‘Gov’t Agents Arrive at Your Business Demanding You Pay Them to Regulate You’ David Harsanyi Explains SCOTUS ‘Chevron Deference’ Case Issue–MHARR on Manufactured Home Link; plus MHVille Markets


To frame the insights by David Harsanyi, a senior editor at The Federalist in its broader and manufactured housing industry specific context, consider the following. In May 2023, the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) said:The United States Supreme Court has accepted for review later this year, a case that could significantly alter the landscape of federal regulatory law, including critical matters that directly impact the comprehensively federally-regulated manufactured housing industry.” Harsanyi’s thoughts will follow.

MHARR’s memo to the industry continued by saying this.

QuoteMarksLeftSideThe case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which the court voted to accept on May 1, 2023, involves a legal concept known as “Chevron deference,” and provides an opportunity for the Court to either eliminate, restrict, or clarify that doctrine. Chevron deference, first enunciated by the Supreme Court in Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984), means that a court reviewing federal agency regulatory action will defer to an agency’s interpretation of a controlling statute if the statute itself is found by the court to be “ambiguous.”

For example, when HUD (in concert with its entrenched contractor) adopted current Subpart I procedures, including regulations, policy statements, “guidelines,” and other sub-regulatory criteria that have continually bedeviled industry production, MHARR – in the absence of Chevron deference – would, in 1985, have judicially challenged those actions.  As MHARR members are aware, though, the Association chose not to proceed in that manner, because of the adoption of Chevron judicial deference just a year before.

If Chevron deference were overruled, however – or significantly limited — the likelihood of judicial relief concerning many regulatory issues affecting the industry would be enhanced, meaning that agencies would have to confront an increased likelihood of credible litigation over regulatory decisions and actions. This, in turn, would enable MHARR to more aggressively protect, defend and advance the views and interests of manufactured housing producers in Washington, D.C.”


With that context, Part I is a commentary by David Harsanyi, a senior editor at The Federalist from the WND News Center to MHProNews regarding the Chevron Deference. Part II will include the all the know published information on this topic by the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) as of the time shown below on 1.26.2024. Additional information with more analysis are included. Part III is our Daily Business News on MHProNews manufactured housing linked markets report and macro-market moving headlines recap across the left-right media divide.


Part I 



The administrative state is the real ‘threat to democracy’

David Harsanyi cheer for the fishermen in case before Supreme Court

By David Harsanyi
Published January 25, 2024 at 7:11pm

The government shows up at your business and demands you pay the salaries of the regulators who lord over you. If you refuse, you’ll be ruined. You have little recourse. You’ve never even voted on the policy because no law implementing it exists. Bureaucrats in D.C. cooked up the idea, and a political appointee signed off on it.

That’s what Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a case brought by New England fishermen against Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, is all about. It may finally end or weaken Chevron deference, which refers to a 1984 decision that inadvertently empowered the administrative state to take wide-ranging, illiberal powers over American economic life.

I mean, the case of the fishermen is basically a modern reenactment of “taxation without representation.”

Yet when the Supreme Court took up oral arguments in Raimondo, the three leftist judges didn’t focus on the constitutionality of Chevron deference, but rather lamented the alleged problems of stripping government experts of their power. Here is how The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus frames the arguments: “Who decides? From the liberal point of view: unelected judges or regulators with expertise and accountability? From the conservative vantage point: judges constitutionally empowered to say what the law is or unelected bureaucrats?”

It’s difficult to comprehend how any jurist who swore to uphold the Constitution could agree with the “liberal point of view.” Justices are “unelected” by design. It’s not a gotcha. It’s the point. And it is literally their job to “decide” the constitutionality of the laws and their implementation. Failing to do so is an abdication of their duty. Yet the contemporary Left treats SCOTUS as if it were some autocratic Star Chamber for doing its job.

Nowhere, on the other hand, does the Constitution say one word about unelected bureaucrats deciding the law. The executive branch, as the name strongly suggests, is tasked with executing laws as written. The Right initially cheered Chevron as a way to blunt judicial activism. But the allowances for “reasonable” decision-making when ambiguity exists in the law have been so abused that agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency will regulate every puddle and molecule of carbon dioxide.

Then again, the claim that regulators have unassailable “expertise” or real accountability is also a myth.

