Author: admin

The Republican National Convention Isn’t Out To Convert Anyone

upiphotostwo758068(1)

The first night of the 2020 Republican National Convention (RNC) revolved around an aggressive show of faux-normalcy, mixed with unhinged praise for Dear Leader, fanfic about his administration, and absolutely insane fearmongering about how Democrats will turn the suburbs into Mad Max.

Differences between the RNC and last week’s Democratic National Convention were stark. RNC production values were definitely better—from a purely aesthetic standpoint, at least. The DNC was heavy on people broadcasting from home or alone on a stage, and looking like they were doing so, while the heavily produced RNC setup strove to suggest that everything was business as usual, with no video chat broadcasts and speakers addressing an empty but ornate auditorium. Some have mocked the Democrats for this, suggesting that it’s a comment on the parties’ respective abilities to put on a good show.

But both productions convey a deeper meaning that fits in with their election messaging. For Democrats, the sparseness and video broadcasts helped emphasize the fact that the country is still in the middle of a pandemic, which is key to much of their pitch: President Donald Trump has bungled the COVID-19 response, we will do better. Meanwhile, the splendor and attempted typicality of the Republican convention fits with the party’s message: Things are better than fine, things will keep being this way if we get a second Trump term. Democrats are just trying to play a catastrophe to their political advantage.

Aesthetic differences were only the beginning, however. The most striking split—all policy aside—was at whom the convention content seems to be aimed.

The Democratic convention was relatively light on more left-leaning viewpoints and went comparatively easy on bashing the other side, emphasizing Trump’s basic uncouthness and major blunders without devolving into paranoid conspiracies (a la 2016), slamming anyone who voted for Trump last time, or making this a referendum on Republicans as a whole. Their convention was clearly aimed at reaching independent or on-the-fence voters who think something is off about Trump but don’t necessarily think he’s The Worst, or who want to vote against him but aren’t so sure about, say, defunding the police or supporting Medicare for All.

The first night of the RNC went entirely in the opposite direction. There was little designed to appeal to people who weren’t already firmly on Trump’s side, or at least already so vehemently against Democrats that they’d vote for any Republican to beat them.

“The Democratic convention focused on persuasion and de-emphasized base mobilization,” as NBC’s Sahil Kapur tweeted. “The Republican convention is focusing on base mobilization and de-emphasizing persuasion.”

Hagiography about Trump himself was high among speaker priorities. Charlie Kirk, internet gadfly and founder of the conservative student group Turning Point USA, opened things up by calling Trump “the bodyguard of western civilization.” A speaker slated to talk about right-to-try laws mostly just raved about Trump’s alleged wisdom and courage.

And then there was whatever this was, from Fox News pundit Kimberly Guilfoyle:

If you’ve ever wondered what a cross between a televangelist sermon, a Home Shopping Network infomercial, a fascist rally, and a psychotic break would look like…well, I think we’ve got the answer in Guilfoyle’s speech!

She was just one of a number of speakers portraying absolutely catastrophic visions of life in Joe Biden’s America. Nevermind that folks have already lived under a Biden and Barack Obama—whom no one would accuse of being less liberal than Biden—administration and crime didn’t run rampant, private enterprise persisted, and no housewives were forced into critical race theory education camps. The Republican messaging on Democrats last night was hysterical pandemonium, with repeated suggestions that Democrats are “socialists” who want to “abolish the suburbs.”

The abolish-the-suburbs talk was particularly grating because it turned on Republican opposition to deregulation. Their whole shtick here revolved around decrying the easing of certain zoning laws, a sort of NIMBYism (“not in my backyard”) which suggests that allowing “low-quality apartments” to be built would turn every quiet suburban backyard into Sodom.

But it was speakers’ comments on policing, criminal justice, and COVID-19 that were truly gross. They bashed people protesting George Floyd’s murder (and police brutality more generally) as thugs, criminals, communists, and terrorists. They repeatedly praised Trump’s handling of COVID-19 and suggested that he alone could save America from even more pandemic-induced deaths.

Reason Editor at Large Matt Welch fact-checks a few more RNC speaker claims:

Check out more Reason reporting and commentary from the first night of the RNC here:

As C.J. Ciaramella noted, the RNC tried to have it both ways on criminal justice issues:

Speakers at the first night of the 2020 Republican National Convention tried to navigate two competing messages on the criminal justice system. One was that Joe Biden was an architect of mass incarceration and lock-em-up policies, which Donald Trump rightfully rolled back. The other message was that only Republicans will stand up for police and the law.

