Government Employees Think People Hate Them. Increasingly, They’re Right

“People actively hate us,” one recently retired U.S. Border Patrol agent complains in a New York Times piece on morale and recruitment problems at the federal agency. In El Paso, an active duty agent admitted he and his colleagues avoid many restaurants because “there’s always the possibility of them spitting in your food.”

What’s remarkable about the piece isn’t the poor treatment directed at many Border Patrol agents; it’s that you could replace “Border Patrol” with the name of any one of several other federal agencies and find a similar news story from recent years. Many arms of government are unpopular with large swathes of the American population, and people are not shy about expressing their contempt.

For those of us who want a smaller, much less intrusive government, that should be viewed as a trend to nurture and encourage. And what a trend it is.

For instance, the tax man can’t catch a break.

“The IRS has long been disliked, but its employees aren’t used to being vilified,” Bloomberg reported in 2015, in language that foreshadowed current reports about the plight of immigration-law enforcers. One retired IRS agent told reporters that “throughout his career, he dealt with antigovernment tax avoiders in Arizona, but once the Tea Party scandal broke, his encounters with otherwise law-abiding ranchers became more hostile.”

Likewise, J. Edgar Hoover’s heirs have become controversial.

“Public support for the FBI has plunged,” Time noted last year after the famed law-enforcement agency’s ongoing series of fumbles and scandals were complicated by questions over its role in the 2016 presidential election. “The FBI’s crisis of credibility appears to have seeped into the jury room. The number of convictions in FBI-led investigations has declined in each of the last five years.”

That’s a lot of hate directed at these federal employees, but it’s not necessarily coming from the same people. Perhaps inevitably in these fractured and polarized times, Americans belonging to one of the dominant political tribes tend to like the federal agencies despised by loyalists of the opposing political tribe, depending on their mutually incompatible views of what government should be doing and who it should be doing it to. Their diverging antipathies fit together into a jigsaw puzzle of misery for government workers caught in the crossfire.

“Americans’ opinions about Immigration and Customs Enforcement are deeply polarized: 72% of Republicans view ICE favorably, while an identical share of Democrats view it unfavorably,” Pew Research Center reported last year on opinions about Border Patrol’s sister agency. With specific regard to Border Patrol, “Among Republican voters, 65% believe the enforcement is too lenient while just 12% say it is too harsh. Democrats are more divided but lean in the opposite direction: 40% say too harsh and 22% too lenient,” according to pollster Scott Rasmussen. The heated debate between the two legacy parties over immigration is reflected in their attitudes toward, and treatment of, government agencies tasked with enforcing immigration laws.

Opinions of the IRS reflect a similar divide. “Democrats (65%) are more likely than Republicans (49%) to view the IRS favorably,” Pew reported in the same 2018 survey. The numbers reflect not just long-time differences in views of taxation, but also Republican suspicion of the IRS after it was caught targeting conservative organizations.

It’s the same for the FBI. “The 23-percentage-point gap in views of the FBI among Republicans and Democrats is among the widest of the 10 agencies and departments asked in the survey,” Pew noted about the beleaguered law enforcement agency. “While 78% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents have a favorable opinion of the FBI, 55% of Republicans and Republican leaners say the same.”

Americans don’t agree about which federal agencies they hate, but the fact that significant numbers of them do openly despise government workers plays havoc with morale. That, in turn, slams employee retention and recruitment.

Border Patrol is about 1,800 agents short of its hiring targets, IRS workers are heading for the exits, and even the fabled FBI saw a drop in applications, despite a slight uptick this year in morale.

To be clear, federal agencies don’t need partisan animosity to make their employees unhappy; they’re awfully good at doing it by themselves. Transportation Security Administration workers are so miserable that a blue ribbon panel convened this year to brainstorm schemes for dragging them from the depths of despair. And the entire Department of Homeland Security makes a specialty of managerial incompetence so extreme that politicians seek to raise morale through—literally—an act of Congress (is there nothing beyond the magical power of legislation?).

But red vs. blue infighting creates a no-win situation in which American political factions fundamentally disagree over the role of government, despise those arms of government that serve their enemies’ purposes, and wield the agencies they control as weapons against anybody seen as opponents. It’s at least theoretically possible (if highly improbable) to make a generic federal agency a better place to work. But how do you get Americans to show respect to government workers who they see as engaged in evil?