Democrats act as if they have a monopoly on apolitical, policy expertise. But there are almost always major disagreements over the efficacy and scope of regulatory policy, which is why politics exists, and why Democrats are keen on bypassing Congress and debate.

Moreover, the notion that government regulators are the best and brightest and attain their position through merit is complete bunkum, as anyone who’s paid more than five minutes of attention to the government already knows. This is especially true of political appointees, whose most valued skills are navigating bureaucracies and risk aversion.

Indeed, bureaucrats do not function under a notion of “accountability” that most normal people would recognize. When was the last time an agency cleaned house because its policies had failed? When was the last time the administrative state was reined back in any genuine way? How many regulators or appointees are ever fired? If you were as bad at your job as Alejandro Mayorkas, you’d be out of work forever.

That said, even if regulators were blessed with extraordinary work ethic, exceptionally creative minds and all the best ideas, they would still have zero right to create laws out of whole cloth.

Yet all the most vocal defenders of saving American “democracy” happen to think Chevron deference abuses are integral to governance. Read left-wing punditry on the topic and you might walk away with the impression that federal agencies didn’t even exist until 1984.

The histrionics over the potential death of Chevron deference is just another example of the Left’s abandonment of anything resembling a limiting principle. It’s all consequentialism, all the time. Anything Democrats dislike is an attack on “democracy.”

What Chevron deference does is incentivize Congress to write vague laws and presidents to abuse their power. It creates instability, as every administration implements its own preferred interpretation of the law. It threatens to further destroy the separation of powers. It was a huge mistake. And, as opposed to most of the Left’s hysterics these days, it’s a real threat to “democracy.”

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist. Harsanyi is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of five books – the most recent, “Eurotrash: Why America Must Reject the Failed Ideas of a Dying Continent.” His work has appeared in National Review, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Reason, New York Post and numerous other publications.


Part II – Additional Information with More MHProNews Analysis and Commentary

> “What has the Manufactured Housing Institute said about the Chevron Deference as it applies to Manufactured Housing? …”

BingCopilotAI-Screen1.3.2024MHProNewsThe Chevron Deference is a legal concept that refers to the deference that courts should give to federal agencies’ interpretations of the laws that they administer. The Supreme Court is currently hearing a case that could significantly alter the landscape of federal regulatory law, including critical matters that directly impact the comprehensively federally-regulated manufactured housing industry 1. The case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, provides an opportunity for the Court to either eliminate, restrict, or clarify the Chevron doctrine 1.

The Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) has not made any public statements regarding the Chevron Deference as it applies to manufactured housing 2However, the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) has been closely monitoring the case and has issued a statement regarding the potential impact of the case on the manufactured housing industry 1According to MHARR, if the Chevron Deference were overruled or significantly limited, the likelihood of judicial relief concerning many regulatory issues affecting the industry would be enhanced, meaning that agencies would have to confront an increased likelihood of credible litigation over regulatory decisions and actions 1.

Regarding the specific article you mentioned, it discusses the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo case and its potential impact on the manufactured housing industry 1The article does not mention any statements made by MHI regarding the Chevron Deference 1. …”

Copilot linked MHARR’s report here. Copilot also linked to articles on MHProNews, but didn’t provide any from any other trade media source in manufactured housing. The articles linked by Copilot are the two shown below.


‘Americans Subject to Bureaucracy Tyranny’-Supreme Court Case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo–‘Many Bureaucrats Don’t Give a D-mn About Voters;’ Chevron Deference Amicus Brief; plus MHStocks

Supreme Court Case Could ‘Significantly Alter’ Federal Regulatory Law Landscape, Including Key Matters Impacting Federally-Regulated Manufactured Housing Industry; plus MHMarkets Update


As in several other issues raised in the analysis of Harvard’s 2024 exploration of why manufactured housing is underperforming in the 21st century, MHI has apparently been publicly silent on the Chevron Deference.


Meanwhile, others have weigh in. Among them is Judge Andrew Napolitano, who has a periodic column, including these pull quotes from the WND News Center.  While Napolitano didn’t take on the tax issue in the same way that a popular and successful investor has in a report planned for Monday, the attorney and judge did say that remark on President Woodrow Wilson’s (D) “unconstitutional government by experts.” Editing out some rather controversial notions about President Abraham Lincoln (R) and skipping ahead to Napolitano’s thoughts on Chevron is the following.


