President Donald Trump spoke briefly in the Rose Garden this evening, promising to use military and national guard troops to restore order. At the same time, just yards away, federal law enforcement in riot gear used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse what had been up until then a peaceful protest.
“All Americans were rightly sickened and revolted by the killing of George Floyd,” Trump said early in his speech. But he said that due to “domestic terrorists” infiltrating protests (he called out antifa by name), he would be taking actions to bring about the “ending [of] the riots and lawlessness that are spreading around the country.”
At the time Trump was preparing to come out to speak in the Rose Garden, protesters had gathered peacefully just north of the White House in Lafayette Square. Moments before he came out to speak, law enforcement advanced quickly on the crowd and began firing tear gas, scattering them. Trump took credit for this response, stating that he was sending “thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel, and law enforcement officers” to keep the peace in Washington, D.C., and enforce a 7 p.m. curfew.
“I am your president of law and order and an ally of all peaceful protesters,” Trump said as federal forces advanced on those peaceful protesters. After the speech was over, it became clear that police cleared protesters so that Trump could visit St. John’s Episcopal Church across the street for a photo opp:
Trump detailed several outrageous incidences of violent attacks by looters and others he referred to as “domestic terrorists.” He left out any reference to the many cases where cops and members of the National Guard aggressively assaulted citizens protesting peacefully and used force against the journalists covering them.
He called for governors to use the National Guard to bring out enough troops to “dominate the streets” and called for mayors and governors to establish an “overwhelming presence” on the streets to counteract rioting and looting.
He said that if mayors and governors did not do so, he would deploy military troops to do so. Media outlets reported today that Trump is considering invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807, which would permit the president to send military troops to respond to protests in American cities. It was last invoked in 1992 in Los Angeles in response to the Rodney King riots.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2XP0jBD
via IFTTT
“Alien” is the term used in the relevant provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and this term does not encompass all noncitizens. Compare 8 U. S. C. §1101(a)(3) (defining “alien” to include “any person not a citizen or national of the United States”) with §1101(a)(22) (defining “national of the United States”). See also Miller v. Albright, 523 U. S. 420, 467, n. 2 (1998) (GINSBURG, J., dissenting).
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: — just — just focus the question? Because we keep talking about whether the APA-type definition of licensing is what Congress intended or not, but you don’t disagree that Congress at least intended that if someone violated the Federal law and hired illegal aliens of Hispanic — undocumented aliens and was found to have violated it, that the State can revoke their license, correct, to do business?
Justice Kavanaugh also used the phrase “noncitizen” in his concurrence in Nielsen v. Preap. In contrast, Justice Thomas’s concurrence, which was joined by Justice Gorsuch, used the statutory term “alien.” Justice Alito still uses the term “alien” in Pereira v. Sessions.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2XlIRG2
via IFTTT
“Alien” is the term used in the relevant provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and this term does not encompass all noncitizens. Compare 8 U. S. C. §1101(a)(3) (defining “alien” to include “any person not a citizen or national of the United States”) with §1101(a)(22) (defining “national of the United States”). See also Miller v. Albright, 523 U. S. 420, 467, n. 2 (1998) (GINSBURG, J., dissenting).
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: — just — just focus the question? Because we keep talking about whether the APA-type definition of licensing is what Congress intended or not, but you don’t disagree that Congress at least intended that if someone violated the Federal law and hired illegal aliens of Hispanic — undocumented aliens and was found to have violated it, that the State can revoke their license, correct, to do business?
Justice Kavanaugh also used the phrase “noncitizen” in his concurrence in Nielsen v. Preap. In contrast, Justice Thomas’s concurrence, which was joined by Justice Gorsuch, used the statutory term “alien.” Justice Alito still uses the term “alien” in Pereira v. Sessions.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2XlIRG2
via IFTTT
Note To Rioting Americans: Why Looting A Rolex Store Isn’t Such A Great Idea Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/01/2020 – 19:10
As SJW blue-checks pressure Twitter to ban anonymous accounts (a trend that was set in motion long ago, and accelerated with the permanent suspension of @Zerohedge a few months back), the ever-witty @TESLACharts is a perfect example of what financial twitter would lose if financial professionals behind some of the space’s most widely-followed and respected accounts were forced to give up the medium due, in many cases, to the onerous compliance restrictions of their employers. A few weeks back, we shared a thread published by the account detailing why investors ought to steer clear of biotech darling Moderna (which is down ~$20 a share from the peak reached during the week before last), and now we’re sharing the account’s advice for rioting Americans finally deciding to take some initiative and do something to correct all this terrible “income inequality” they’ve been complaining about since Nov. 9, 2016.
