Seila Law was the Court’s most significant separation of powers case since Noel Canning. Yet, this decisions is–at best–a symbolic victory for conservatives; not nearly enough to staunch the June gloom. I don’t think people will embroider “Overrule Humphrey’s Executor” on red baseball hats.
As a practical matter, this case will have little impact. Whether the President can fire the CFPB Director for cause, or at will, will not make much of a difference. (Had the broadly read the phrases “”inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” we could have see significant shifts in administrative law.) The more likely course is to simply wait for the Director’s five-year term to expire. Recall that President Trump chose not to fire Richard Cordray. (Conveniently, Cordray resigned to embark on a failed gubernatorial campaign.)
Perhaps the most significant–and rewarding–aspect of the case was the battle royale between the actual and de facto Chief Justices: John Roberts and Elena Kagan. They are the two leaders of the Court. And from my vantage point, the two best writers on the Court. It is a joy to read their prose.
Roberts writes with a level of surgical precision that every lawyer should emulate. There is seldom a wasted word. When I edit a Roberts opinion, there is very little to remove. He puts so much care and thought into every syllable. Meticulous and polished.
Kagan writes with a delightful conversational flair. I found myself chuckling at several of her quips. I adore her rhetorical questions:
What does the Constitution say about the separation of powers—and particularly about the President’s removal authority? (Spoiler alert: about the latter, nothing at all.)
The analysis is as simple as simple can be. The CFPB Director exercises the same powers, and receives the same removal protections, as the heads of other, constitutionally permissible independent agencies. How could it be that this opinion is a dissent?
I encourage people to emulate Roberts’s style. But don’t try to fake Kagan’s style. This type of wit cannot be forced. It must come naturally, and from within.
Justice Kagan name-dropped to great effect. In one spot, she relied on Justice Frankfurter’s attack on Chief Justice Taft’s Meyers decision:
Expressing veiled contempt as only he could, Justice Frankfurter wrote for the Court that Chief Justice Taft’s opinion had “laboriously traversed” American history and that it had failed to “restrict itself to the immediate issue before it.”No wonder Humphrey’s had “narrowly confined the scope of the Myers decision.” Justice Frankfurter implied that the “Chief Justice who himself had been President” was lucky his handiwork had not been altogether reversed.
Kagan referred to Taft as “a judicial presidentialist if ever there was one.”
Kagan criticized Roberts for misreading the FTC’s power. She name-dropped big names.
The majority’s reply that a court including Charles Evans Hughes, Louis Brandeis, Benjamin Cardozo, and Harlan Stone somehow misunderstood these powers lacks all plausibility
Though, one name was surprisingly lacking in a case about the removal power: Scalia. In Bostock, the Justices fell over themselves to claim Nino’s mantle. But here, his famous dissent was barely mentioned. The majority didn’t cite Scalia’s dissent. And here is how Kagan described Morrison:
The Morrison Court, over a one-Justice dissent, upheld for-cause protections afforded to an independent counsel with power to investigate and prosecute crimes committed by high-ranking officials.
“A one-Justice dissent.” That’s it? Kagan previously praised Scalia’s writing in Morrison. But she did not praise its reasoning.
Justice Kagan also cited her famous article, Presidential Administration, twice. I previously criticized Justice Kavanaugh for citing himself. Here, the Kagan citations are against interest. In her article, she articulated a broad understanding of executive power. But in her Seila dissent, she defers to congressional limits on executive powers. Kagan was trying to signal that this dissent does not necessarily reflect her priors. Consider the cites:
And debates about the prudence of limiting the President’s control over regulatory agencies, including through his removal power, have never abated. FN1
FN1: In the academic literature, compare, e.g., Kagan, Presidential Administration, 114 Harv. L. Rev. 2245, 2331–2346 (2001) (generally favoring presidential control over agencies), with, e.g., Strauss, Overseer, or “The Decider”? The President in Administrative Law, 75 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 696, 704, 713–715 (2007) (generally favoring administrative independence).
She is contrasting her own work favoring presidential control, with Peter Strauss, who favors independence. Kagan makes this point later with a snappy signal:
The President’s engagement, some people say, can disrupt bureaucratic stag- nation, counter industry capture, and make agencies more responsive to public interests. See, well, Kagan, Presidential Administration, 114 Harv. L. Rev. 2245, 2331–2346 (2001). At other times, the arguments favor greater independence from presidential involvement.
“Some people” is her. She says that. And then she rules in the opposite direction. Kagan But cf.‘d herself! (Justice Kavanaugh cited himself again in Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society–this time to Bluman v. FEC (D.D.C. 2011)).
Alas, Kagan flew too close to the rhetorical sun. In two spots, she made not-so-veiled attacks of President Trump. First, consider this comment about the Federal Reserve:
Insulation from political pressure helps ensure impartial adjudications. It places technical issues in the hands of those most capable of addressing them. It promotes continuity, and prevents short-term electoral interests from distorting policy. (Con- sider, for example, how the Federal Reserve’s independence stops a President trying to win a second term from manipulating interest rates.)
I wonder what President she could possibly be talking about?! Here, she is obviously alluding to the President’s never-ending badgering of the Fed to lower interest rates to help his re-election campaign. But her next barb in Footnote 11 was much worse.
Second, the majority complains that the Director’s five-year term may prevent a President from “shap[ing the agency’s] leadership” through appointments. Ante, at 24. But again that is true, to one degree or another, of quite a few longstanding independent agencies, including the Federal Reserve, the FTC, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Postal Service Board of Governors. (If you think the last is unimportant, just ask the current President whether he agrees.)
Here, Kagan is referring to the fact that Trump recently appointed a political donor to become the next Postmaster General. And, this appointment was closely related to Trump’s opposition to mail-in ballots. Of course, the Court already decided RNC v. DNC from Wisconsin. Moreover, Kagan broke the fourth-wall (or is it the third branch!?) by speaking to “the current President.” In Trump v. Hawaii, Roberts expressly distinguished “a particular” from “the Presidency itself.” I really wish Kagan dropped this line. It sullied an otherwise pitch-perfect dissent. I suspect Justice Breyer was not too keen about signing onto this footnote.
Kagan had one other topical reference, though it probably hit closer to home. In footnote 12, she discusses the Independent Counsel statute at issue in Morrison:
The majority, seeking some other way to distinguish Morrison, as- serts that the independent counsel’s “duties” were more “limited” than the CFPB Director’s. Ante, at 17–18. That’s true in a sense: All (all?) the special counsel had to do was decide whether the President and his top advisers had broken the law. But I doubt (and I suspect Presidents would too) whether the need to control those duties was any less “central to the functioning of the Executive Branch” than the need to control the CFPB’s.
Of course, Morrison did not involve an investigation of the President. But her former boss was investigated for years by Ken Starr. Another statement against interest.
One final detour. Roberts alluded, indirectly to special counsel Robert Mueller. He noted that the Office of Special Counsel (OSC, a federal investigatory agency) is different from the Special Counsel’s Office:
The OSC should not be confused with the independent counsel in Morrison or the special counsel recently appointed to investigate allegations related to the 2016 Presidential election. Despite sharing similar titles, those individuals have no relationship to the OSC
After sitting through the impeachment trial, I would have thought Roberts could have avoided this citation. But he didn’t.