So, given that those of us who want a smaller and less bothersome state are often deeply opposed to those agencies’ worst efforts, why not help the partisans lay on the hate? After all, the one thing that Republicans and Democrats seem to agree on is that government should be bigger and busier—”most either want to increase spending or maintain it at current levels,” pollsters found this year—though, of course, Republicans and Democrats disagree on just where our huge and debt-ridden government should become more involved.

Helping the major political tribes attack each other’s favored agencies won’t formally reduce government the way libertarians like, but it could continue to hobble agencies so that they’re less of a threat to our freedom and rights. At least for now, the most effective means of protecting liberty may lie less in winning political battles than in assisting the major partisan tribes in waging war against each other and the government agencies they currently disfavor.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34SRPw4
via IFTTT

Trump Sues Manhattan D.A. In Response To Subpoenas

Trump Sues Manhattan D.A. In Response To Subpoenas

And now a plot twist: with Trump under relentless attack for the past three years to disclose his tax returns, on Thursday morning the president struck back, suing Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance to block an attempt by New York state prosecutors to obtain eight years of the president’s tax returns in a probe of whether the Trump Organization falsified business records.   

“In response to the subpoenas issued by the New York County District Attorney, we have filed a lawsuit this morning in federal court on behalf of the President in order to address the significant constitutional issues at stake in this case,” Trump attorney Jay Sekulow said in a statement, according to Bloomberg

The subpoena was issued by the Manhattan DA’s office last month following the launch of a criminal investigation into hush-money payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels (real name Stephanie Clifford) by former Trump attorney Michael Cohen – who pleaded guilty last year to eight charges; seven of which were unrelated to the Trump campaign, and one for breaking federal campaign finance laws. He is currently serving a three-year prison sentence. 

Vance’s office wants to determine whether Trump’s accounting firm falsely accounted for Cohen’s reimbursements as a legal expense

In New York, filing a false business record can be a crime.

But it becomes a felony only if prosecutors can prove that the false filing was made to commit or conceal another crime, such as tax violations or bank fraud. The tax returns and other documents sought from Mazars could shed light on whether any state laws were broken. Such subpoenas also routinely request related documents in connection with the returns. –New York Times

In July, Trump sued House Democrats, along with New York AG Letitia James and NY tax commissioner Michael Schmidt in an effort to block them from releasing his tax returns. 

In June, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the TRUST Act – which permits tax officials to turn over Trump’s state tax returns to any or all of t hree congressional committees. In his July lawsuit, Trump alleged that the House Ways and Means Committee’s invocation of the Trust act would “lack a legitimate legislative purpose,” adding that the law violates the First Amendment since the state of New York “enacted it to discriminate and retaliate against President Trump for his speech and politics.”

That said, while Trump and the Treasury Department have proven thus far successful in thwarting Democratic lawmakers’ inquiries, it may not be as easy to fend off a subpoena in Manhattan

According to Trump’s accounting firm Mazars, they will “will respect the legal process and fully comply with its legal obligations,” adding that the company was legally prohibited from commenting on its work. 

If the Manhattan DA is able to obtain Trump’s tax returns, the Times notes that “the documents would be covered by secrecy rules governing grand juries, meaning they would not become public unless they were used as evidence in a criminal case.”


Tyler Durden

Thu, 09/19/2019 – 11:15

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2O6gxmR Tyler Durden

There Are 2 Ways That Benjamin Netanyahu Could Remain Prime Minister Of Israel

There Are 2 Ways That Benjamin Netanyahu Could Remain Prime Minister Of Israel

Authored by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,

In the aftermath of the tightest election that Israel has seen in a long time, headlines all over the world are boldly declaring that “the Netanyahu era is over”.  But that is not necessarily true.  At this point it is going to be exceedingly difficult for anyone to put together a governing coalition, and as I will explain in this article, there are still a couple of ways that Benjamin Netanyahu could hold on to power.  This is a drama that is probably going to take an extended period of time to unfold, and Avigdor Lieberman is in the catbird seat.  The decisions that he makes in the coming days are going to be absolutely critical.