…America from its founding to the early part of the 20th century more or less enjoyed the James Madison model for the federal government.

Under this model, the federal government could only legislate, regulate and spend in the 16 discrete areas of governance the Constitution delegated to it. All other areas of human behavior were left free to individual choices or governance by the states.

From and after Wilson’s presidency, the Madisonian model was replaced by the Wilsonian one. Under this model, the feds could legislate, regulate and spend in any areas of governance for which there was a national political will, except for those areas that are expressly prohibited to them by the Constitution.

It would take another generation before the courts fully caught up to this, during which they gradually permitted Congress basically to write any law, regulate any behavior, spend any money, tax any event and intrude upon any relationship so long as it did not confront an express constitutional prohibition.

The Constitution itself – which Madison designed both to establish the federal government and to limit it – has been a dismal failure as an instrument of limitation. Madison himself wrote that only a structure external to the Constitution could be relied upon to keep the federal government in its place.

He was referring to the power of the states to nullify acts of the federal government that the states determined were outside its constitutional authority.

He was also referring to the natural right that individuals and political subdivisions have to leave the government, called secession. Just as the 13 colonies seceded from Great Britain, just as five of the original 13 states threatened to secede until a Bill of Rights was ratified, Madison argued, individuals can reject the government, smaller subdivisions can leave larger ones, and states can leave the feds.

Without the threat of nullification and secession, there is no effective restraint on the feds.

Now back to Wilson. His governmental sins were many – World War I, the Espionage Act that punishes speech, the federal income tax, the popular election of U.S. senators, the Federal Reserve and his government by experts – the latter known today as the administrative state.

This last insidious structure is not in any branch of constitutional government. It writes rules, interprets them, enforces them and punishes its victims.

According to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, this is an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’ legislative powers to entities within the government who are not answerable to the voters. Administrative agency heads are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. But the folks who write the rules are permanent bureaucrats who do not change, no matter who is in the White House.

Last week, much of this was argued in the Supreme Court.

Here is the backstory.

Two sets of commercial fishermen, one in New Jersey and the other in Rhode Island, objected to a federal regulation – written by the National Marine Fisheries Service, not by Congress – that regulates the amount of lobsters they can extract from the sea. The regulation required these fishermen to have a federal agent on all of their boats when at sea and to reimburse the federal government for the $700 daily salary of each agent.

The fishermen challenged these regulations in federal appellate courts. Why in appellate courts? Congress gave the administrative agencies an aura of correctness – even the Department of Justice doesn’t have this, thank God. Thus, challenged agency rulings are presumed correct, are not entitled to fact-finding hearings before federal judges, and go directly to appellate courts. There, the only issue is whether the administrative agency abused its discretion.

The fishermen did have factfinding hearings of sorts before administrative law judges. This anti-constitutional system has judges who have the same boss as the agency prosecutors – here, the secretary of commerce – making recommendations to the secretary. This is hardly the independent judiciary contemplated by the Fifth Amendment.

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia and the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston each affirmed the rulings of the secretary, as based on the expertise of the Marine agency and the findings of the administrative law judges, and dismissed the fishermen’s appeals.

It is rare in the modern era for courts to interfere with an administrative agency because of a monstrosity called the Chevron Doctrine. This rubric tells courts that they must show deference to an administrative agency’s interpretations of its own rules, because its bureaucrats are – channeling Wilson – experts.

Both appellate courts followed Chevron. After reviewing the oral argument in the Supreme Court last week, it appears that the court is poised to reverse, to dump the Chevron Doctrine and to put the feds on an equal footing with those who challenge them in court.

All regulations interfere with personal liberty. When the government interferes with liberty, not only should there be no deference to the government; there should be a presumption that the government’s behavior is wrong, immoral, unconstitutional and unlawful.

Why? Because freedom is the default position. Government is the negation of freedom. Freedom is everyone’s personal natural birthright. The sovereignty of the person – made in the image and likeness of the Creator – can never be equal morally and legally to a gaggle of bureaucrats running an artificial monopoly of power in a geographic area, otherwise known as the government.

Either our rights are inalienable or they are not. If they are not, freedom is an illusion. If they are inalienable, under the Constitution the government must leave our freedoms alone.”