I will have more to say about the specific moves in Seila Law in due course. Now, we wait. Opinions in about 7.5 hours.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2VtXo0S
via IFTTT
Seila Law was the Court’s most significant separation of powers case since Noel Canning. Yet, this decisions is–at best–a symbolic victory for conservatives; not nearly enough to staunch the June gloom. I don’t think people will embroider “Overrule Humphrey’s Executor” on red baseball hats.
As a practical matter, this case will have little impact. Whether the President can fire the CFPB Director for cause, or at will, will not make much of a difference. (Had the broadly read the phrases “”inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” we could have see significant shifts in administrative law.) The more likely course is to simply wait for the Director’s five-year term to expire. Recall that President Trump chose not to fire Richard Cordray. (Conveniently, Cordray resigned to embark on a failed gubernatorial campaign.)
Perhaps the most significant–and rewarding–aspect of the case was the battle royale between the actual and de facto Chief Justices: John Roberts and Elena Kagan. They are the two leaders of the Court. And from my vantage point, the two best writers on the Court. It is a joy to read their prose.
Roberts writes with a level of surgical precision that every lawyer should emulate. There is seldom a wasted word. When I edit a Roberts opinion, there is very little to remove. He puts so much care and thought into every syllable. Meticulous and polished.
Kagan writes with a delightful conversational flair. I found myself chuckling at several of her quips. I adore her rhetorical questions:
What does the Constitution say about the separation of powers—and particularly about the President’s removal authority? (Spoiler alert: about the latter, nothing at all.)
The analysis is as simple as simple can be. The CFPB Director exercises the same powers, and receives the same removal protections, as the heads of other, constitutionally permissible independent agencies. How could it be that this opinion is a dissent?
I encourage people to emulate Roberts’s style. But don’t try to fake Kagan’s style. This type of wit cannot be forced. It must come naturally, and from within.
Justice Kagan name-dropped to great effect. In one spot, she relied on Justice Frankfurter’s attack on Chief Justice Taft’s Meyers decision:
Expressing veiled contempt as only he could, Justice Frankfurter wrote for the Court that Chief Justice Taft’s opinion had “laboriously traversed” American history and that it had failed to “restrict itself to the immediate issue before it.”No wonder Humphrey’s had “narrowly confined the scope of the Myers decision.” Justice Frankfurter implied that the “Chief Justice who himself had been President” was lucky his handiwork had not been altogether reversed.
Kagan referred to Taft as “a judicial presidentialist if ever there was one.”
Kagan criticized Roberts for misreading the FTC’s power. She name-dropped big names.
The majority’s reply that a court including Charles Evans Hughes, Louis Brandeis, Benjamin Cardozo, and Harlan Stone somehow misunderstood these powers lacks all plausibility
Though, one name was surprisingly lacking in a case about the removal power: Scalia. In Bostock, the Justices fell over themselves to claim Nino’s mantle. But here, his famous dissent was barely mentioned. The majority didn’t cite Scalia’s dissent. And here is how Kagan described Morrison:
The Morrison Court, over a one-Justice dissent, upheld for-cause protections afforded to an independent counsel with power to investigate and prosecute crimes committed by high-ranking officials.
“A one-Justice dissent.” That’s it? Kagan previously praised Scalia’s writing in Morrison. But she did not praise its reasoning.
Justice Kagan also cited her famous article, Presidential Administration, twice. I previously criticized Justice Kavanaugh for citing himself. Here, the Kagan citations are against interest. In her article, she articulated a broad understanding of executive power. But in her Seila dissent, she defers to congressional limits on executive powers. Kagan was trying to signal that this dissent does not necessarily reflect her priors. Consider the cites:
And debates about the prudence of limiting the President’s control over regulatory agencies, including through his removal power, have never abated. FN1
FN1: In the academic literature, compare, e.g., Kagan, Presidential Administration, 114 Harv. L. Rev. 2245, 2331–2346 (2001) (generally favoring presidential control over agencies), with, e.g., Strauss, Overseer, or “The Decider”? The President in Administrative Law, 75 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 696, 704, 713–715 (2007) (generally favoring administrative independence).
She is contrasting her own work favoring presidential control, with Peter Strauss, who favors independence. Kagan makes this point later with a snappy signal:
The President’s engagement, some people say, can disrupt bureaucratic stag- nation, counter industry capture, and make agencies more responsive to public interests. See, well, Kagan, Presidential Administration, 114 Harv. L. Rev. 2245, 2331–2346 (2001). At other times, the arguments favor greater independence from presidential involvement.
“Some people” is her. She says that. And then she rules in the opposite direction. Kagan But cf.‘d herself!
Alas, Kagan flew too close to the rhetorical sun. In two spots, she made not-so-veiled attacks of President Trump. First, consider this comment about the Federal Reserve:
Insulation from political pressure helps ensure impartial adjudications. It places technical issues in the hands of those most capable of addressing them. It promotes continuity, and prevents short-term electoral interests from distorting policy. (Con- sider, for example, how the Federal Reserve’s independence stops a President trying to win a second term from manipulating interest rates.)
I wonder what President she could possibly be talking about?! Here, she is obviously alluding to the President’s never-ending badgering of the Fed to lower interest rates to help his re-election campaign. But her next barb in Footnote 11 was much worse.
Second, the majority complains that the Director’s five-year term may prevent a President from “shap[ing the agency’s] leadership” through appointments. Ante, at 24. But again that is true, to one degree or another, of quite a few longstanding independent agencies, including the Federal Reserve, the FTC, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Postal Service Board of Governors. (If you think the last is unimportant, just ask the current President whether he agrees.)
Here, Kagan is referring to the fact that Trump recently appointed a political donor to become the next Postmaster General. And, this appointment was closely related to Trump’s opposition to mail-in ballots. Of course, the Court already decided RNC v. DNC from Wisconsin. Moreover, Kagan broke the fourth-wall (or is it the third branch!?) by speaking to “the current President.” In Trump v. Hawaii, Roberts expressly distinguished “a particular” from “the Presidency itself.” I really wish Kagan dropped this line. It sullied an otherwise pitch-perfect dissent. I suspect Justice Breyer was not too keen about signing onto this footnote.
Kagan had one other topical reference, though it probably hit closer to home. In footnote 12, she discusses the Independent Counsel statute at issue in Morrison:
The majority, seeking some other way to distinguish Morrison, as- serts that the independent counsel’s “duties” were more “limited” than the CFPB Director’s. Ante, at 17–18. That’s true in a sense: All (all?) the special counsel had to do was decide whether the President and his top advisers had broken the law. But I doubt (and I suspect Presidents would too) whether the need to control those duties was any less “central to the functioning of the Executive Branch” than the need to control the CFPB’s.
Of course, Morrison did not involve an investigation of the President. But her former boss was investigated for years by Ken Starr. Another statement against interest.
One final detour. Roberts alluded, indirectly to special counsel Robert Mueller. He noted that the Office of Special Counsel (OSC, a federal investigatory agency) is different from the Special Counsel’s Office:
The OSC should not be confused with the independent counsel in Morrison or the special counsel recently appointed to investigate allegations related to the 2016 Presidential election. Despite sharing similar titles, those individuals have no relationship to the OSC
After sitting through the impeachment trial, I would have thought Roberts could have avoided this citation. But he didn’t.
