[Gustan Cho]

​A husband who has permanent resident status can pair up with a wife on a category A-10 work permit and still apply for an FHA mortgage together.

• The Federal Housing Administration lets lawful permanent residents step into its loan program as though they had full U.S. citizenship.
• The man will probably show his green card Form I-551 to prove his status, and that is usually all the lender needs.
• If his credit is decent, his income holds up, and his debt picture stays within FHA lines, he may become the primary borrower.
• The wife’s A-10 work permit, formally known as an Employment Authorization Document (EAD), isn’t an exception.
• It often appears with folks under Temporary Protected Status (TPS).
• FHA rules let non-permanent resident aliens access its loan program so long as they cross a few clear hurdles.
• First, the borrower must maintain a valid EAD that permits U.S. employment.
• Second, there has to be a real promise to treat the new house as a main address.
• Of course, all the usual FHA checks on income, credit, and debt ratios still apply to someone who isn’t a citizen or green card holder.
• Oddly enough, the law never insists that a co-borrower be a permanent resident.
• The key piece is that work card.

To keep the paper trail tidy, the wife drops the live A-10, a Social Security number, and proof that she plans to stay put in the new digs. Suppose those documents stack upright, and the couple still hits the income and credit benchmarks. In that case, they step into the FHA pipeline like any other husband-and-wife team.

Yes, a husband with a Green Card and a wife holding an A-10 work permit can still land an FHA mortgage together. Both borrowers must clear the usual hurdles: decent credit, steady income, and plans to live in the home full-time.

I can create a quick, plain English note for your clients so they can see exactly how this works. Just let me know, and I’ll send it to you immediately!

[Gustan Cho]

Kash Patel, confirmed as FBI Director, said in The Joe Rogan Experience podcast that his house was swatted the day before, on June 5, 2025. Swatting is a form of hoax calls made with the intent to provoke an armed response, in this case, allegedly targeting Patel’s residence. Several users, notably @cb_doge, @RT_com, and @BreitbartNews, posted on X corroborating his statement as early as June 6, 2025, showing no contrarian reporting. Neither the FBI nor any other law enforcement agency has issued any statement confirming or denying the incident, and no other mainstream outlet seems to be covering the case, which makes one wonder about such absence.

While his narrative does make some sense, it remains unverified. FBI involvement in swatting is unique in the sense that someone can call 911 and trigger a SWAT response from any agency, not necessarily the FBI. As Director of the FBI, it would be easy to assume that he would have some form of protection against such incidents. Still, swatting is meant to target everyone regardless of title or position. The lack of sense could result from chaos behind swatting methods and law enforcement’s exploitation of quick response times. The less sensational hypothesis is far more likely in this case – that some malicious actor placed a false call, which resulted in the response from some local SWAT element.

To summarize, there is no direct proof that Patel was deceitful, but the lack of specific documents or confirmations renders the claim unverifiable. The YouTube Shorts link you provided showcases a segment from the podcast where Patel mentioned the swatting incident, which aligns with the posts on X. However, it does not serve as independent corroboration. If you want more clarification, please look for press releases by the FBI or the relevant local agencies. Still, none of the supplied information appears accessible.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/lm6m7_PsdtE

[Gustan Cho]

Last batch of pictures of Skylar for today. Out of three German Shepherd Dogs we have, Chase is the largest, Bailey is second at 65 pounds, and Skylar is the smallest. I will take her to the vet in the coming week to get her weighed. I will also take Chase to get him weighed too. Skylar was 50 pounds when I adopted her. She was underweight and you could see her rob cage. Now she’s healthy and eats good. Has a good appetite as well. I like to get her treats like a 10 ounce steak once a week. Like a ribeye steak as a treat. One day I want to take her to Petco for a treat and get her several of her favorite ♥️ toys. A cartful.. I think she will love that. She loves it now when I take her out for a treat without the other German Shepherds. She thinks she is special, which she is. Very special girl. Love her very much ♥️ Extremely beautiful and loveable. She knows it too.

[Gustan Cho]

More pictures of Skylar my favorite German Shepherd. Took her out to check out the yard. She enjoys one on one time with me. Love her very much Extremely beautiful, loyal, trusting, and always next to me. Day and night . Sleeps next to me. Have to make sure she goes potty when everyone goes out potty because she’s by me when everyone goes potty.