Let’s start by talking about the election results.  With over 90 percent of the vote counted, the Blue and White party (Kahol Lavan) and Likud have almost the same number of seats

With 91 percent of the votes counted, Kahol Lavan has won 32 out of 120 Knesset seats, with Likud behind with 31 seats. Netanyahu’s bloc, comprised of right-wing and ultra-Orthodox parties, currently stands at 55 seats. The center-left bloc has 56 seats.

Avigdor Lieberman, whose Yisrael Beiteinu party is projected to have nine seats, is expected to be the election’s kingmaker. On Wednesday morning, he reiterated his support for a “broad liberal unity government,” which would include Yisrael Beiteinu, Likud and Kahol Lavan.

It may look like the Blue and White Party is just a few seats away from establishing a governing coalition, but that is not true at all.

The “56 seats” projected above includes the 13 seats won by the Joint List of Arab parties, and Benny Gantz has already ruled out any coalition that includes them.

Plus, if Gantz tried to include them in any coalition, he would immediately lose any hope of attracting Lieberman.

So at this point, it appears exceedingly unlikely that Gantz can get to the 61 seats that he needs to become the prime minister.

Of course things don’t look promising for Netanyahu either, and as a result he felt forced to cancel his visit to the UN next week

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday canceled a visit to the United Nations General Assembly in New York next week amid political uncertainty in Israel, where he appeared to fall short of a government majority in national elections.

With just 55 seats, Netanyahu’s coalition is 6 seats short of a governing majority, and so the answer would seem to be to pull in Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party.

But Lieberman and Netanyahu had a major falling out last November when Netanyahu refused to go to war with Hamas.  Lieberman promptly resigned as defense minister, and he now says that he will not join any coalition if Netanyahu is the prime minister.

Things certainly look bleak for now, but could it be possible that Netanyahu could find a way to repair that relationship?

Maybe, but he would almost certainly have to give Lieberman just about everything that he wants, and that would include a military invasion of Gaza.  Lieberman is literally holding Netanyahu’s political future in his hands, and he knows it.  He may never have this sort of leverage ever again, and Lieberman is the sort of politician that will squeeze as much juice out of this moment as he possibly can.

If Netanyahu can persuade Lieberman to join his coalition, and that is a very big “if”, then Netanyahu will get another term as prime minister.

The other way that Netanyahu could remain prime minister is if nobody is able to form a coalition and another election is held a few months from now.

A lot can change in a few months, and Netanyahu could try to rectify the mistakes that he made this time around.  In an article that he posted before the election, Jerry Golden explained why so many conservative Israelis are upset with Netanyahu

A lot of Israelis are very upset with Netanyahu for not taking out Hamas after the last 700 missiles fired into our civilian population from Gaza. He knows he is in trouble and many of us here are very concerned that because of the dissatisfaction with him the liberals will win the election tomorrow.

He is now saying if he wins he will annex all the land of Judea and Samaria and even Hebron, along with the Jordan Valley. The problem is he has had around ten years to do all these and didn’t. Now many believe it is just out of desperation that he is saying these things “again”.

If no governing coalition is formed, Netanyahu could theoretically use the time period before the next election to conduct a military invasion of Gaza.  This would win him back a large number of conservative votes, and that might be enough to propel him to another term as prime minister.

In any event, it appears that a military invasion of Gaza is probably coming sooner rather than later, and that means that our relationship with Israel is likely to be a very hot political issue during the 2020 U.S. election cycle.

Unfortunately, anti-Semitism is on the rise all over the nation.  In fact, one recent study found that anti-Israel attitudes are rising dramatically on our college campuses

Direct targeting of Israel’s supporters for harm, especially Jewish students, reached alarming rates: acts accusing Jewish and pro-Israel students of supporting racism, genocide and other evils more than doubled; 47% increase linking Jewish and pro-Israel students to “white supremacy”; attempts to exclude Jewish and pro-Israel students from campus activities more than doubled, with expression calling for the total boycott or exclusion of pro-Israel students from campus life nearly tripling.

Israel is roughly the size of New Jersey, it has a population of less than 10 million people, and yet it is constantly at the center of the world’s attention.  Millions upon millions of people greatly love Israel, millions upon millions of people greatly hate Israel, and it is going to play a critical role in the global drama that is currently unfolding all around us.