I will have more to say about the specific moves in Seila Law in due course. Now, we wait. Opinions in about 7.5 hours.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2VtXo0S
via IFTTT
The US and Britain are at their most perilous point in one hundred years. Once stable democratic nation states made great through struggle and suffering to gain comparative freedom at huge sacrifice to their own population are throwing it all away. The speed and ferocity of the attack is frightening, but this has been building for years, spreading from the 60s onwards through the university teaching systems, unquestioned. It emerged into the public arena as political correctness as each generation of students became more radical. Then came the final push to silence opposition with wokism, virtue-signalling, identity politics, and now racial division, an aberration of democracy and freedom of speech.
The Trump presidency has been under a continual coup, even before taking office. Involvement from the top down of Obama and his administration and security services is an inconvenience for the Democrats, and many Republicans feel the same. What it does show, is that at this moment in the history of the United States, the deep state are above the law. We are waiting for Attorney General Barr to prove otherwise, but since he has already stated it is unlikely that Obama or Biden will be called to testify, he has issued a free pass, move along, nothing to see. All is swept aside on a media tide of attacks on democracy and the rule of law by the radical left, as BLM take control and politicians scamper down rabbit holes trying to avoid the buckshot. Those who control the media control the narrative, never more true than it is today, as truth becomes fiction and fiction fact.
History is no longer the ‘right’ history, facts are no longer facts but interpretations. Our language is corrupted by thought-speak and ‘wrong-thinking’. Intersectionality seeps through to the subconscious of the people as they are dissected, examined and re-assembled from parts into a whole, as independent thought lies discarded on the slab. The monster of BLM has screamed into the world, its children intent on destroying everything that will not acknowledge them, blind, unreasoning, malicious, merciless, they search for the meaning of their own existence and find nothing but their own image staring back from an iPhone.
We are at the turning point. All opposition is being de-platformed, demonetised and silenced by the tyranny of the social media monopolies of Google, Facebook, Twitter, in the great lurch left to totalitarianism.
Our language has been acquired, repossessed and annexed, a grand and despicable M&A, dismembered, rendered useless and sold off to the corporates and big tech. They are laying off the workforce whom they consider obsolete and no longer useful for their purposes. The world has turned on its dark side, an unrecognisable corruption of reality. Boris Johnson is presiding over a shift into anarchy. The Labour party cannot win through the ballot box, the BLM are useful to them. The radical left have co-opted and subjugated the old left, they are one and the same, because disorder and destruction are their only route to power, and they are taking it.
As temperatures rise and unrest spreads, London is braced for another week of anarchy. A combination of Covid-19 restrictions, a hands-off police policy, and subsequent breakdown of law and order follows years of devolution of police enforcement powers to local authorities, and pushes London towards breakdown. Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, has announced funding cuts to an already undermanned and demoralised front line police force of £110 million over the next 2 years, #BLM defund the police. The country is undergoing a communist insurrection, a cultural marxist revolution indulged and endorsed by the elites. Far left racial divisionists and mainstream media incite violence, pushing the marxist agenda, whilst the rest of the population is so punch- drunk with the speed of the takeover, it does not even recognise that it is about to hit the canvas.
THE TYRANNY OF BLM
BLM is a marketing exercise by the three founders, all trained radical Marxists. Alicia Garza, Opal Tometi, and Patrisse Cullors. The public have been played. No sympathy there. If you put your name or your money to a cause, the least you can do is look it up and see what you are supporting and find out what is behind the hype. Follow the money.
There is bet-hedging from ‘left-light’ political commentators who are afraid to declare the emperor has no clothes. They advocate that it is not BLM and the rise of cultural marxism that we should be worried about, but the rise of the far-right in reaction to it. The far-right, or simply put, anyone who sees BLM for what they are, a cultural marxist totalitarian power-grab, are not the ones that require people to kneel before them, pull down and deface statues, injure police, the public and public property. BLM are the ones inciting riots through racial division, bullying small children, calling to abolish the police, and end capitalism and the family. It is time to get off the bench and stop trying to play both sides of the field. It is cowardly and will end in your own demise as all is swept aside by the mob. Come the revolution, and it is coming, you want to know who will hold the line with you and who will run, so best to find out now.
BULLY
At a party in Harrow Road London this week, police were pelted with objects and prevented from entering the area by youths shouting “you’re not coming in” The police released a statement:
“Following engagement within the local community we are hopeful that crowds are dispersing.”
A quick look on Google translate will tell you this means – ‘they threw stuff at us, so we left’
The message is, don’t bother to call the council or the police, your neighbourhood is now run by youth mobs. The hardest hit by this lawlessness are in the poorest communities, in the council blocks, the housing association accommodation. The gentrified can sell up and ship out with their kids, the same kids advocating and encouraging the cultural revolution and racial division that is destroying London. The same kids that will be the politicians of tomorrow.
Local authorities have the power to issue ASBOs (Anti-Social Behaviour Orders) noise abatement orders, and to seize equipment, but in most instances do not have the manpower or the resources to do so. They are the front line community police for out of control raves and parties, and they are the ones that engage with the local community and youth offenders and understand what is happening on the ground. Most no longer operate ‘out of hour services’ which is a nonsense, since that is exactly the time they are needed. All that can be done is for a complaint to be lodged after the fact. The police rarely engage with locals, instead they have a faceless, distant, centralised Met police call centre.
Parliament have made mass gatherings and peaceful protests unlawful for the moment, but there is an exception. Northumbria police issued this statement yesterday:
“We’ll be in attendance to facilitate a planned Black Lives Matter vigil at Keel Square in #Sunderland tonight. A Section 14 order is in place forbidding any other public assembly, including counter-protests, to ensure the public’s safety.” – Northumbria Police
This was echoed yesterday in London as more subsets of BLM demonstrators were allowed into central London in a Black Trans Lives Matter rally. Thousands of activists marched through central London in place of Pride celebrations that had been cancelled due to Covid-19 health fears. Banners of “White silence is violence” were held above the crowd, and a sign outside Parliament defaced, crossing out ‘Parliament’ and replacing it with “racists”. The law is no longer applied equally. Radical left marxists running BLM take over the centre of London each weekend and grow emboldened, realising the law does not apply to them.
London 16 Jun 2020:
“MPs have unanimously approved the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (Amendment) (No.3) Regulations 2020. This new law bans mass gatherings in London in a fight to stop the spread of the deadly virus”
In Westminster, the government in their elite London bubble, seem unwilling to admit to the sense of unease amongst the public as law-abiding citizens are beginning to wonder if they even cares, They know that Sadiq Khan is intent on causing as much pain as he can to the population of London. It is likely the police will abandon the streets if a serious riot breaks out. Londoners see this as a real possibility, it has happened before.
The last sustained rioting across London was sparked by the death of Mark Duggan in 2011. This saw disaffected youths vandalising property, looting, and assaulting people. Police were unable to respond to the speed of the rioting or to the numbers on the streets. The disorder spread to other parts of the UK and showed the power of social media to ignite and inflame tensions. An astonishing 3,000 people were arrested and 1,000 criminal charges brought for various crimes related to the riots. It was anarchy. There were 5 deaths and 16 injured as a direct result.