Presidents Madison vs. Wilson

While Napolitano’s thoughts on President Abraham Lincoln would be rejected by millions, his insights on controversial remarks on the “unconstitutional” nature of Wilson’s ‘government by experts’ is one that bears closer scrutiny. The first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, sometimes referred to as the Bill of Rights,” include specifically enumerated rights that the Declaration of Independence said come from God the Creator and are not given by government. Because they are not given or granted by government, the reasoning of the founders was, they could not be arbitrarily taken away by government.  Government was “bound by the chains of the Constitution,” said founding fathers and Declaration drafter Thomas Jefferson.

> “Founding father Thomas Jefferson said that Government should be bound by the chains of the constitution. George Washington said that Government is force. Please give the specific quotes and their source or context.”

BingCopilotAI-Screen1.3.2024MHProNewsHello, this is Bing. I can help you find the specific quotes and their sources or contexts. Here is what I found:

It is an apparent contradiction to say that there is “no evidence” that Washington said “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master,” when in the very next sentence the source for that remark is cited. It may be fair to say that the support for the famous remark attributed to George Washington is tenuous. But Washington was clearly in favor of limited government in the form of a republic. Washington and the founders rejected monarchy, dictatorships, pure democracy, and many other forms of government that they discussed and debated before settling on the U.S. Constitution and its first 10 Amendments (a.k.a. the Bill of Rights). Meaning, at a minimum, the remark broadly fits similar remarks and apparent beliefs expressed by Washington.

> “Didn’t George Washington, and the founders specifically added the Bill of Rights in order to underscore the limited nature of the power of the federal government? And didn’t Washington and the founders distrust big government and monarchial or dictatorial power? Isn’t that why they settled on a republic with a separation of powers that retained many rights for the states and for “We the People”? So, even though there may be tenous support for that quote attributed to Washington by James Fenimor Cooper, doesn’t it broadly fit with the thinking of George Washington and the founders about limiting the power of the federal government with specific constitutional restraints?”

BingCopilotAI-Screen1.3.2024MHProNewsYou have raised some interesting questions about the views of George Washington and the founders on the role and scope of the federal government. I will try to answer them based on the information I found from the web.

There are numerous controversies about the power of the federal government that have arisen over the years since the Constitution was ratified. Many Americans don’t realize that the current constitution was the second one in effect in the U.S., because the Articles of Confederation which was operating during the Revolutionary War against England was generally considered to have been too weak. During the course of the 20th century, the power of the federal government generally grew, due in part to what Judge Napolitano called the shift from the Madison model of government to a more Wilsonian one.

> “Describe the Madisonian model of the federal government as opposed to the Wilsonian model of the federal government.

BingCopilotAI-Screen1.3.2024MHProNewsHello, this is Bing. I can help you compare and contrast the Madisonian and Wilsonian models of the federal government. Here is a summary of the main differences:

Right or wrong, Wilson did advance several constitutional amendments.  In a follow up, MHProNews pointed out that the 16th Amendment was ratified during Wilson’s term in office, and Copilot concurred as follows.

BingCopilotAI-Screen1.3.2024MHProNewsAccording to the web search results, the income tax was indeed ratified during Wilson’s presidency, as part of the Revenue Act of 1913 12The pitch for the federal income tax was to make the tax system more fair and progressive, by shifting the burden of funding the government from tariffs and excise taxes, which disproportionately affected the poor and the middle class, to income taxes, which targeted the wealthy and the corporations 123The income tax was also seen as a way to balance the federal budget, reduce the national debt, and provide revenue for social programs 23.

Prior to the Revenue Act of 1913, the federal income tax had been struck down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company (1895) 4The Court ruled that the income tax imposed by the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894 was unconstitutional, because it violated the constitutional requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the states according to population 4The Court reasoned that the income tax was a direct tax, because it was levied on the source of income, rather than on its use or expenditure 4The Court’s decision effectively nullified the first peacetime income tax in the United States, which had been enacted to reduce the tariff rates and the reliance on regressive taxes 45.

The income tax was revived in 1913, after the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, which gave Congress the power to levy an income tax without apportionment among the states 6The amendment was proposed by Congress in 1909, as a response to the growing public demand for tax reform and the Progressive movement’s call for a more equitable distribution of wealth and income 67The amendment was ratified by the states in less than four years, reflecting the widespread support for the income tax among the people and the states 67.”