Sen. Tim Scott (R–S.C.), the only black Republican in the Senate, assailed Joe Biden for his role in the 1994 crime bill and creating sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine.

[…] But at the same time that speakers were lauding Trump for criminal justice reforms that rolled back some of the laws that Biden helped pass, they were making constant references to riots, violent criminals being let loose on the street, and the threat of antifa mobs coming to your suburban neighborhood once the Marxist Democrats defund the police.

Overall, the night was (like its Democratic counterpart) pretty low on talk of an actual agenda and overflowing with emotive vision-boarding for America. But while Democratic dreams and delusions were at least grounded in some sort of party platform, the only theme Republicans—who have no 2020 policy platform, just a pledge to support whatever Trump does or says—seemed able to stick with was cult-like loyalty to and trust in one man.

QUICK HITS

• Constitutional lawyer and Godwin’s Law creator Mike Godwin on the crusade against TikTok: “I know what moral panics look like; they look kind of like this.” Godwin is one of the lawyers on a new lawsuit from TikTok employee Patrick S. Ryan. Both Ryan and—in a separate lawsuit—TikTok Inc. are challenging Trump’s executive order banning the social media app.

• What does left libertarianism really mean?

• Writer Josie Duffy Rice explains the police abolition movement over at Vanity Fair.

• Enjoy!

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/31piMYG
via IFTTT

New in Law and Contemporary Problems: The Right to Code and Share Arms

Law and Contemporary Problems published my new article, titled The Right to Code and Share Arms. Here, I discuss my five-year involvement with the Defense Distributed litigation. And the cases are far from over. Here is the abstract:

In 2014, I received an email out of the blue from Cody Wilson, the founder of Defense Distributed. The previous year, he had achieved international infamy for creating the world’s first 3D-printed gun. In response, the State Department ordered him to remove from the internet the files that could be used to make that gun. Cody planned to sue the Federal Government for violating his rights under the First and Second Amendments, and for running afoul of federal export control law. And he wanted me to help.

Initially, I was skeptical. But after some research, I concluded that Cody had a strong case. I soon joined Defense Distributed’s legal team, along with Matt Goldstein, an export control specialist, and Alan Gura, a constitutional litigator. We filed suit in 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The next two years of litigation were quite exciting, largely unsuccessful, and mostly formulaic. The District Court denied our preliminary injunction. A divided panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The en banc court split nine to five. And the Supreme Court denied certiorari.

Following the remand, however, the case took a positive turn. The District Court encouraged the parties to consider a settlement. Soon, we reached an agreement with the State Department. The Government would rescind the regulation that prevented Cody, and all Americans, from posting “technical data” about firearms to the internet. Or at least that was the plan.

On the eve of the settlement date, gun control groups and two dozen state attorneys general sought emergency injunctive relief to prevent Defense Distributed from posting the files online. Over the course of five hectic days, I would brief and argue four temporary restraining order (TRO) motions in four courts. I prevailed on the first three. The fourth court, alas, issued a global injunction that blocked our settlement. Prior to that decision, however, the files were available online and downloaded thousands of times. They remain readily available to this day.

This Article, written as the litigation continues apace, has three primary goals. First, it encapsulates the complicated, and somewhat confusing, posture of these cases. Second, this Article illustrates the folly, and indeed irrationality, of trying to censor the internet. Third, this Article explains how the political stigma of guns taints an important free speech issue that would otherwise receive widespread support.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34xAzi3
via IFTTT

US Frozen Pork Supplies Plunge To Near Decade Low 

US Frozen Pork Supplies Plunge To Near Decade Low 

Tyler Durden

Tue, 08/25/2020 – 09:30

US frozen pork inventories plunged to a near-decade low in July, reported Reuters, citing a new USDA report. 

The decline coincides with China importing a record amount of pork in July following an outbreak of the African swine fever that decimated the country’s herd. Also, US meatpacking plants were coming back online following virus-related shutdowns. 

USDA reported 458.902 million pounds of pork were in US cold-storage facilities for the month, down from 460.173 million in June and 611.692 million a year earlier. The July figure is the lowest monthly inventory of pork ribs, loins, and hams since July 2011.