[Gustan Cho]

Here’s several pictures of my best girl Skylar. She’s better behaved as each day pass. She rather be with me than go out with other dogs and play. I take her out one on one every day. Skylar never goes farther than five feet from me. Each one of my three German Shepherd Dogs has their own unique personality and character. Skylar is always by me in the house. She sleeps next to my bed every night. When I need to run an errand without her, she panics and searches the house and wants to get out of the house to see if my truck is gone.

[Gustan Cho]

Danielle Diamartino Booth isn’t one to sugarcoat her advice to Jerome Powell.

• In a chat with financial reporter Daniella Cambone, she flat-out says the Fed chair ought to yank on his big-boy pants, look up, and stop treating Inflation like Earth’s biggest fire.
• True price hikes are inching down.
• Rent checks prove it, yet layoffs keep rolling in and shy away from the payroll vanishing act.
• Company after company whispers or flat-out shouts that they’ve lost pricing muscle.
• This is because American shoppers can’t stretch their wallets.
• Powell pressed the booth about one loose-chip matter:
• Trump’s tax blueprint, and she answered with musk-ish urgency.
• She insists that the possible cuts won’t boost growth; they’ll bulk up a deficit that was supposed to slim down by 2025, padding tomorrow’s balance sheets while sparing today’s nerves.

Would you happen to need some quick media kit goodies? No problem. I can send you a tiny wheelhouse of ready-to-run content.

SEO-Friendly TitleDanielle DiMartino Booth: Fed Must Shift Focus to Jobs, Not Inflation

Social Media Blurb

• Economist Danielle DiMartino Booth says it’s time for Jerome Powell to put on his big boy pants and say Inflation is not the bigger problem.
• In a wide-ranging interview, she warns that the central bank should watch jobs, not charts, as price pressures cool.
• She also flags former President Trump’s tax plan as a likely budget buster.

Quote Pull

• You’re not stimulating the U.S. economy.
• You’re simply preventing a negative shock to the system.

Danielle DiMartino Booth

Pick a platform article, YouTube description, GCA Forums, LinkedIn, or any other platform, and the tone or length to fit. Could you say the word?

[Gustan Cho]

Trump is swearing that the Big Beautiful Bill will continue Trump’s tax cuts, and taxpayers will be paying a 67% tax increase without the passage of the Big Beautiful Bill. Is this true or is it political bullshit? Maybe Elon Musk, Rand Paul, and others are right about the Big Beautiful Bill. Maybe it is a trick and another Obamacare? Can you please go over a few case scenarios so I can hold a grasp on this confusing bill and see if I can fully understand. How about a W2 wage earner who is a married couple making a combined income of 170,000, a single W2 wage earner making $100,000, and a mom and pop construction company, and a mom and pop used car auto dealer?

[Gustan Cho]

Who Does the Big Beautiful Bill Help?

• Because money talks, the latest rewrite offers fresh tax breaks and bigger write-offs, mostly for folks with fat paychecks and owners of small and mid-size firms.
• Picture the Salt cap shooting up to $40,000 for couples earning under half a million, plus instant-expensing goodies many enterprises swear by.

Who Is For and Who Is Against The Big Beautiful Bill

• Supporters chant that the package will “jump-start Main Street” and give job creators the oxygen they crave.
• The bright side dims quickly when you flip the page. Medicaid rolls will thin, SNAP cards will stretch a lot less, and the clean-energy perks everyone liked keep getting shaved down.
• Critics warn that pocketbook pain plus a bloated national ledger is the real price tag.

Who Drew Up This Thing?

• One Big Beautiful Bill-More formally, H.R. 1-lands on the radar after Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-TX) hits send on May 20, 2025.
• Heavy hitters like House Budget Committee aides, Speaker Mike Johnson, and a certain ex-president chew on the details before the full House sends it humming out on May 22, 2025.

Why Is Trump Pushing So Hard for Big, Beautiful Bill

• Why is Trump pushing so hard if it doesn’t meaningfully help W-2 wage earners and small businesses?
• Trump and his allies keep saying the new plan talks business.
• They point to chunky new deductions and the chance to write off big purchases in the same year to show that Main Street can get a break.
• The bill also serves up a shiny political trophy, letting the ex-president claim bold results, lock in his star taxes, free up a debt-ceiling fight, and slip past the Senate’s usual roadblocks.
• Critics call it a package that sings to CEOs while the other chorus waits for its mic.