These riots are still fresh in the mind due to their speed and ferocity and the opportunistic and senseless nature of the crimes committed. The same atmosphere is building, this time based on the BLM righteous rage and racial division agenda. If the police cannot shut down a party, they cannot contain a riot.
The BLM construct lights a fire under race relations, deliberately so. The law-abiding citizen is unprotected and demonised. It is woke politics on steroids.
“Developing and delivering training, police monitoring and strategies for the abolition of police.” – gofundmeUK BLM
BLM has seeped into all aspects of our lives, online, onto the streets and into the language. It is a very aggressive form of indoctrination and advertising, it is impossible to get away from on any media platform, television, radio, advertising and is being relentlessly pushed by corporates. The premise is, if you are white you are a racist. BLM is controlling the news narrative. The British and American public are under attack by a cult largely endorsed by their governments who, instead of defending the people that voted them into power, take the side of the mob.
We are living through a transition to totalitarianism. The attacks are coming in waves, each wave growing in intensity, consuming and feeding off the last. They carry with them the worst disruptors of society of which there are many. They are active at demonstrations, as trained jihadists infiltrate and disrupt alongside Antifa and BLM activists.
In America, heavily armed populist militia groups are growing and forming a coalition with the police, preparing for the fight-back. In the UK, there is no second amendment right to bear arms, so citizens are at the mercy of government policy. The police and government are working against their own people, the only way to fight back is to move out and find relative safety, this is what is happening in London.
Left wing councils all over the UK are forcing agreement to marxist agenda. This is a battle between the people vs the elite political class. There is deep suspicion of all that they represent, government, corporate, education, media, church, all seem designed to silence those they claim to represent and to further their own, centralised globalist ideology. BLM are just another branch of this elite. This is Groundhog Day, the same argument that was played out after the Brexit referendum, that democracy does not matter, this is just the next battle in a far more extreme, pervasive and corrupt form.
This is a race war incited by woke identity politics, facilitated by middle class white malcontents and snowflakes, overindulged by their parents and allowed to continue tantrums far beyond their teens, encouraged and enabled by neoliberal university educators and group-think on social media. It is an assault on the soul of nations, aided by domestic terrorists with the blessing of big government. It is the opposite of the spirit of Brexit, the opposite of independent thought. It is against the rule of law, the constitution, it is the destruction of the West by a decadent and controlling elite completely out of touch with its own people.
On television, white primary school kids are humiliated and confused as they are asked to explain their white privilege. This is the ultimate endorsement of bullying by a political elite. BLM have ignited a race war, it is being played out in schools, on the streets and in the political arena, we are being told we must ‘see colour’, to actively encourage division by colour. There is no room for discussion or debate with this hypersensitive Facebook generation who are incapable of having an opinion unless it is ‘liked’ by consensus. Racial profiling is being endorsed across all mainstream media platforms.
Both Britain and America have governments that are weak and vulnerable, both countries are ripe for the taking. Shaun King could not have staged this uprising more skilfully, no doubt he has a strong hand in this and directs from his throne at Harvard Law School. Sadiq Khan and Cressida Dick do his bidding.
Norman Brennan, Director of the Law and Order Foundation, on Talk Radio London said of the anarchy in Britain:
“We are barely able to police everyday issues. We have lost 22,000 officers, 4,000 of them in the Met. Just look how that has depleted backing up their own colleagues dealing with any public disorders that we are beginning to see on our streets, almost daily now. It’s embarrassing, I feel for my colleagues. In thirty-one years of policing I can’ t recall a single time that I ran away from an incident. A). I knew I would be getting back-up and B). we had this sort of fearlessness amongst us that the criminal element were not allowed to run riot, they were not allowed to rule the streets. That’s our job, and we rule the streets on behalf of society. What the Commissioner does {Cressida Dick}, and she does it all the time, is to close it down, you can see her political stance.
What public order incident that breaks out on the streets, most probably in London, is going to ignite wide scale public disorder throughout Britain? It takes one. At this moment in time, it’s like a litmus paper. Which incident is going to light it?”
BLM can only feel encouraged, just like a spoilt child testing how far they can go until the adult in the room says, no more. The problem is, there are no adults in the room.
Boris Johnson and Priti Patel are full of platitudes, but they do nothing. This is no longer a Conservative party that are strong on public order, this is a Conservative Party far left of Tony Blair. A party out of touch with its core voters, so much so that all it can do is steal the ideas from another party to win an election, as it did from Nigel Farage and the Brexit Party in 2019. It seems to think that to deliver on Brexit is enough, but this terrible unease that has come over the country is at boiling point, as the law-abiding citizen is chastised and knocked back into silence again and again.
In London, you can feel the tension on the ground, simmering, mostly unsaid, but it is there. The elites in the London bubble don’t see this, and so it festers. They have no sense of place, only a sense of self. For them it is an experiment in socialism, for the public it is a crisis. When a country has to take up arms to protect itself, will such a diversity of communities, such disparity in wealth, of ideas, of religions, be able to come together to defeat the enemy? Will it even be able to identify who that enemy is when the government and their agencies, so contemptuous of the public, and yet so naive themselves, cannot. That question will be answered soon. The public will get no help, the elites have chosen to go to war against their own people. They have taken to a serpent to their bosom, an insidious viper that is sowing the seeds of racial unrest. It is a construct by forces wishing to subvert and cause pain and to take power over those already weak and demoralised from Covid-19. A woke, cultural revolution of media and government institutions against all that the British public hold dear.
“I believe that the mainstream media in Britain are stoking and inciting people to be disorderly on the streets of Britain. It’s almost as though they would love it if there were wide-scale public disorder.” – Norman Brennan
More than this, it is the aim of BLM, Antifa and the increasingly marxist socialist left, many of whom preside in Westminster, to cause exactly that. The public are at this very moment being beaten into submission.
Anyone who lives in London becomes streetwise very fast, and stories of citizens being marched to an ATM at knife point are common. These are not petty crimes. In one of the largest local authorities in London run by a Labour council for many years, their crime enforcement team has been reduced to 4 for a population of approx 324,000. The need by government to reduce perceived crime has led to such madness. This hollows out the middle class who are moving away from London as they feel it is no longer a safe place to live or raise children. Judging from the battles in some of the most gentrified and highly-priced boroughs in London, they are right.
Whilst most citizens are still under restrictions in ‘bubbles’ of social contact, others are totally immune to either enforcement or prosecution. Priti Patel talks tough but if she were serious, she would fire Cressida Dick. Alongside Sadiq Kahn, the marxist agitator who despises his own country, they are killing London, without law and order on the streets, and law and order applied equally, there is nothing. They are poisonous.
This overtly racist tribalist drive to divide the cities is yet another realignment of the elites. Those outside the London bubble indoctrination zone are not buying into any of this and grow more sceptical by the day. This is a choice. You chose civilisation, free speech, the constitution and the rule of law, you defend it vociferously, or you let it all crumble to dust and be taken over by the radical left, who will have power over you until death.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Zjt9Le Tyler Durden
I have now finished reading June Medical Services and Seila Law. Collectively, they total 243 pages! Both cases are now edited for the Barnett/Blackman supplement–down to 26 pages each. It took me all day. If you’d like a copy, please e-mail me: josh-at-josh-blackman-dot-com.