When looting on Fifth Ave., “protesters” might want to skip over the Rolex outlet.
1/ A brief thread on why looting a Rolex store isn’t such a lucrative thing to do. https://t.co/08D07zZLoR
Intuitively, luxury goods should seem like a smart target for criminals since they retain their resale value so well, and because that value can be extremely high (when compared with staples or basic discretionary goods). However, that there are a few practical caveats that looters should consider before trying to muscle their way to a brand new submariner.
2/ Rolex watches are expensive and highly coveted by all manner of collectors, enthusiasts, and shady moneyed types around the world. On its face, this would make looting a Rolex store seem smart. It isn’t.
4/ Rolex wouldn’t be Rolex if they hadn’t already solved this problem. First, every Rolex watch has a unique serial number. On most modern pieces, it can be found inside the case near the 6 o’clock position. Here’s a partial serial number on my Explorer II. pic.twitter.com/HzciEkdTsC
5/ Also, when you purchase a new Rolex it comes with box and papers – documents and other proof of authentication. Here’s a listing for a Rolex Submariner Hulk on Chrono24. While used watches are sometimes sold without these accessories, most collectors insist on having them. pic.twitter.com/2aBX4WUbXi
6/ Rolex keeps a sophisticated worldwide database of every watch it makes. Each watch stolen yesterday will be flagged as such. Rolex, their approved dealers, and even secondary players will be highly motivated identify and remove these watches from circulation.
7/ How will this work? The looters stole brand new watches without box and papers. When they go to sell these watches, a buyer will want to authenticate it as real. They’ll take it to a dealer, who will run the serial number and confiscate the watch.
8/ That’s right. The dealer will TAKE THE WATCH and report the stolen goods to the police. Same thing with every pawn shop. Even if you innocently bought the watch from the original thief, you are out of luck. The moment a dealer touches hot goods, they will act.
The same is true for Apple laptops and other Apple products, as well as most other pricey electronics (with the exception of televisions and a few other items).
So, what’s an amateur looter to do? Well, they can start by listening on.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3cnjAzp Tyler Durden
There’s an old 18th-century saying about the best-laid plans of mice and men. From such plans – the most prestigious public health professionals working with the most powerful people, deploying for the first time a new way to control disease – we now stand in the midst of rubble.
It seems hard to believe. It was only a few months ago that the United States had a strong economy and a bright future. How we went from domestic peace and prosperity in February 2020 to the madness – cities on fire, military rule, curfews, economic desperation – we see today will be the subject of historical reconstruction for many decades hence. We are already seeing the first drafts written now.
The people in the streets are said to be protesting or rioting, but in other ways this has elements of a rebellion. It’s a rebellion against controls over the population that should never have been imposed – based on law, precedent, and human rights. The American people put up with it for more than two months, even as the strictures and regulations were building a nationwide powderkeg.
The disgusting murder of George Floyd, a man forcibly disemployed under lockdown and passing a counterfeit $20 bill to escape poverty, was all too familiar. It was the fuse that lit up that powder. The outrage against such police abuses stretches back decades and is reason enough for people from coast to coast to scream: enough.
At the same time, there is much more going on here than police abuse of power. Floyd became such a powerful symbol for people of all races and classes. He could have been any one of us. The boot on the neck smacks of Orwell’s chilling prediction of life under government plans: “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”
Americans of all classes, races, and political affiliations refuse to acquiesce to that future. Enough is enough.
The fires that burn in our cities today were born long ago with government impositions in every aspect of our lives. The impositions date back many generations. In the course of three months, the lockdowns stacked the wood; Floyd’s murder was the match.
In mid-March 2020, for fear of a virus, schools were forcibly closed, workers and businesses were arbitrarily divided by governments into essential and nonessential, police powers were deployed to enforce human separation under the strangely clinical name of “social distancing,” stay-home orders went into effect, travel restrictions internationally and even domestically locked us down and separated us (as if viruses care about lines on a map), and hospitals shut for anything but COVID-related illnesses.
