Kendall. "It's a unique situation. There's absolutely no intention to make any other changes, moving things out of the Guard."

Following a House Armed Services Committee hearing last month on the USAF and USSF fiscal year 2025 budget requests, Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) reportedly said he was "fully supportive."

"I think that what the Air Force is suggesting is going to be successful," said Rogers. "We are used to the National Guard Association being a very political organization that deploys these kind of political activities. This is not one in which they should waste their time and this is not one in which they're going to be successful."

If every governor in the country has their way, then the National Guard Association will prove Rogers wrong.

Backlash

Ret. Maj. Gen. Francis M. McGinn, head of the National Guard Association of the United States, noted in an April 16 op-ed that the proposal constituted "an existential threat to the National Guard."

"This move represents a significant federal overreach that should concern governors and federal lawmakers alike," wrote McGinn. "This is an attempt to bypass the longstanding authority Congress gave to governors requiring their consent before any National Guard units can be removed from their states."

Noting that the proposal states that the transfer of units "shall occur without regard to" two existing laws concerning gubernatorial authority, McGinn likened the legislation to "asking the government for permission to rob your neighbor by asking legislators to ignore laws against robbery. Such a ham-fisted approach is legally dubious at best and a breach of the established legislative process."

Kendall said in response that the "reaction from the Guard, quite frankly, has been over the top on this."

"We're not talking an existential threat. No one is suggesting dismantling the guard," he added.

The Air Force secretary evidently did a poor job of winning over skeptics.

Several weeks after Colorado's Democratic Gov. Jared Polis more or less told the Pentagon to keep its hands off the state's ANG units, and days after the Council of Governors wrote to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin with its objections, the governors of 48 states plus the five U.S. territories followed suit.

The National Governors Association noted in its late April letter to Secretary Austin that the proposed legislation "disregards gubernatorial authorities regarding the National Guard and undermines over 100 years of precedent as well as national security and military readiness."

Recognizing the importance of ensuring that the National Guard is equipped and ready to serve as the "operational combat reserve for national security mission and to support domestic emergencies," the governors stressed it is imperative that they "retain the authority laid out in United States Code (U.S.C.) Title 32, Section 104."

The governors' letter further noted that LP480 conflicts specifically with Section 18238 of Title 19, which "states that there should be no removal or withdrawal of a unit of the Air National Guard without consultation and approval from Governors. Additionally, section 104 of Title 32 states there is to be no change in the branch, organization or allotment of National Guard units within a state or territory without the approval of its Governor."

The governors indicated that the legislation would ultimately strain their relationship with the Pentagon; undermine governors' authority; adversely impact military readiness; and threaten the careers of state-based service members.

Abbott, DeSantis, and congressional lawmakers join in

Abbott and DeSantis got in on the action Friday.

The Texas governor underscored in his Friday letter to President Joe Biden that LP480 would sideline governors as the commanders-in-chief of their respective National Guards.

After highlighting the crucial role the Texas National Guard plays in protecting Texans, addressing civil disturbances, and in responding to disasters, Abbott wrote that LP480 "poses an intolerable threat" to the service.

"Congress has long required the consent of a governor before units can be transferred out of the National Guard he commands. See 32 U.S.C. § 104; 10 U.S.C. § 18238. By departing from this sensible arrangement, and allowing the Secretaries to dismantle National Guard units on a whim, Legislative Proposal 480 would set a dangerous precedent," added Abbott.

In the X post accompanying his statement, Abbott wrote, "President Biden and his Admin. are making a power grab for the National Guard. They want to give the Secretaries unilateral authority to dismantle National Guard units on a whim."

DeSantis penned his condemnatory Friday letter to the Senate chairs and ranking members of the Senate and House Armed Services committees.

"As a low-lying, storm-prone state, Florida is uniquely vulnerable to hurricanes and flooding that require significant, operationally ready logistics and disaster support, including from our National Guard units," wrote DeSantis. "This legislative proposal weakens that guarantee and sidesteps the authority of the Governor to ensure Floridians are prepared and protected to address whatever domestic emergencies may arise, especially as we approach another hurricane season."

Extra to the governors, there has been bipartisan opposition to the scheme in both chambers of Congress.

Twenty-nine senators and 56 representatives have urged the leaders of the House and Senate Armed Service committees to keep the proposal out of the fiscal 2025 National defense Authorization Act, reported the Washington Examiner.