> “There are sources that assert that the income tax was not properly ratified, because the various versions of the income tax passed by state legislatures did not precisely match. Shed light on that and shed light on the notion that those who backed the income tax pitched it as a tax on the rich and not as a tax on the poor or middle class.”

BingCopilotAI-Screen1.3.2024MHProNews…Here is what I found:

While Bing is correct in saying that Beckman’s arguments have “been rejected,” even Copilot’s response admits that the foundation of the issues raised by Beckman are founded in reality. Namely: “…the minor variations in wording or punctuation did not affect the meaning or the intent of the amendment 124.” With that in mind, the following was a follow up.

> “But isn’t it accurate to say that normally when a bill is ratified by Congress, or an amendment is ratified by the states, that those bills are supposed to be precisely the same? Don’t attorneys often make the point that punctuation and even minor variations in the phrasing of a law matters?”

BingCopilotAI-Screen1.3.2024MHProNews…Here is what I found:

> “What was the federal debt in 1913? What is the federal debt circa 1.25.2024?”

BingCopilotAI-Screen1.3.2024MHProNews…Here is what I found:

> “The Federal Reserve was also established during the Wilson Administration. Give some background on that topic.”

BingCopilotAI-Screen1.3.2024MHProNews…I can help you learn about the history and the purpose of the Federal Reserve, which was established during the Wilson Administration. Here is a brief overview:


Life in America Before and Since Woodrow Wilson

Per Copilot: “Therefore, 137 years have gone by from the Declaration of Independence to 1913.” Also per Copilot: “111 years have gone by since 1913 to today.”


U.S.NationalDebtScreenShot2024-01-27 101455ManufacturedHomeProNews


There has never been a perfect point in time in U.S. history. The same is true for any country anywhere or at any time on earth. That said, many make the argument that life in America for generations has been better than perhaps any other nation on earth at any time in world history.

Look again at tall the rationalizations that went into the Wilsonian model of government and the various laws and amendments that went into effect. Other than women’s voting rights, much of what was pitched has arguably not lived up to its promises. While it was posted on Veteran’s Day, for reasons that ought to be obvious, the lessons from famous Marine General Smedley Bulter are as apt 365 days a year, and an extra day on leap years.




There is an evidence-based case to be made that if HUD began to enforce the “enhanced preemption” provision of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (MHIA) were robustly enforced, that over a period of perhaps a decade, most of HUD could be phased out other than Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) lending programs, the Office of Manufactured Housing Programs (OMHP), and perhaps their PD&R department. Tens of billions could be saved annually at HUD alone. But the flip side is that despite tens of billions in federal spending on housing programs, plus billions more by state or local governments, the U.S. housing crisis has worsened.

The lack of affordable housing has fueled more homelessness, per sources on the left and right. HUD admitted just weeks ago that homelessness in the U.S. has hit a record recorded high, despite more federal spending.




MHARR has made the case that the Chevron Deference, if properly modified or stricken, could yield benefits for manufactured housing. But MHI has oddly been silent on this topic.


Note: depending on your browser or device, many images in this report and others on MHProNews can be clicked to expand. Click the image and follow the prompts. For example, in some browsers/devices you click the image and select ‘open in a new window.’ After clicking that selection you click the image in the open window to expand the image to a larger size. To return to this page, use your back key, escape or follow the prompts.


Note: depending on your browser or device, many images in this report and others on MHProNews can be clicked to expand. Click the image and follow the prompts. For example, in some browsers/devices you click the image and select ‘open in a new window.’ After clicking that selection you click the image in the open window to expand the image to a larger size. To return to this page, use your back key, escape or follow the prompts.


Time and again, MHI postures and claims being on the side of “all segments” of manufactured housing. But when they are put under the microscope, and their claims are carefully examined, what emerges is a picture of a trade group that is working for the consolidation of the industry. By contrast, MHARR has consistently been fighting for the growth of the industry since its founding. See the reports linked below for more.
















Report: FinCen-Banks Snoop on Purchases-Payments for Political-Religious-Guns-Without Warrant-Apparent Threat to Citizens-Businesses-Investors – Facts and Analysis; plus MHVille Markets



Part III – is our Daily Business News on MHProNews stock market recap which features our business-daily at-a-glance update of over 2 dozen manufactured housing industry stocks.