And as this drama continues to play out in the years ahead, it is entirely possible that Benjamin Netanyahu will still be the prime minister.

We shall see what happens during the coming days, but the truth is that this game is far from over.


Tyler Durden

Thu, 09/19/2019 – 10:55

Tags

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

The Growing Right-Wing Threat to Campus Free Speech

When it comes to free speech on American campuses, there seems to be a law of conservation at work: Just when the internal threat of censorship from left-wing campus activists is abating, the external threat from right-wing lawmakers starts rising. Given that the new threat relies not on the decibel level of immature 18-year-olds but the state power of motivated adults, it may be much harder to fight.

Concerns about political correctness on campus date back at least 25 years before Philip Roth wrote The Human Stain, his brilliant novel depicting the travails of a half-black classics professor pretending to be Jewish who gets summarily fired after black students take offense over his use of the word “spooks.” But after a brief hiatus, these concerns came back with a vengeance in the last decade, at least partly because a well-oiled right-wing machine emerged to pounce on every student transgression—big and small, real and imagined, in order to paint a picture of a “free speech crisis” in academia.

Consider the experience of Ursinus College’s Jonathan Marks, a conservative professor who writes extensively about higher education: He recounts with amusement how first The College Fix, a right-wing campus watchdog website, and then Breitbart picked up a piece he wrote for Commentary earlier this year making fun of California State Fresno’s new faculty and staff rules prescribing that “everyone be nice to each other.” Both outfits distorted the story and blamed students who had nothing to do with the rules, because that was better aligned with their narrative of easily triggered snowflakes demanding safe spaces. The College Fix appended a grudging “update” after some coaxing from Marks, but Breitbart didn’t bother. “If you investigated the dental profession with as much intensity as college campuses and devoted entire websites to covering it, you could come up with lots of bad things too,” he laughs.

Though the notion of a campus free speech crisis may be overblown, it’s still a problem. Otherwise, New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait, a liberal, wouldn’t write about the damage that a culture rife with trigger warnings and microaggressions does to the cause of free and open dialogue. Vox even thought it fit to run a piece by a liberal professor under a pseudonym complaining that some of his liberal students “terrify” him.

But regardless of how one characterizes what’s transpiring on campuses, there are encouraging signs that things are getting better.

A report last year by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), an outfit that does yeoman’s work tracking the threats to free speech in colleges, found that the percentage of institutions with speech codes “that clearly and substantially restrict freedom of speech,” a genuine problem in the 1990s, had diminished by 42 percentage points since 2009 in the sample it surveyed. Even better, 37 universities earned its green light rating for having no speech codes whatsoever compared to merely eight in 2009. Meanwhile, 27 schools or faculty bodies embraced University of Chicago’s widely-praised free speech principles—up from just seven the year before. The principles reaffirm the university’s commitment to stand firm against the disinvitation of controversial speakers or disruption of events.

There is more good news on the disinvitation front: After peaking in 2016 at 43 disinvitations, the number plummeted to 18 last year, according to FIRE’s non-comprehensive tracking list. This year, the disinvitation number has moved up to 30—including 13 leftist speakers—but that’s still lower than the peak. The most likely reason for the overall drop isn’t self-censorship or state laws protecting campus speech, Acadia University’s Jeffrey Adam Sachs has convincingly argued. Rather, it is a combination of boredom over the tactics of campus yahoos and a new culture of campus tolerance with students forming clubs and networks to promote respectful cross-political dialogue. It also helps that, unlike 2016, this is not a polarizing presidential election year.

But even as universities are beginning to defuse the threat to free speech from leftist radicals on campus, they are facing new ones from right-wing lawmakers off campus.

Conservatives warn day and night about liberal political correctness but give scarcely a thought to how their own brand of patriotic correctness stifles free expression. If they did, they wouldn’t be instigating anti-flag-burning amendments on a regular basis. And they certainly wouldn’t have stood squarely behind this president when he berated 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick for kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality and demanded that the NFL fire him.

Nor are conservative lawmakers shy about launching their own jihad on academic freedom to squelch professors or viewpoints they dislike.