Last week I predicted that Roberts would write June Medical and Breyer would write Seila Law. I whiffed on Seila. I mostly got June Medical correct.
June Medical split 4-1-4. By my reading, Roberts’s opinion is the most narrow. But putting asides the nuances of the confounding Mark Rule, the writing is on the wall for the future of Whole Woman’s Health. Justice Kavanaugh offered a helpful count in his dissent:
Today, five Members of the Court reject the Whole Woman’s Health cost-benefit standard. Ante (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in judgment); ante (THOMAS, J., dissenting); ante (ALITO, J., joined by THOMAS, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., dissenting); ante (GORSUCH, J., dissenting). A different five Members of the Court conclude that Louisiana’s admitting-privileges law is unconstitutional because it “would restrict women’s access to abortion to the same degree as” the Texas law in Whole Woman’s Health. Ante (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.); see also ante (opinion of BREYER, J., joined by GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ.).
Going forward, there are five votes to limit the Court’s abortion framework to consider a a law’s burdens, without weighing the law’s benefits. The Chief has effectively overruled Whole Woman’s Health to the extent it departs from Casey. The Court didn’t swing to the left; at most, he feinted for the day.
Of course, who knows what the next abortion case will bring? Maybe the Chief’s game of “87‐dimensional chess” will finally yield a checkmate.
Speaking of the proverbial “long game,” Roberts largely viewed Seila Law as a continuation of Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB (2010). That case was decided a decade ago–the same period of time that elapsed between Meyer and Humphrey’s Executor. Yet, Roberts described that decade-old case as being decided “recently.” That simple descriptor reveals the glacial pace with which Roberts views the law. Ten years is a blip. After all we are now twelve years from Heller. Still waiting.
On that note, Justice Thomas had a delightful footnote in June Medical about the Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence:
Today, the plurality reaffirms our precedent allowing beer vendors to assert the Fourteenth Amendment rights of their potential customers. Ante (citing Craig v. Boren (1976)). But it is fair to wonder whether gun vendors could expect to receive the same privilege if they seek to vindicate the Second Amendment rights of their customers. Given this Court’s ad hoc approach to third-party standing and its tendency to treat the Second Amendment as a second-class right, their time would be better spent waiting for Godot.
I will have much more to say about these two cases. For now, Blue June rolls on. And we will see another batch of decisions in about 8 hours.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/38dQiml
via IFTTT
I have now finished reading June Medical Services and Seila Law. Collectively, they total 243 pages! Both cases are now edited for the Barnett/Blackman supplement–down to 26 pages each. It took me all day. If you’d like a copy, please e-mail me: josh-at-josh-blackman-dot-com.
Last week I predicted that Roberts would write June Medical and Breyer would write Seila Law. I whiffed on Seila. I mostly got June Medical correct.
June Medical split 4-1-4. By my reading, Roberts’s opinion is the most narrow. But putting asides the nuances of the confounding Mark Rule, the writing is on the wall for the future of Whole Woman’s Health. Justice Kavanaugh offered a helpful count in his dissent:
Today, five Members of the Court reject the Whole Woman’s Health cost-benefit standard. Ante (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in judgment); ante (THOMAS, J., dissenting); ante (ALITO, J., joined by THOMAS, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., dissenting); ante (GORSUCH, J., dissenting). A different five Members of the Court conclude that Louisiana’s admitting-privileges law is unconstitutional because it “would restrict women’s access to abortion to the same degree as” the Texas law in Whole Woman’s Health. Ante (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.); see also ante (opinion of BREYER, J., joined by GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ.).
Going forward, there are five votes to limit the Court’s abortion framework to consider a a law’s burdens, without weighing the law’s benefits. The Chief has effectively overruled Whole Woman’s Health to the extent it departs from Casey. The Court didn’t swing to the left; at most, he feinted for the day.
Of course, who knows what the next abortion case will bring? Maybe the Chief’s game of “87‐dimensional chess” will finally yield a checkmate.
Speaking of the proverbial “long game,” Roberts largely viewed Seila Law as a continuation of Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB (2010). That case was decided a decade ago–the same period of time that elapsed between Meyer and Humphrey’s Executor. Yet, Roberts described that decade-old case as being decided “recently.” That simple descriptor reveals the glacial pace with which Roberts views the law. Ten years is a blip. After all we are now twelve years from Heller. Still waiting.
On that note, Justice Thomas had a delightful footnote in June Medical about the Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence:
Today, the plurality reaffirms our precedent allowing beer vendors to assert the Fourteenth Amendment rights of their potential customers. Ante (citing Craig v. Boren (1976)). But it is fair to wonder whether gun vendors could expect to receive the same privilege if they seek to vindicate the Second Amendment rights of their customers. Given this Court’s ad hoc approach to third-party standing and its tendency to treat the Second Amendment as a second-class right, their time would be better spent waiting for Godot.
I will have much more to say about these two cases. For now, Blue June rolls on. And we will see another batch of decisions in about 8 hours.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/38dQiml
via IFTTT
And it isn’t just the Maskenpflicht-Sturmabteilung. The new official narrative is omnipresent. The corporate media are pumping out hysteria about “Covid-19 hospitalizations” (i.e., anyone admitted to a hospital for anything who tested positive for the coronavirus) and “major incidents” (i.e., people at the beach). Police are manning makeshift social-distancing-monitoring watchtowers in London. There are propaganda posters and billboards everywhere, repeating the same neo-Goebbelsian slogans, reinforcing the manufactured mass hysteria. Dissent and nonconformity are being pathologized, “diagnosed” as psychopathy and paranoia. Mandatory vaccinations are coming.
No, they told us exactly what was coming, and advised us to shut up and follow orders. Tragically, most people have done just that. In the space of four months, GloboCap has successfully imposed totalitarianism — pathologized totalitarianism — on societies all across the world. It isn’t traditional totalitarianism, with a dictator and a one-party system, and so on. It is subtler and more insidious than that. But it is totalitarianism nonetheless.
GloboCap could not have achieved this without the approval (or at least the acquiescence) of the vast majority of the masses. The coronavirus mass hysteria was a masterstroke of propaganda, but propaganda isn’t everything. No one is really fooled by propaganda, or not for long, in any event. As Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari noted in the opening of Anti-Oedipus:
“The masses were not innocent dupes. At a certain point, under a certain set of conditions, they wanted fascism, and it is this perversion of the desire of the masses that needs to be accounted for.”
I am not going to try to account for the “perversion of the desire of the masses” here in this essay, but I do want to dig into the new pathologized totalitarianism a little bit.
Now, I’m going to assume that you understand that the official “apocalyptic pandemic” narrative is predicated on propaganda, wild speculation, and mass hysteria, and that by now you are aware that we are dealing with a virus that causes mild to moderate symptoms (or absolutely no symptoms at all) in 95% of those infected, and that over 99.5% survive … thus, clearly, no cause for widespread panic or justification for the totalitarian “emergency measures” that have been imposed.
I am also going to assume that you watched as GloboCap switched off the “deadly pandemic” to accommodate the BLM protests, then switched it back on as soon as they subsided, and that you noted how their propaganda shifted to “cases” when the death count finally became a little too embarrassing to continue to hype.
So, I won’t waste your time debunking the hysteria. Let’s talk pathologized totalitarianism.