The combination of increasing Chinese imports, meatpacking plant disruptions, and summertime grilling demand has left pork in low supply as production levels remain pressured and shortages may persist of specific cuts:

“At this point, we are still playing from behind,” said Matthew Wiegand, commodity broker for FuturesOne. “It will take some time for a lot of your different cuts, especially with the elevated export pace that we have seen.”

The virus pandemic disrupted major US food supply chain networks. We noted in April the shutdown of meat-processing plants resulted in a nationwide pork shortage sending prices sky-high.

Pork bellies, a boneless cut of fatty meat from the belly of a pig, used to make bacon, sustained a 20% drop in supplies in July, the USDA report showed. 

At the time of the shutdowns, meatpacking companies were heavily criticized for increasing exports of pork to China despite domestic food supply chain woes.

Rising food prices have been a shock to low-income households, barely surviving the virus-induced recession. The Federal Reserve has made a significant commitment to ramp up inflation as the cost of pork and many other food products surges this year. 

Fed Chairman Jerome Powell will speak Thursday during a virtual session of the Fed’s annual Jackson Hole, Wyoming, conference, where he is expected to announce policy measures that will allow inflation to run hot.  

Letting inflation run hot as food prices soar is bad news for the tens of millions of broke, jobless Americans who still haven’t received round two of Trump stimulus checks. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/34xPwRy Tyler Durden

HCQ All Over Again: WaPo Trashes Blood Plasma COVID-19 Treatment After Trump Announces Breakthrough

HCQ All Over Again: WaPo Trashes Blood Plasma COVID-19 Treatment After Trump Announces Breakthrough

Tyler Durden

Tue, 08/25/2020 – 09:09

Authored by Matt Margolis via PJMedia.com,

“Blood from people who recover from coronavirus could provide a treatment,” reported the Washington Post on March 27, just a couple weeks after the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic.

Just over a week later, the Washington Post reported again that while there was no vaccine yet for COVID-19, “we do have one potentially promising treatment to help people infected with the coronavirus: infusions of antibody-rich plasma from other patients who have had the disease and recovered.”

A couple months later, the Washington Post again touted the potential of blood plasma, also called convalescent plasma, in treating the virus. “A large study of 20,000 hospitalized covid-19 patients who received transfusions of blood plasma from people who recovered found the treatment was safe and suggests giving it to people early in the disease may be beneficial,” they reported June 18, 2020, in an article headlined, “Blood plasma from people who recovered is a safe covid-19 treatment, study says.”

Earlier this month, four former FDA commissioners wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post arguing that “blood plasma might be the COVID-19 treatment we need.”

Flash forward Trump’s announcement that a breakthrough treatment for the coronavirus, convalescent plasma, had been given emergency approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). According to FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, plasma treatments reduce mortality of COVID-19 by 35 percent, but, suddenly, the Washington Post isn’t very impressed by blood plasma as a COVID-19 treatment anymore.

“Scientists express doubts about coronavirus treatment touted as breakthrough by Trump” reads the headline on their live updates page Monday afternoon.

The Food and Drug Administration’s decision to give emergency authorization for convalescent plasma as a treatment for novel coronavirus patients — touted as a historic breakthrough by President Trump on Sunday — is raising doubts among some experts who say the therapy hasn’t been adequately tested.

“The urgency of the crisis has elided with a false sense we should skip over rigorous studies of interventions because we don’t have enough time,” Peter Bach, director of Memorial Sloan Kettering’s Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, told The Washington Post.

Gee, I wonder why they suddenly had a change of heart.

Michael Caputo, the Health and Human Services Department Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, noted the sudden change in attitude by the Washington Post on Twitter:

It’s hydroxychlorquine all over again. Hydroxychloroquine has been proven by many studies to reduce mortality of COVID-19, but it’s not being widely used as a treatment in the United States because the media immediately trashed the drug when Trump touted it as a potential gamechanger in the fight against the coronavirus.

Is this really how it’s going to go every time? The media and the Democratic Party demonized hydroxychloroquine immediately after Trump suggested it could be a gamechanger. Countries that are widely using the drug have lower death rates from COVID-19 than those that aren’t. The left’s fear campaign has cost likely thousands of lives but they don’t care because the worse the United States’ death count looks the better chances there are that Trump won’t get reelected.

Will convalescent plasma meet the same fate as hydroxychloroquine? Is the media that desperate to get rid of Trump they’ll scare the public away from treatments that could save their lives?