It was a perfect central plan, the deployment of a real-life version of plans first laid out in 2006, at least on paper. The plans included no reference to legislatures, public opinion polls or elections, concern for the Bill of Rights, private property, commercial functioning, family rights, religious freedom, or basic freedoms of association – and certainly never accounted for the reality that people don’t like to be muscled by dictators local, state, and federal.
All of this massive apparatus of compulsion and coercion, of course, became our new regime for our own good and our health, or so they have repeatedly said. What’s fascinating looking back is how little any of what we’ve done to our beloved country had anything to do with the realities of the virus called COVID-19.
This particular virus – different from the last one and next one – turned out to be mostly brutal on older populations with comorbidities, particularly vicious in long-term care facilities. For more than 99% of everyone else, it is not much of a disease at all. People are coming to realize this, though it is rarely admitted on your television screens. When you throw out all concerns for human decency in the name of virus control, you have to keep doubling down on the rationale for the panic. Weeks stretched into months, and the excuses kept changing.
It’s no surprise that many of the protesters and rebels on the streets were glad to tell of their incredulity to the media. The truth about this outrageous government overreach was going to leak out, despite near uniformity of a pro-lockdown position among major media. The trouble is, and perhaps this is a good thing, people have stopped believing. Even the mask mandates backfired: they were universally worn by the protestors.
People do not believe the media, the politicians, the “public health professionals.” They stopped believing in the need to follow the plan. They have started to believe that perhaps freedom offers a better way, even in the presence of a virus.
Now 48 days into the lockdown, and still oppressed by overly formalized models of an organized and scripted re-opening, and 48 hours after our cities lit up and streets filled with angry rebels, there are vast remaining problems.
First, it’s not at all clear whether and to what extent any of the political elites in this country have the slightest clue about what has happened or what to do about it.
Second, the economy is now burdened with terrible debt, awful spending plans, and egregious monetary policy.
Third, we continue to live with unnecessary and burdensome regulations on our movements and rights.
All three problems need desperately to be addressed.
It’s also time we look toward the future, perhaps with some optimism. Hundreds of unneeded regulations have been suspended in the crisis. New forms of education and health-care delivery have been innovated and practiced. The political class is largely discredited. Many of the overly confident planners who hatched this disaster are hunkered down in hiding. People are unlikely ever to hold the mainstream media in high regard, at least not for a very long time.
The best laid plans: inspired by myopic modelers, eschewing of expert opinions of dissident scientists, disregarding of essential rights, fueled by media fabrications and irresponsibility, imposed by governments at all levels. It’s a new chapter of The Road to Serfdom.
Let us write yet another chapter in which we learn something from this calamity and re-embrace the idea of human freedom.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3eDaqjQ Tyler Durden
2020 Hurricane Season Begins – Next Tropical Depression Could Form In Days Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/01/2020 – 18:30
The 2020 Atlantic hurricane season officially begins on Monday. A tropical depression or storm is expected to form in the western Gulf of Mexico later this week.
The Weather Channel is monitoring an area in the tropics that is currently experiencing a disturbance near the Guatemala-Yucatan border.
Already, Arthur and Bertha were two pre-season storms, making this the sixth Atlantic hurricane season in a row with at least one or more storms before June 1.
The National Hurricane Center (NHC) forecasts a 70% probability a tropical depression or storm will develop in the southwestern Gulf of Mexico in the coming days.
At the moment, the system has been called Invest 93L by the NHC, but if it develops more this week, it could be named Cristobal.
Spaghetti models, at the moment, show the system will remain around the southwestern Gulf of Mexico for the next several days. Then it could creep towards Texas and Mexico later in the week, bringing along lots of tropical moisture with it.
Meteorologist Ryan Maue said, “weather models continue to predict a high potential of a strong tropical storm or hurricane in the western Gulf of Mexico later this week.”
Several weather models suggest the disturbance could organize and head towards an area off Texas and Lousiana known for a significant number of offshore oil drilling platforms.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have forecasted this hurricane season could be above average, with 13 to 19 named storms.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2ySVWx0 Tyler Durden
It seems hard to imagine that it is possible to watch the videos of the events that have unfolded over the past few days and not think that substantial reform of American policing is desperately needed. Of course, this is not a new development. But one hopes that greater public and political consensus can emerge out of the present situation on the need for change.