The genius of pathologized totalitarianism is like that old joke about the Devil … his greatest trick was convincing us that he doesn’t exist. Pathologized totalitarianism appears to emanate from nowhere, and everywhere, simultaneously; thus, technically, it does not exist. It cannot exist, because no one is responsible for it, because everyone is. Mass hysteria is its lifeblood. It feeds on existential fear. “Science” is its rallying cry. Not actual science, not provable facts, but “Science” as a kind of deity whose Name is invoked to silence heretics, or to ease the discomfort of the cognitive dissonance that results from desperately trying to believe the absurdities of the official narrative.
The other genius of it (from a GloboCap viewpoint) is that it is inexhaustible, endlessly recyclable. Unlike other official enemies, the “deadly virus” could be any virus, any pathogen whatsoever. All they have to do from now on is “discover” some “novel” micro-organism that is highly contagious (or that mimics some other micro-organism that we already have), and wave it in front of people’s faces. Then they can crank up the Fear Machine, and start projecting hundreds of millions of deaths if everyone doesn’t do exactly as they’re told. They can run this schtick … well, pretty much forever, anytime the working classes get restless, or an unauthorized president gets elected, or just for the sheer sadistic fun of it.
Look, I don’t mean to be depressing, but seriously, spend an hour on the Internet, or talk to one of your hysterical friends that wants to make mask-wearing mandatory, permanently. This is the mentality of the Brave New Normal … irrationally paranoid and authoritarian. So, no, the future isn’t looking very bright for anyone not prepared to behave as if the world were one big infectious disease ward.
I’ve interacted with a number of extremely paranoid corona-totalitarians recently (just as a kind of social experiment). They behave exactly like members of a cult. When challenged with facts and basic logic, first, they flood you with media propaganda and hysterical speculation from “medical experts.” Then, after you debunk that nonsense, they attempt to emotionally manipulate you by sharing their heartbreaking personal accounts of the people their therapists’ brother-in-laws’ doctors had to helplessly watch as they “died in agony” when their lungs and hearts mysteriously exploded. Then, after you don’t bite down on that, they start hysterically shrieking paranoia at you (“JUST WAIT UNTIL THEY INTUBATE YOU!” … “KEEP YOUR SPITTLE AWAY FROM ME!”) and barking orders and slogans at you (“JUST WEAR THE GODDAMN MASK, YOU BABY!” … “NO SHOES, NO SHIRT, NO MASK, NO SERVICE!”)
Which … OK, that would be kind of funny (or terribly sad), if these paranoid people were not just mouthpieces echoing the voice of the official power (i.e., GloboCap) that is transforming what is left of society into a paranoid, pathologized, totalitarian nightmare right before our eyes. They’re kind of like the “woman in red” in The Matrix. When you are talking to them, you’re not talking to them. You’re talking to the agents. You’re talking to the machines. Try it sometime. You’ll see what I mean. It’s like talking to a single algorithm that is running in millions of people’s brains.
I can’t lie to you. I’m not very hopeful. No one who understands the attraction (i.e., the seduction) of totalitarianism is. Much as we may not like to admit it, it is exhilarating, and liberating, being part of the mob, surrendering the burden of personal autonomy and individual responsibility, fusing with a fanatical “movement” that is ushering in a new “reality” backed by the sheer brute force of the state … or the transnational global capitalist empire.
It is irresistible, that attraction, to most of us. The chance to be a part of something like that, and to unleash one’s hatred on those who refuse to go along with the new religion … to publicly ridicule them, to humiliate them, to segregate them from normal society, to hunt them down and get them fired from their jobs, to cheer as police abuse and arrest them, to diagnose them as “abnormal” and “inferior,” these social deviants, these subhuman “others,” who dare to challenge the authority of the Party, or the Church, or the State, or the Reich, or Science.
Plus, in the eyes of GloboCap (and its millions of fanatical, slogan-chanting followers), such non-mask-wearing deviants are dangerous. They are like a disease … an infestation. A sickness in the social body. If they refuse to conform, they will have to be dealt with, quarantined, or something like that.
Or they can just surrender to the Brave New Normal, and stop acting like babies, and wear a goddamn mask.
After all, it’s just a harmless piece of cloth…
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3gf82jV Tyler Durden
It’s 2020 & Homosexuality Is Still Punishable By Death In These 10 Countries Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/29/2020 – 23:15
51 years on from the Stonewall Riots, global celebrations to remember the event that kickstarted the gay rights revolution have been curtailed due to the coronavirus. The first pride parade occurred a year later and on the 50th anniversary of that occasion, it is thought that the only such march will occur in Taiwan where Covid-19 has largely been contained.
According to ILGA, an international federation campaigning for LGBT rights, homosexuality is punishable by up to eight years in prison in 31 countries and 10 years to life in prison in another 10 countries.
The following infograpic was made with EQUALDEX data and it shows where homosexuality remains illegal.
Gabon is the latest country to decriminalize homosexuality after introducing laws against gay sex last year. On June 23, lawmakers in the country’s lower house of parliament voted to revise that law which stipulated that having homosexual relations was considered “an offence against morality”, punishable by up to six months in prison and a fine of five million CFA francs or $8,600.
In 2020, homosexuality is still punishable by death in several countries and it remains illegal in at least 71 others.
The following infographic shows the countries where the death penalty is used against homosexual activity and it also uses another group, Equaldex, as a source. It is important to note that it is used on a regional basis in parts of Nigeria and Somalia where sharia law has been adopted. Notably, it is also used in Qatar (only applying to Muslims) which will host the FIFA World Cup in 2022.
Last year, Brunei recently provoked international outrage when it introduced strict Islamic laws that made homosexual activitly punishable by stoning to death.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2BOwVEj Tyler Durden
No matter what you have to say about the current situation, the one phrase that I think a lot of us can agree on is that we are living in interesting times. Our computers and phones live stream these interesting times to us 24/7. This post is going to concentrate on tips for the average person that wants to avoid taking part in civil unrest or protests. It seems pretty clear that most people would rather not participate regardless of how the news portrays it.
There are some that say that if someone doesn’t take a stand then that means things are not going to improve. While that may be true I ask you to consider how dedicated you are to a cause before you take action. As we will discuss later in this post, it can be hard to stop violence if you find yourself in an escalating situation.
While you may have strong opinions one way or another, there is a difference between that and being “all in”. Unless you are very dedicated then the consequences and risks are probably not worth going towards potential trouble.
Curiosity is natural but it can also be dangerous.
Restrictions that were put in place due to COVID-19 are being eased or ignored. Obviously there is some risk of contracting any number of illnesses from being in crowds of people, especially those that are shouting and touching one another a lot.
While it may be tempting to try to go observe peacefully the events that are occurring in your area, you need to consider just how worth it is really to you. Sure there is nothing like seeing something with your own two eyes but the cost of that could be great.
Those of you that have kids and teens that are old enough to be going places on their own or hanging out at friends, or that are being left home alone need to talk seriously about the dangers of going towards potential trouble or ongoing trouble and unrest.
Avoid peer pressure. I am talking about adults and younger people too.