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3jdcTUy Tyler Durden

US Home Price Growth Slowed In June

US Home Price Growth Slowed In June

Tyler Durden

Tue, 08/25/2020 – 09:06

Following May’s unexpected slowdown in growth, analysts expect June’s Case-Shiller Home Price Index to show further deceleration, and it did – but notably worse than expected.

The Case-Shiller 20-City Composite Home Price rose 3/46% YoY in June (the latest data), well below expectations of a +3.60% and May’s 3.61% prints…

Source: Bloomberg

And it seems that even with mortgage rates hitting record lows, prices have stopped appreciating so fast…

Source: Bloomberg

Is this emblematic of the exodus from the cities (highest cost housing?)

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3gsMTTp Tyler Durden

Rabobank: “So Stocks Went Up Again”

Rabobank: “So Stocks Went Up Again”

Tyler Durden

Tue, 08/25/2020 – 08:55

By Michael Every of Rabobank

The ‘conventional’ nature of things

So, US stocks went up again.

That was about as much of a surprise as there being American flags at the online Republican National Convention, which being the governing party is obviously taking a very upbeat tone while warning how terrible everything will be if they aren’t in power in a few months’ time. (The inverse of last week, where at the DNC everything was seen as terrible, but capable of being wonderful if they are in office in January 2021. That’s called politics, folks.)

Why did stocks go up? Bloomberg reports the US-China trade deal is on track after a brief phone call. That’s as a NASA researcher is arrested on allegations of fraud related to China and as President Trump released a 50-point plan for what he will do if re-elected, which includes “END OUR RELIANCE ON CHINA; Bring Back 1 Million Manufacturing Jobs from China; Tax Credits for Companies that Bring Back Jobs from China; Allow 100% Expensing Deductions for Essential Industries like Pharmaceuticals and Robotics who Bring Back their Manufacturing to the United States; No Federal Contracts for Companies who Outsource to China; Hold China Fully Accountable for Allowing the Virus to Spread around the World”. Presumably those who bought CNY on the first headline didn’t read the other reports.

Why else did stocks go up? Reports the Trump White House will press ahead with the release of a Covid-19 vaccine even before the US election on 3 November. Aren’t equities where they are because of the off-the-charts level of fiscal and monetary support that has been pumped in due to the virus? Why should a sudden recovery from that threat be good for stocks if it means stimulus can then be wound down far sooner? Likewise, aren’t stocks being propped up by the Covid trend from an awful “New Normal” to a worse “Next Normal” that sees the destruction of small and medium-sized businesses and the further leviathan-like dominance of a handful of mega-cap, mega-corporations? Wouldn’t the ‘sudden end’ to the virus suggest that dynamic could be reversed? Or do we get to keep the mega-winners and the stimulus and lose Covid-19? Is that the stage of all-must-have-prizes we are now at?

Looking at this Fed, the answer is probably ‘Yes’; but they can lay out their thinking a little better at the virtual Jackson Hole retreat later in the week; which will be even less fun than the DNC or the RNC – and that is really saying something. However, it’s also where the actual power brokers arguably sit. That’s why the markets can listen to narratives that all is bad/good now and that all will be good/bad in mere months and just keep rallying anyway – because the narrative is being set elsewhere, at a convention where nobody wraps themselves in any flags.

That’s just the way the technocratic, central-bank-focused system is set up (or the ostensible absence of politics, folks)… and why the threat of “populism” that want to change to a system where politicians matter more is so real and so revolutionary for the markets. Not that the populists won’t want all to have prizes too, I guess.

[As an aside on the prizes issue, without naming names, three large firms are to drop out of the Dow Jones and will be replaced by three others. That’s part of the natural rotation of that index, but it also underlines the survivor bias: you’re in because you win. Yes, that is support to the view that it’s “always time to buy stocks”….but only the winners, please. You should also always choose to be a guitar player rather than a dentist as a sensible career option: but only if you are going to be the next Eddie Van Halen or Eric Clapton, etc.]