In their letter to their respective committees, the lawmakers called LP480 "deeply flawed" and noted that Congress "has a duty to maintain the integrity and longstanding tradition of the National Guard," adding that "a proposal of this magnitude threatens to under [sic] over 120 years of precedent."

According to The Hill, a White House official indicated the Biden administration supports the proposal.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Biden's Push to THROTTLE Medical Innovation

Biden's Push to THROTTLE Medical Innovation

Biden administration hiking mortgage fees for Americans with good credit to subsidize home buyers with bad credit



American home buyers who have good credit scores will be penalized in an effort by the Biden administration to achieve equity. The higher fees for those with good credit will be redistributed to home buyers with poor credit.

As part of the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency’s push for more affordable housing, home buyers with good credit scores will be forced to pay additional fees on their mortgages. Starting on May 1, the federally backed mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will establish new loan-level price adjustments with private banks nationwide. Those additional fees will be used to subsidize home buyers with risky credit scores.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation defines loan-level price adjustments as "risk-based pricing adjustments that vary based on credit score, loan-to-value ratio, type of product, and various other factors, charged at the time of origination."

The Washington Times reported, "Mortgage industry specialists say homebuyers with credit scores of 680 or higher will pay, for example, about $40 per month more on a home loan of $400,000. Homebuyers who make down payments of 15% to 20% will get socked with the largest fees."

According to the New York Post, "Meanwhile, buyers with credit scores of 679 or lower will have their fees slashed, resulting in more favorable mortgage rates. For example, a buyer with a 620 FICO credit score with a down payment of 5% or less gets a 1.75% fee discount – a decrease from the old fee rate of 3.50% for that bracket."

Ian Wright – a senior loan officer at Bay Equity Home Loans in the San Francisco area – told the Washington Times, "The changes do not make sense. Penalizing borrowers with larger down payments and credit scores will not go over well. It overcomplicates things for consumers during a process that can already feel overwhelming with the amount of paperwork, jargon, etc. Confusing the borrower is never a good thing."

David Stevens – a former head of the Mortgage Bankers Association who served as commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration during the Obama administration – declared the new rule to be "unprecedented."

"This was a blatant and significant cut of fees for their highest-risk borrowers and a clear increase in much better credit quality buyers – which just clarified to the world that this move was a pretty significant cross-subsidy pricing change," Stevens told the New York Post.

Stevens wrote on social media, "This confusing approach won’t work and more importantly couldn’t come at a worse time for an industry struggling to get back on its feet after these past 12 months. To do this at the onset of the spring market is almost offensive to the market, consumers, and lenders."

Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Sandra Thompson – who was appointed by President Joe Biden – defended the rule changes by stating they would "increase pricing support for purchase borrowers limited by income or by wealth." She said the fee changes are "minimal" and are "to ensure a level playing field for all lenders to have sufficient time to deploy the fee." Thompson added that the fees would provide market stability.

Bob Broeksmit – the president of the Mortgage Bankers Association – fired off a letter to Thompson in February decrying the new rule as "especially troubling." He noted that the debt-to-income ratio fee creates "operational issues and quality control" for lenders.

The new rules arrive as the housing market struggles after the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate spiked to more than 7% in March following multiple interest rate increases by the Federal Reserve. In January 2021, mortgage rates in the U.S. set a record low – 2.65% for a 30-year, fixed loan.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Real ‘High Class Problem’ Is How Out Of Touch The ‘High Class’ Is From Everyone Else

White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain's 'high class problems' retweet was just another reminder that the 'high class' folks in D.C. just really don't care at all about your woes.

'The fall of Kabul should be the DOWNFALL of the Biden administration'



In the wake of the United States pulling troops out of Afghanistan, the progressive Left in the United States appeared more concerned about preferred pronouns and the Green New Deal than the reality of what had transpired in Kabul, Afghanistan's capital city.

In this clip, BlazeTV's Chad Prather asserted what he believed the people of Kabul will face now with the Taliban in control: murder, rape, and death.

On Tuesday's episode of "The Chad Prather Show," Chad explained why he believed the fall of Kabul should be the "downfall" of the Biden administration.

"We [Americans] have no concept of how the rest of the world operates," Chad said. He later added that the rest of the world doesn't care about equality but rather who is in control.

Chad savagely dismantled the Biden administration's foreign policy and went on to say that American culture had become weak.

"At least Trump could shut things down," Chad said. "He got things done."

Watch the clip to hear more from Chad. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.


Use promo code CHAD to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Chad Prather?

To enjoy more of Chad's comedy, craziness, and common sense, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.