Getting caught up in the energy and group of a crowd is easy to do. I have heard of these types of incidents in my own area. Somebody gets an idea and suddenly 10 people or more are getting themselves into a situation that is not at all what they anticipated. Emotions are high and it is easy for people on both sides of any issue or argument to see too far into something and make some assumptions that can lead to a major escalation in little time at all.
Just because everyone else seems to be doing something doesn’t mean it is a great idea. Even if you really like a group of people, it is important to think for yourself and consider your well being and that of your family.
That being said…..
Watch out for family trying to talk you into things. Carefully consider any ideas, favors, or anything that they may ask of you during these trying times.
Family is important but a lot of people have an up and down type of relationship with more than one member. While it is important to band together and try to help one another at times, one must think carefully about these actions. Who doesn’t have someone in their family that loves drama? I bet most of us can name quite a few. You also need to think about if it is worth it to ask for help from someone or invite them to be a part of your life. Sometimes people expect far more in return than is fair or that you can give even if you want to.
Plenty of families have people in them that are suffering from addiction and substance abuse. Even during good times, it can be challenging to help someone in this position even if they want to be helped. Do you have the resources and determination to deal with the potential trouble of substance abuse and addiction? Has the person made any indication that they are going to meet you halfway? Can they contribute at all to the household?
Families can be very divided when it comes to politics and moral opinions. It can be very hard to overcome these barriers and help each other out. If you couldn’t hang out or talk before all the unrest and the pandemic, I am not going to say that there is a good chance you can now. I wish it were different but as stressed as the average person is, dealing with long standing issues may be too hard or even impossible without causing both parties a lot of grief and trouble.
Avoid talking about potentially volatile subjects. I have found that plenty of people find it refreshing to not “go there”.
A lot of people are simply tired of constantly talking about the state of the world and would love to have a conversation about other things. We all know that some subjects get people really worked up and that it can vary by the person. Don’t bring up subjects you know are going to be upsetting and not do anyone involved any good. This is generally a good habit to be in nowadays because what you say can and will be used against you if you run your mouth in front of the right person. It happens all the time regardless of your personal beliefs and opinions.
It is just the times we live in.
I wish I had a magical way to make it different but I am afraid there are a lot of very deeply rooted issues that are going to have to be dealt with before we get back to having a society where people can talk freely and change their opinion later without it getting thrown in their face a month or a decade later. People change and grow and unfortunately, even when they change for the better, even minor or moderate comments that are offensive can be brought up and used for their ruination socially and at work.
At 37, I am thankful that every dumb or ill informed thing I said as a kid and teen was not recorded in some way.
Do not give out too much information online or in person.
I write for a living. It is my job to talk about preparedness and survival skills and try to give advice that can apply to a whole spectrum of situations and people. Part of that job means giving up some of my privacy. I get paid to write though and I don’t dish out everything even though I get that paycheck for talking about some things.
The people I see on social media or Youtube channels that take pics and tell everyone basically every firearm or prep they have as well as their various opinions on a ton of volatile subjects baffle me, especially since only a tiny percentage are making any kind of money off of these revelations. Stop acting like you want to impress others and get attention. This is far different than trying to impress the popular kids. You could be putting yourself and your family in grave danger.
We live in a world where too many people want to be famous or a celebrity. People sometimes think it is weird when you don’t. Wanting to be famous or go viral can lead to dumb decisions that endanger you and those you love.
One thing I have noticed about a lot of the events that have happened is how many people are trying to film or get that shot or video that will go viral. Instagram “Influencers” are going out to events that hold a lot of potential for violence just to get a little boost in their popularity. Since so many have gotten called out for this behavior, they are at even more risk for ridicule and targeting even by those that they have the same opinions of.
I have to say that trying to get videos when people are pushing and shoving you seems like a terrible idea. Once it comes to that, having a phone in your hand rather than getting out of harm’s way or defending yourself, seems like a big risk to get that shot that chances are you are not going to get much for in terms of fame or monetary value, especially with so many others shooting the same scene.
You know how many times I have turned down prepper reality shows, interviews, offers to host prepper shows on TV, etc? More times than I can count on my fingers. Some of these same places keep hassling me even after I turn them down. I sometimes even forget to tell my husband when I get another one. They don’t seem to get it that I don’t want the trouble because there is no doubt in my mind that with that type of fame often comes hassle and trouble that is not worth the amount of money one might get in return. Very few people become high paying stars in their field.
Remember that no matter who you are or your opinions, it is easy to justify terrible acts if one feels they are morally superior or if someone convinces themselves that an act is for the greater good.
Moral justification is a powerful thing and incredibly dangerous. When you get right down to it, basically anything from treating someone poorly to outright atrocity and brutal violence can feel justified by someone if they feel it benefits the majority or that they are morally superior in some way. Remember that no matter who you are and where you live, there is someone out there that feels “above you” or better in some way. Most of the time it doesn’t really matter and everyone can just ignore each other for the most part but when emotions are high and things are in turmoil, this is a fact that you need to be very aware of.
Violence is easy to start and hard or even impossible to stop until it simply cannot go on any longer.
Going into an area purposefully where there is civil unrest increases your chances of experiencing violence. It only takes a small catalyst for an otherwise peaceful protest to turn into something awful that results in a lot of people injured or worse. Remember when a car backfiring caused a stampede of people in Times Square? A single fistfight at an event is sometimes all it takes to turn the tide and cause a snowball of violence.
You may not be able to talk someone out of committing violence.
I have been watching some videos online. Who hasn’t? One thing I have noticed is that there are plenty of people that have made efforts to talk others out of escalating situations and committing violence. Sometimes they are successful and sometimes they are not. These same people are actually putting themselves between others to try to prevent violence as well.
When it comes to friends and family, you may not be able to talk them out of going towards trouble and committing violent acts. They may not be planning violence outright but deep down they might be thinking about what they are going to do if things go a certain way. Emotions are high and a lot of people consider what is going on not just unrest but a revolution.
No matter where you stand on any major issue there are people that will try to trigger you and use your reaction against you.
One must be very careful about triggering. Plenty of people have been publicly shamed and humiliated after being manipulated into some type of reaction. Agitators can be extremely persistent. I also think it is worth mentioning that video is easy to edit. The right snippet can portray a very different scenario than what actually happened. Cutting and splicing audio is well within the skill set of most people if they want to do it.
Will an outburst do any good? You need to ask yourself this and think before you react. I have seen way too many videos here lately showing people taunting and trying to get someone to hit them on film. This is not good behavior no matter how strongly you feel. I completely support someone defending themselves from harm but trying to get someone to hit you merely because you disagree on something doesn’t solve anything at all.
Do not openly brandish firearms in public places unless your life is truly in danger and you must defend it.
There is a difference between a gun strapped to your belt and having one in hand that you wave about in an unsafe manner. Pointing a gun at someone will get you arrested. Even if there are open carry laws in your state, you can’t go waving them around at protests. Even if technically the protest is not sanctioned and the legalities get hazy, chances are you are going to bring a lot of trouble on yourself. Also just because you have a firearm doesn’t mean that a crowd can’t harm you.
I love having guns but one has to be careful about the amount of confidence they give some people to act in a more brash way. A gun is a defense tool and a darn good one but don’t make the mistake that it makes you untouchable in a crowd.
I think the advice I have been given since a child is good. Don’t point a gun at someone unless you are really serious about using it. Otherwise, keep it down and your finger not right on the trigger.