Overall, we are still deep into bad news is good news and good news is good news territory –and I don’t mean the RNC– which in and of itself tells you something about the ‘conventional’ nature of things.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2EuVacb Tyler Durden

African COVID-19 Cases Hit 1.2 Million As Dr. Fauci Urges FDA To ‘Carefully Vet’ Vaccines: Live Updates

African COVID-19 Cases Hit 1.2 Million As Dr. Fauci Urges FDA To ‘Carefully Vet’ Vaccines: Live Updates

Tyler Durden

Tue, 08/25/2020 – 08:46

Summary:

  • Africa COVID cases near 1.2 million
  • Deaths in England + Wales hit 20-week low
  • Germany to extend benefit program
  • German infections remain close to 4-month high
  • Russia reported 4,696 new cases
  • Usain Bolt tests positive
  • Dr. Fauci warns FDA must thoroughly vet COVID vaccines
  • Dr. Hahn walks back endorsement of FDA-approved plasma treatment

* * *

President Trump and the RNC placed the GOP president’s response to the coronavirus pandemic front-and-center during last night’s opening salvo for what’s set to be a scaled down version of the quadrenniel Republican Convention, as Trump and his supporters praised Trump’s travel restrictions, “Project Warp Speed” and other measures for helping the US fight off the virus.

But on Tuesday morning, the focus shifts back to Europe and Asia, as yet another case of COVID-19 reinfection has been confirmed – this time, in Belgium, making it the first such case in Europe, following yesterday’s confirmed case of reinfection documented in Hong Kong.

The disheartening discovery comes as Belgium grapples with one of the Continent’s worst active outbreaks.

In the UK, deaths in England and Wales fell to a 21 week-low after reporting just 139 virus-linked fatalities during the week ended Aug. 14. That’s jus 1.5% of the region’s total fatalities, the Office for National Statistics said on Tuesday.

Germany, which has seen new case numbers climb in recent weeks, will likely extend a state wage-support program, according to Carsten Schneider, a caucus manager for the Social Democratic Party, who made the claim during an interview with Deutschlandfunk radio.

German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz proposed extending the job-preserving subsidies to 24 months last week, arguing that the measure would cost the government an extra €10 billion euros ($11.8 billion).

Meanwhile, Germany’s new coronavirus cases increased at a pace close, but just below, Sunday’s 4-month high, while its closely watched infection rate dropped back below 1, indicting that the pandemic has shifted back into “contraction” territory. 

The Robert Koch Institute reported 1,628 new infections in the 24 hours through Tuesday morning, raising its total to 236,122. The daily gain compared with 633 on Monday and 1,737 on Saturday. That marked the highest number since April. One death was also reported, lifting the overall number of deaths to 9,276.

Officials from Chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition, expected to meet later on Tuesday in Berlin, have “always taken the sensible path in the end on labor-market and social policy,” he said.

Bavarian Premier Markus Soeder warned Tuesday that Germany risks a return to the peak levels of daily new cases close to 7,000 seen at the end of March and beginning of April, and ruled out easing restrictions on movement and social gatherings.

After the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine project released some more optimistic sounding updates touting the possibility of winning approval for the experimental vaccine by the end of the year, AstraZeneca announced that its first participants have been dosed in a Phase 1 trial of AZD7442, a COVID-19 drug created by combining two monoclonal antibodies harvested from sick patients.

As infection rates fall in Hong Kong…

…the special administrative region said it would allow dining-in until 9 pm, while cinemas, beauty parlors and outdoors sports venues will start reopening Friday, according to Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan.

The government will also allow residents to go maskless in parks and while exercising outdoors. The present suite of social distancing measures will be extended to Aug. 27, per Bloomberg.

Elsewhere, while the outbreak across the world’s poorest continent hasn’t been nearly as severe as many feared the, Coronavirus outbreak in Africa is closing in on 1.2 million cases and 30,000 deaths ((with nearly 28,000 confirmed so far), according to the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. The total number of infections stands at 1,195,297, including 27,783 fatalities and 921,783 recoveries, according to the latest update. Southern Africa is the continent’s worst-hit regio,  with 652,400 cases and 14,100 deaths, and South Africa is the worst hit country. But even countries that demonstrated a surprisingly robust response, like Uganda, are starting to see problems, according to Al Jazeera.

In sports news, Champion sprinter Usain Bolt tested positive for coronavirus just days after hosting a ‘mask-less’ 34th birthday bash.

Russia, meanwhile, reported 4,696 new cases on Tuesday, pushing its national total to 966,189, the world’s 4th-largest, cementing its lead over South Africa (which currently holds the No. 5 spot). 120 Russians died, pushing the death toll to 16,568.