Could the Trump-Musk feud hurt Trump’s presidency?

• Yes, it totally could. When two of the party’s loudest microphones face-off, everyone hears the clash, not the jobs or border talk.
• If Musk keeps taking swings at the tax plan and Trump fires back—or worse, hints at regulators—the MAGA crowd divides, Senate votes waver, and even old-school Wall Street donors might blink.
• That ripple affects slower press coverage, shaky markets, and the sudden math of yes votes turning into no votes.

What came of Musk’s ‘fraud findings’ via DOGE?

• Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) slammed the table with a headline number, saying it chopped off hundreds of billions in taxpayer fraud and waste.
• Independent auditors, newspaper reporters, union reps, and even cranky watchdogs studied the books.
• They reported errors, overstatements, and miscounts of contractors that they couldn’t gloss over.
• A recent Supreme Court decision opened the vaults, allowing DOGE to access Social Security records that were once off-limits.
• The court’s move fixed a transparency gap but sparked new concerns about privacy and freedom-of-information requests.

Update on DOGE

• Vocal politicians, from Elizabeth Warren to Steve Bannon and federal auditors, accuse DOGE of playing favorites with data that seems bent toward boosting Tesla and SpaceX.
• Those accusations have led to lawsuits, dragged hearings into overtime, and left most folks asking who is holding the committee accountable.
• The program still tries to look like an efficiency miracle, but its real clout is hotly debated and far from settled.

Bottom line:

• The Big Beautiful Bill tips the scale toward wealthy gainers and border-security boosters while shaving money from social programs and green projects.
• Trump loves that math for his political playbook, though many low-income Americans see the ax coming.
• Not one to stay quiet, Musk calls the whole thing fiscally reckless and miles away from his promise to tidy up the government.
• Their public skirmish risks ripping apart the fragile political coalition that once seemed locked in, even if it does help Trump rally some of his base.
• Meanwhile, DOGE’s proud fraud headlines have boomeranged into a mix of lawsuits, hearings, and press inquiries that show no signs of letting up.

Hey there! Suppose you’re following the buzz around the One Big Beautiful Bill. In that case, you might be curious about the party-line chatter in the Senate. Word on the Hill is that Republicans and Democrats are swapping hot takes almost hourly. I can break down those reactions for you if that sounds useful.

Meanwhile, the House Oversight Committee is still grilling the folks behind DOGE to determine who gets seniority in tech’s newest pecking order. Speculations vary, but some insiders think new rules could be implemented by summer.

People also want to know how the bill might affect paychecks pocketed by low-income families, middle managers, and small-business owners. Old economic forecasts can get dense, but I can combine the high- and low-ball estimates for a quicker read.

Feel free to holler if you want any of that. I’ll send the details faster than the CBO can run a new model!

[Gustan Cho]

Here are the details of Kash Patel’s claim:

What FBI Director Kash Patel Said

Just last Sunday, Kash Patel, the Director of the FBI, said in the Joe Rogan Experience that “his home was ‘swatted.’ This means someone made a fake emergency call to law enforcement and sent police to his house. This information was not part of an FBI raid—the FBI did not send SWAT to his home.

What Swatting Is

Swatting is a type of harassment where someone falsely claims to call 911 by using someone’s name. For example, there is a hostage situation or an active shooter present at the given address.

• The intent is to get a SWAT team by lying, which can be dangerous.
• He did acknowledge that the call was placed.
• Still, looking into it, local authorities determined it was not genuine before taking action.

Is He Telling The Truth?

Absolutely.

• Several news outlets have verified the information, including Fox News, Newsweek, Yahoo News, and The Daily Beast.
• Patel’s house was indeed swatted.
• By making that statement on a public podcast, he had no way to prove or disprove the allegations that he had made.

Why It Might Sound Confusing

The FBI Director could be the target of swatting. But consider the following:

• Swatting is done by unauthorized third-party perpetrators, not law enforcement.
• The FBI did not conduct a raid on his house.
• As an FBI Director, he has honestly spoken about falling victim to such harassment.
• He has done so unapologetically, highlighting the hypocrisy that surrounds such acts of harassment and how they are used unevenly.