Other Tips and Bits of Advice
Plan your shopping and work commutes around areas of potential unrest.
You should carry a weapon or something for self-defense on you at all times. There are many options including pepper spray, tasers, and keychain weapons. A knife is an excellent choice, especially if you cannot carry a gun.
Keep a decent medical kit in your car or get home bag.
Try to keep the kids and the elderly at home. Sorry, but times like these may mean that you have to move fast. Also keep in mind that if you are worried about kids and elderly family members during civil unrest, it can lead to different decisions that don’t turn out good for anyone. Would you leave someone old behind to get trampled to save yourself? Of course not.
Talk honestly with your family about safety measures and avoiding trouble. Explain the risks and consequences.
Be prepared to answer some tough questions and offer a lot of advice to kids and teens. This is a very trying time to grow up in and a lot of them don’t know how to deal with all the emotions and propaganda that is being thrown at them.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/31sZLF3 Tyler Durden
Richest Liberal Arts School In US Slashes Tuition By 15%, Cancels Athletics Program Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/29/2020 – 22:35
The richest liberal arts university in the country, Williams College, has slashed tuition by 15% “in recognition of the extraordinary circumstances and of this academic year and the uncertainty we face in the year ahead,” according to Bloomberg.
Williams, which has a $2.9 billion endowment (as of June, 2019) will also be canceling sports competitions and travel for the season according to a Monday statement.
For the 2020-2021 academic year, Tuition, room and board will set back rich parents and lending institutions $63,200. Of note, four years at the university will set one back more than the average mortgage balance carried by millennials.
“This reduction recognizes the fact that the pandemic and associated challenges are requiring us to cancel winter study as well as fall athletics competition and many student activities, among other opportunities that we usually encourage families to expect as part of their student’s education,” said school President Maud Mandel.
Schools across the U.S. are coping with uncertainty for the year that begins in August or September as it’s largely unclear whether in-person courses will be offered given the rise in Covid-19 cases. Students at dozens of schools have already balked at the full price for last semester’s tuition with months of online classes, suing for billions of dollars in refunds. –Bloomberg
“In higher education, we’re trained to believe that expensive is good,” says Seton Hall University associate professor Robert Kelchen. “Now, in this economic crisis, families are more price-sensitive than they have been.”
Other colleges have made similar moves – including Davidson College in North Carolina, which announced in April that families would be allowed to postpone payments until August of 2021, and the College of William & Mary, which announced last month that incoming in-state undergraduates would no longer be subject to a tuition increase.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2CUIRoH Tyler Durden
There are few men in modern American history more venal than Former National Security Adviser John Bolton. Calling Bolton a relic of the Cold War in his outlook on foreign policy is a kindness.
Bolton is a dangerous and pathetic creature whose entire life is an example of how incomplete men with a talent for violence can rise in a late-stage cesspit of political corruption.
He is simply someone who has never been in a fight in his life who lusts for the power to kill, main and destroy anyone who dares challenge him. A pathology he’s had the dubious distinction of being able to act out in the real world on more than one occasion.
This will, hopefully, be the last article I write about his cretin because once his last fifteen minutes of fame are used up attacking President Trump in slavish interview after interview supporting his book, Bolton will be finished in Washington D.C.
This book is his gold watch for being a lifelong soldier in the service of the American empire and the neoconservative/neoliberal dream of global conquest. $2 million, a handful of residuals and a final victory lap for a life spent in pursuit of the subjugation of those he considers sub-human.
President Trump’s recent tweet about Bolton is a masterful bit of brevity being the soul of wit.
I gave John Bolton, who was incapable of being Senate confirmed because he was considered a wacko, and was not liked, a chance. I always like hearing differing points of view. He turned out to be grossly incompetent, and a liar. See judge’s opinion. CLASSIFIED INFORMATION!!!
And while Bolton spent the balance of his career in D.C. working nominally for Republicans, his lust for war served both parties equally well. That war lust was in service of the empire itself when Bolton was fired, and he turned against President Trump.
He was welcomed as a Hero of the Resistance by Democrats intent on impeaching the President after he was fired last year, one of the few good moments in Trump’s nearly four years at the helm of U.S. foreign policy. Given his involvement with Fiona Hill and Eric Chiaramella, the whistleblower whose testimony created the impeachment charges, Bolton really could be thought of as the architect of that process.
So, it’s no surprise that his book is welcomed as the gossip event of the summer by the media. But remember, this is a guy who refused to testify against Trump for Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff and that’s because he would have never stood up to cross-examination.
This is because, ultimately, John Bolton is a coward. And he’s the worst kind of coward. He’s the kind of man who deals underhandedly while hiding behind rhetoric in controlled environments to pursue his fever dreams of suppressing the Untermensch.
What we know now, thanks to Bolton’s unwillingness to keep his trap shut, is that things were as we suspected while he was in the White House. Every event that occurred was an excuse for Bolton to tell Trump to go to war. And every time Trump was led up to that trough to drink, he backed away causing Bolton’s mustache the worst case of sexual frustration.
Worse than that, Bolton sabotaged any hope of détente with Russia, North Korea and improving the situation in the Middle East. While he was right to hate Jared Kushner’s Deal of the Century for Israel/Palestine, he was instrumental in getting Trump to stay in Syria rather than turn over what’s left of its suppression to the people who actually want it to continue – Israel and Saudi Arabia.
In the end Bolton is really the best example I can come up with for the monolithic thinking that permeates D.C. Despite his best instincts, Trump took Bolton on because the potential talent pool is so thin.
Anyone with original ideas, such as Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, are more valuable in their current position rather than coming into an administration that is hamstrung by a permanent bureaucracy unwilling to change, or in open revolt.
There’s no profit for them to make the jump even if they wanted to.
This point has been in effect since before Trump took office when he wouldn’t stand behind his first National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, who is still embroiled in the worst The Swamp can throw at a person.
Progressives, liberals and anti-imperalists I implore you to stop allying with this creature of The Swamp in his quest to do damage to a president you hate. Because by doing so you are strengthening the very people who are the architects of the empire you believe you are fighting against.
Because that’s who John Bolton wrote this book for.
He didn’t write it for you.
Bolton will ultimately be a foot note in the history books. A man whose only claim to fame was failing to allow a president to make some peace with North Korea and set the U.S. on a path to complete alienation with the rest of the world.
Because of the neoconservatives’ intense war lust, as embodied by Bolton, it pushed Trump, already an arch-mercantilist, even farther along the path of using economic pressure to force change on the world stage.
But, as I’ve been saying for years now, that is a strategy just as ruinous in the long run for the U.S. as Bolton’s cowardice urging use of a military — which he refused to serve in — to do his dirty work for him.
These are both expressions of an empire which refuses to accept that it is in decline. And it has invited the chaos now evident in cities all across the U.S. as our wealth has been squandered on endless wars for regime change overseas while building a regulatory police state at home.
That helped pushed the militarization of our local police, further putting them in conflict with a domestic population growing more desperate and reactionary on both sides of the political aisle.
Bolton’s projection of all the U.S.’s ills onto countries with no real ability to harm us physically ultimately was not only his undoing with Trump but the U.S.’s undoing as a leader of the post-WWII order.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2BpnbAt Tyler Durden