Finally, while millions of Americans were focused on the RNC last night, FDA Director Stephen Hahn took to twitter to recant a statement he made late Sunday evening, when he parroted President Trump’s claim that treatments based on survivor plasma had already proven to reduce mortality by 35%, which Trump used to justify pressuring the FDA for its emergency approval.

Not only did Hahn walk back these claims…

…but Dr. Hahn’s decision to acquiesce to Trump’s demands has even prompted other national health-care figures, like National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases head Dr. Fauci, to issue warnings about the FDA’s credibility. Dr. Fauci said the agency must thoroughly vet all vaccine candidates, since a rushed job could risk doing even more damage, and destroying the agency’s credibility in the eyes of the public. He told Reuters giving approval to one potential vaccine would make it “difficult, if not impossible for other vaccines to enroll people in their trials.”

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/31wbzpT Tyler Durden

Mortgage Delinquencies Soar To Decade High

Mortgage Delinquencies Soar To Decade High

Tyler Durden

Tue, 08/25/2020 – 08:35

Readers may recall last week we outlined the dam of pent up mortgage delinquencies continued to crack, with the share of delinquent Federal Housing Administration’s loans hitting a record high in the second quarter. 

With millions of Americans out of work due to the virus-induced recession, their personal income has become overly reliant on Trump stimulus checks, as we’ve outlined, a quarter of all personal income now comes from the government. 

A fiscal cliff hit the economy on August 01, when the program to distribute stimulus checks to tens of millions of broke Americans ran out of funds. Even though President Trump signed an executive order to fund additional rounds of checks, only one state, as of August 21, has paid out new jobless benefits and paused evictions as stimulus talks in Washington have failed to materialize into a deal.

Leading up to the fiscal cliff in July, financial data firm Black Knight reported the number of serious mortgage delinquencies catapulted to a ten-year high.

The number of homes with mortgage payments past due by 90 days or more rose by 376,000 in July to a total of 2.25 million. Serious mortgage delinquencies have jumped by 1.8 million since July 2019, a decade high, not seen since the last financial crisis. 

Black Knight’s July 2020 Month-End Mortgage Performance Statistics: 

Top 5 States By 90+ Days Delinquent Percentage: 

Black Knight said, “foreclosure activity continues to remain muted due to widespread moratoriums; though starts rose for the month, overall activity remains near record lows.” 

Cracks in the dam of pent up mortgage delinquencies are becoming larger as the presidential election nears. Still, millions of folks are unable to service mortgages, remain protected from foreclosure by the federal forbearance program, in which borrowers with pandemic-related hardships can delay payments for as much as a year without penalty. What happens when the program finally ends, and all the payments that were deferred come due could result in housing market weakness. 

The prospect of a tidal wave of foreclosures could be ahead as the mortgage industry and government’s policies were merely short-term measures to push a housing crisis off until after the election. 

If homeowners still can’t find jobs as the labor market recovery falters, then their ability to service future mortgage becomes impossible. At the same time, deep economic scarring is being realized, resulting in the shape of the economic recovery transforming from a “V” to a “Nike Swoosh.” 

Even with part of the housing market booming, that is primarily due to folks ditching metro areas for suburbia and ultra-low mortgage rates pulling demand forward in such a massive way that today’s boom will lead to much lower activity in the future.

Think about it, millions of folks still can’t pay their mortgage, and many of them still can’t find jobs. But, of course, none of that matters as President Trump distracts the sheep and points to how well the Nasdaq is doing. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3lfMjvz Tyler Durden

Anti-Riot Act Partly Upheld, Partly Struck Down

Yesterday’s Fourth Circuit decision in U.S. v. Miselis, written by Judge Robert King and joined by Judges Albert Diaz and Allison Jones Rushing considered a facial First Amendment challenge to the Anti-Riot Act:

Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent—

(1) to incite a riot; or

(2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or

(3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or

(4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot;

and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified [above] … [s]hall be fined … or imprisoned not more than five years ….

“[T]o incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.

“Riot” is defined as a public disturbance involving “an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual,” or involving threats of such violence.

The court held (to oversimplify):

[A.] The “incite” prohibition (item 1) constitutionally applies when people travel or communicate with the intent to engage in constitutionally unprotected incitement, defined by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) to mean advocacy intended to and likely to promote an imminent riot. This covers things such as traveling to engage in actual incitement (e.g., going to some place with the plan to egg on a violent crowd), whether the incitement takes place or the plan is foiled before such incitement (in which case the behavior is constitutionally unprotected attempted incitement). The “instigating” provision is likewise valid, as a synonym for inciting.