Patel’s Own Words

On Fox News and with Rogan, he said,

• “S—t. My house just got swatted yesterday.”
• “As Director of the FBI … they continue to do it.”

He kept driving home the point of balancing enforcement inequality framed around swatting being this insidious violence directed toward him.

Bottom Line

• No, the FBI did not raid the Director’s home.
• Yes, he was the victim of swatting— a criminal harassment tactic perpetrated by malicious outside actors.
• It is a real event, extensively covered.
• His comment was not misleading as long as you grasp the concepts of swatting’s mechanics.
• If you’d like me to explain how swatting works in general or provide you with full links to the relevant excerpts from the podcast, just let me know.

That instinct makes sense because it …sounds strange” at first glance:

• Why would the FBI director himself be a victim of swatting?
• Couldn’t his residence have been secured beforehand?
• And wouldn’t his agency understand not to raid him?

Here’s a simple breakdown so you can make your judgment:

What Is Swatting?

Swatting = the malicious act of accusing a target of a shooting, hostage situation, or bomb threat in their vicinity and notifying local 911.

How it works step by step:

• Using spoofed numbers and online anonymizers, dimwit defenders conceal their identity.
• Calling from VOIP apps, low-tier criminals call the target’s police rather than their local FBI or federal agents.

Fabricating an emergency can look something like this:

• “I shot my wife, and I’m holding my kids hostage.”
• “There’s a bomb in the house.”
• “There’s an active shooter here.”
• Depending on the local law enforcement policy, local SWAT/police units may be dispatched to the location.
• If they are lucky, police determine it is fake and don’t storm the house, but if they are not, they intend to use force.

Different Scenarios

Scenario 1:

• Successful Public Swatting Evaded Public Figures ed.
• Police recognize the address as high profile or protected. → A Verification call is made before sending SWAT.

Result:

• No force was used; only a warning regarding the attempted swatting was issued.

Scenario 2: Armed SWAT Raid Triggered By Swatting

• Influencer or a gamer targeted.
• (This is the trend)
• Police regard the fictitious report as real information. → SWAT mobilizes.

Example

Andrew Finch, Wichita, KS (2017)

• He became a victim of swatting due to an online gaming rivalry. → SWAT shot him dead on his porch.

Scenario 3: Kash Patel and Other Highly Recognizable People

• Even if Kash Patel is the FBI Director, local law enforcement might not immediately be aware of this if 911 is spoofed and standard operating procedures are activated.
• It appears that local law enforcement substantiated his claims that it was a swatting attempt, but subsequently, no action was taken—no raids were performed.
• Result: His home was targeted but not breached.

Why Is It Sounding Strange In This Case

Kash Patel is the Director of the FBI→.

It is extremely difficult to fathom that anyone could stealthily send a SWAT team to his residence.

BUT:

• Local law enforcement agencies respond to 911 calls.
• In most cases, they do not verify in real-time against federal databases whether the address is registered to a federal employee.

Also:

Patel has previously shared about being a victim of swatting, so this is not the first instance.

Why Would He Say This?

There are two possible explanations:

• He described a real event but came close to a fake SWAT breach narrative.
• That seems very plausible, given the news coverage.
• Local law enforcement was on top of things.
• He made a political story by exaggerating or inventing how it happened.
• Some critics take this view because he presented the incident during a biased and harassment showcase.

Wrap Up

• Swatting is very real and poses a tangible risk.
• Theoretically, if a spoofed 911 call were received, a Director’s residence could be targeted.

In Patel’s instance, so far, the facts are aligning, but the narrative “FBI raided the FBI Director” is wrong:

• It was not an FBI operation but a local attempt to ‘swat’ forcefully.

Evaluation of Patel based on the facts:

• It’s partially accurate but oversimplified.
• Patel’s residence was a target for swatting. However, the FBI did not conduct it or involve a full-blown SWAT operation raid.
• These events did not occur in a vacuum.
• This is not quite a falsehood, but it does stretch the truth.

In case you missed it, I can still show you:

• Other recently known instances of politicians being victims of swatting.
• Current measures are being taken to reduce the rate of these attacks.

Would you like to see that next? It could explain why this story sounds insane yet is, regrettably, quite plausible.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7V7eN_3mi_o