This segment of the Daily Business News on MHProNews is the recap of yesterday evening’s market report, so that investors can see at glance the type of topics may have influenced other investors. Thus, our format includes our signature left (CNN Business) and right (Newsmax) ‘market moving’ headlines.

The macro market move graphics below provide context and comparisons for those invested in or tracking manufactured housing connected equities. Meaning, you can see ‘at a glance’ how manufactured housing connected firms do compared to other segments of the broader equities market.

In minutes a day readers can get a good sense of significant or major events while keeping up with the trends that are impacting manufactured housing connected investing.

Reminder: several of the graphics on MHProNews can be opened into a larger size. For instance: click the image and follow the prompts in your browser or device to OPEN In a New Window. Then, in several browsers/devices you can click the image and increase the size. Use the ‘x out’ (close window) escape or back key to return.

Headlines from left-of-center CNN Business – from 1.26.2024

  • It’s not just Taylor Swift: AI-generated porn is targeting women and kids all over the world
  • Shoppers at a Safeway grocery store in Scottsdale, Arizona, on Wednesday, Jan. 3, 2024.
  • There’s a lot of good news for Americans in the latest inflation report
  • The NSA buys Americans’ internet data, newly released documents show
  • Britain has walked away from negotiations with Canada over a post-Brexit trade deal because of disagreements over beef and cheese.
  • UK pulls out of post-Brexit trade talks with Canada
  • Regional bank stocks could be on the rocks again
  • Donald Trump and George Conway
  • The Never Trump movement might be in its last throes, but a news publication it birthed is booming
  • China’s wild week in markets: Calm returns but big challenges remain
  • People shop at a home improvement store in Brooklyn on January 25, 2024 in New York City. Economic data from the Commerce Department released today showed that U.S. economy expanded 3.1 percent in 2023, shaking off inflation fears and making the U.S. the fastest growing advanced economy in the world in 2023.
  • Why the US economy is doing so much better than the rest of the world
  • Tesla share plunge wipes out $80 billion in market value, after dour earnings call
  • TKO Executive Chairman of the Board Vince McMahon is seen during a ceremony announcing Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson has joined the Board of Directors for TKO at New York Stock Exchange on January 23, 2024 in New York City.
  • Vince McMahon accused of trafficking former WWE employee in new lawsuit
  • GM’s self-driving car division is under investigation by DOJ and SEC after pedestrian dragging incident
  • Government warns funeral homes to stop misleading bereaved customers about pricing
  • News industry off to brutal 2024 start as mass layoffs devastate publishers, raising questions about the future of journalism
  • Apple announces sweeping changes for apps in Europe, including allowing third-party app stores for the first time
  • Extreme greed is back on Wall Street
  • Explicit, AI-generated Taylor Swift images spread quickly on social media
  • The 737 Max grounding will cost Alaska Airlines $150 million
  • Many parents say they are still financially subsidizing their adult children
  • Business Insider cuts 8% of staff, becoming latest news outlet to undergo layoffs
  • Cornell donor demands president step down, citing ‘toxic’ diversity policies
  • US economy grew at a shocking pace in the fourth quarter
  • Before part of an Alaska Airlines plane blew off, Boeing had removed and adjusted it, reports say
  • Robert Kraft is buying a Super Bowl ad to highlight the rise of antisemitism


In instances such as Apollo, Berkshire Hathaway, Blackstone or others, manufactured housing may only be part of their corporate interests. Note: depending on your browser or device, many images in this report and others on MHProNews can be clicked to expand. Click the image and follow the prompts. For example, in some browsers/devices you click the image and select ‘open in a new window.’ After clicking that selection you click the image in the open window to expand the image to a larger size. To return to this page, use your back key, escape or follow the prompts.
Notice: MHProNews invites the firms named in these reports to respond to any concerns about possibly inaccurate information via email that identifies the concern and offers evidence that sheds a different light on the topic discussed. That said, neither MHI nor MHI publicly traded ‘insider brands’ have done so. They’ve been repeatedly invited to do so, including an outreach on Dec 7, 2o23.





mas kovach mhpronews shopping with soheyla .jp

Get our ‘read-hot’ industry-leading 

get our ‘read-hot’ industry-leading emailed headline news updates

Scroll to Top
blumen verschicken Blumenversand
blumen verschicken Blumenversand
Reinigungsservice Reinigungsservice Berlin
küchenrenovierung küchenfronten renovieren küchenfront erneuern