[B.] The “organize” prohibition in item 2 is constitutional because it involves not just abstract advocacy but concrete orchestrating of criminal rioting. The best way of understanding this ruling, I think, is by analogy to U.S. v. Williams (2008), which held that specific solicitation of crime (as opposed to abstract advocacy) is constitutionally unprotected as speech integral to the underlying criminal conduct.

[C.] The “aid or abet” prohibition (item 4) is constitutional because it likewise involves not just abstract advocacy but concrete assistance (even if the assistance comes through speech) to criminal rioters. Here too U.S. v. Williams (2008) would be a good analogy. (The “commit any act of violence” provision wasn’t challenged, but that’s clearly constitutional).

But the court held other parts of the statute were unconstitutional:

[i.] The “promote” and “encourage” prohibition (item 2) and the “urging” provision are unconstitutional because they can extend to abstract advocacy of crime.

[ii.] Likewise, the “not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts” provision suggests that advocacy of violence and assertion of the rightness of violence are prohibited, and that too is unconstitutional.

[iii.] The court also held that the words “promote,” “encourage,” “urging or,” and “not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts” should therefore be in effect deleted from the statute—something courts often do, under the name of “severing” unconstitutional provisions—and the remainder of the statute would be upheld.

The analysis generally seems right to me. The decision came in the prosecution of white supremacists, but of course the same reasoning (both as to the partial validity of the statute and the partial invalidity) would equally apply to people connected to any other kinds of riots, whether antifa or anti-globalization or anything else.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3aWPt2x
via IFTTT

Anti-Riot Act Partly Upheld, Partly Struck Down

Yesterday’s Fourth Circuit decision in U.S. v. Miselis, written by Judge Robert King and joined by Judges Albert Diaz and Allison Jones Rushing considered a facial First Amendment challenge to the Anti-Riot Act:

Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent—

(1) to incite a riot; or

(2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or

(3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or

(4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot;

and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified [above] … [s]hall be fined … or imprisoned not more than five years ….

“[T]o incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.

“Riot” is defined as a public disturbance involving “an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual,” or involving threats of such violence.

The court held (to oversimplify):

[A.] The “incite” prohibition (item 1) constitutionally applies when people travel or communicate with the intent to engage in constitutionally unprotected incitement, defined by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) to mean advocacy intended to and likely to promote an imminent riot. This covers things such as traveling to engage in actual incitement (e.g., going to some place with the plan to egg on a violent crowd), whether the incitement takes place or the plan is foiled before such incitement (in which case the behavior is constitutionally unprotected attempted incitement). The “instigating” provision is likewise valid, as a synonym for inciting.

[B.] The “organize” prohibition in item 2 is constitutional because it involves not just abstract advocacy but concrete orchestrating of criminal rioting. The best way of understanding this ruling, I think, is by analogy to U.S. v. Williams (2008), which held that specific solicitation of crime (as opposed to abstract advocacy) is constitutionally unprotected as speech integral to the underlying criminal conduct.

[C.] The “aid or abet” prohibition (item 4) is constitutional because it likewise involves not just abstract advocacy but concrete assistance (even if the assistance comes through speech) to criminal rioters. Here too U.S. v. Williams (2008) would be a good analogy. (The “commit any act of violence” provision wasn’t challenged, but that’s clearly constitutional).

But the court held other parts of the statute were unconstitutional:

[i.] The “promote” and “encourage” prohibition (item 2) and the “urging” provision are unconstitutional because they can extend to abstract advocacy of crime.

[ii.] Likewise, the “not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts” provision suggests that advocacy of violence and assertion of the rightness of violence are prohibited, and that too is unconstitutional.

[iii.] The court also held that the words “promote,” “encourage,” “urging or,” and “not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts” should therefore be in effect deleted from the statute—something courts often do, under the name of “severing” unconstitutional provisions—and the remainder of the statute would be upheld.

The analysis generally seems right to me. The decision came in the prosecution of white supremacists, but of course the same reasoning (both as to the partial validity of the statute and the partial invalidity) would equally apply to people connected to any other kinds of riots, whether antifa or anti-globalization or anything else.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3aWPt2x
via IFTTT