The George Floyd incident that set current events in motion was itself illuminating. The video stripped away the common uncertainties and doubts that surround particular cases of alleged police abuse. There were no decisions that had to be made in a blink of an eye. There were no conflicting witness statements or complicating context. There were no mitigating dangers faced by a lone officer. There was just a deliberate and drawn out excessive use of force that cost a man his life. It is somewhat heartening, therefore, that the vast majority of the American public reacted with alarm to what happened to George Floyd. It is an encouraging sign that police unions and police chiefs and conservative commentators were unusually vocal in denouncing the police conduct that the video showed.
The subsequent public protests could have built on that momentum, and they still can. But there is certainly a risk that the initial consensus that something had gone wrong in the Floyd case and that it exposed the need for further action could be lost in the civil unrest that has followed. Riots and uncontrolled looting understandably drive a public and political desire to do what is necessary to restore order. Those who would wish to empower the strong arm of the state can win favor when the alternative is rampant lawlessness. Protests have raised public consciousness. The opportunistic criminal activity that has followed those protests threaten to do something else.
Having lost control of many urban spaces, law enforcement is now in a difficult position in trying to restore a sense of order. There have also been moving examples of heroic protestersattempting to reclaim the streets from those who hope to instigate chaos. The increasingly bold factions on the political extremes who have spent the past few years encouraging street violence are genuine problems that need to be addressed.
But the faults that can be found elsewhere cannot be used to conceal the need for better training, more careful management, and more accountability in police departments across the country. There are, to be sure, some bad apples, but rooting out a few bad apples will not be sufficient.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3cpm8gg
via IFTTT
You can read the just-released report from the committee that the District Court appointed to study this, with illustrations; here’s a sample of how jurors would be seated:
“A separate space/room will be provided for public viewing via livestream,
of both voir dire and trial.” Masks won’t be required in the courtroom, because “When seated and socially distanced, masks are optional”; presumably this means witnesses won’t be masked, though “decisions to use a mask may be made by individual jurors, counsel or staff members, with permission of the Court.”
This is just one federal district, of course, but I’m sure many courts are making similar plans.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3cnsb5f
via IFTTT
It seems hard to imagine that it is possible to watch the videos of the events that have unfolded over the past few days and not think that substantial reform of American policing is desperately needed. Of course, this is not a new development. But one hopes that greater public and political consensus can emerge out of the present situation on the need for change.
The George Floyd incident that set current events in motion was itself illuminating. The video stripped away the common uncertainties and doubts that surround particular cases of alleged police abuse. There were no decisions that had to be made in a blink of an eye. There were no conflicting witness statements or complicating context. There were no mitigating dangers faced by a lone officer. There was just a deliberate and drawn out excessive use of force that cost a man his life. It is somewhat heartening, therefore, that the vast majority of the American public reacted with alarm to what happened to George Floyd. It is an encouraging sign that police unions and police chiefs and conservative commentators were unusually vocal in denouncing the police conduct that the video showed.
The subsequent public protests could have built on that momentum, and they still can. But there is certainly a risk that the initial consensus that something had gone wrong in the Floyd case and that it exposed the need for further action could be lost in the civil unrest that has followed. Riots and uncontrolled looting understandably drive a public and political desire to do what is necessary to restore order. Those who would wish to empower the strong arm of the state can win favor when the alternative is rampant lawlessness. Protests have raised public consciousness. The opportunistic criminal activity that has followed those protests threaten to do something else.
Having lost control of many urban spaces, law enforcement is now in a difficult position in trying to restore a sense of order. There have also been moving examples of heroic protestersattempting to reclaim the streets from those who hope to instigate chaos. The increasingly bold factions on the political extremes who have spent the past few years encouraging street violence are genuine problems that need to be addressed.
But the faults that can be found elsewhere cannot be used to conceal the need for better training, more careful management, and more accountability in police departments across the country. There are, to be sure, some bad apples, but rooting out a few bad apples will not be sufficient.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3cpm8gg
via IFTTT
You can read the just-released report from the committee that the District Court appointed to study this, with illustrations; here’s a sample of how jurors would be seated:
“A separate space/room will be provided for public viewing via livestream,
of both voir dire and trial.” Masks won’t be required in the courtroom, because “When seated and socially distanced, masks are optional”; presumably this means witnesses won’t be masked, though “decisions to use a mask may be made by individual jurors, counsel or staff members, with permission of the Court.”
This is just one federal district, of course, but I’m sure many courts are making similar plans.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3cnsb5f
via IFTTT