There is a rising trend that goes something like this, as per New York University’s Jonathan Haidt: A left-wing professor says something provocative on social media or elsewhere and the right-wing media goes into overdrive, covering the story ad nauseum to gin up viewer outrage. Republican politicos jump in and demand action. University administrators, terrified of the PR damage but unworried about academic freedom, put the professor on leave and begin the “process of termination,” especially if the professor isn’t tenured. (Haidt, incidentally, is no liberal pleader. He is a celebrity in conservative circles because he founded the highly respected Heterodox Academy, whose purpose is to address the lack of intellectual diversity on liberal-dominated campuses.)

In just the last six months, Acadia University’s Sachs has documented several incidents in Iowa, California, and Connecticut that fit exactly this pattern.

In another incident just last month, the University of Alabama fired Jamie R. Riley, its black assistant vice president and dean of students, after Breitbart exposed past tweets in which Riley criticized the American flag and made a connection between police and racism. Meanwhile, the chief of staff of Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R–Neb.) personally called and threatened University of Nebraska Professor Ari Kohen for “liking” a Facebook post depicting a defaced campaign sign of the congressman showing googly eyes and calling him Fartenberry. The staffer accused Kohen of encouraging “vandalism,” arguably an attempt at chilling speech.

It isn’t just professors that Republicans are going after. In January, FIRE had to send a cease-and-desist letter to the University of Georgia after it invited an investigation by the state’s Republican attorney general into a philosophy graduate student who called white people “crappy” at a meeting.

Meanwhile, bills are proliferating across Republican-controlled states such as Wisconsin requiring universities to expel students engaging in “disruptive” protests, which could potentially include anything from loud clapping to walkouts, according to the ACLU. Also in Wisconsin, a Republican lawmaker threatened to cut the University of Wisconsin’s budget over an “obscene” reading assignment aimed at exploring how sexual preferences can lead to racial segregation in the gay community.

In another disturbing incident, Rep. Ted Budd (R–N.C.), successfully petitioned the Department of Education secretary to investigate Duke University and the University of North Carolina to ensure that the $235,000 grant that the universities’ Middle East consortium received isn’t being used to promote “anti-Israel bias.”

Conservatives pose as the guardians of free speech against the excesses of political correctness. Yet they have few qualms about deploying the purse and power of the state to police the boundaries of acceptable speech and speakers. It is too bad that conservatives’ threat of censorship is heating up just when campus snowflakes are showing signs of melting away.

A version of this column originally appeared in The Week.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2V5SgPm
via IFTTT

Third Image Surfaces Of Trudeau Wearing ‘Blackface’

Third Image Surfaces Of Trudeau Wearing ‘Blackface’

Following last night’ revelation that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wore ‘brownface’ during a yearbook photo from a school he taught at until 2001, several other photos and video purporting to show the PM in ‘black/brownface’ have been unearthed by the press. The most recent to hit is a video showing what appears to be a high school-aged Trudeau wearing what looks like head to toe ‘blackface’ makeup.

During an apology released last night, Trudeau confessed that he had worn the ‘makeup’ on several other occasions, and that there might be other images, including snaps from a high school talent show where Trudeau sang Harry Belafonte’s “the Banana Boat Song (Day Oh)” in blackface.

After the corruption scandal involving SNC-Lavalin broke, Trudeau’s poll ratings slid, but they haven’t moved much from lows they reached earlier this year.

Trudeau and his Liberal Party are still tied with the Conservatives, with 34% of the vote each, according to the latest poll (which, of course, took place before the scandal was made public).

As one twitter wit pointed out, Trudeau probably should have worked up a better strategy for getting this news in front of the public.

The video, obtained exclusively by Global News shows Trudeau covered in what appears to be ‘blackface’ makeup raising his hands in the air while laughing, sticking his tongue out and making faces. He’s wearing a white T-shirt, and his jeans are ripped at the knees. The extremely childish display was made worse by the fact that Trudeau’s limbs, including his arms and legs, are also covered in makeup.

The video doesn’t appear to be have been shot at the same location as where the other photos were taken.

This is the third image of him to be verified by the Liberal Party’s comms department.

The Liberal party referred Global News to his Wednesday night apology when asked about the new video.
Trudeau apologized Wednesday, saying that at the time, he didn’t think his actions were racist. Now, he said, he recognizes wearing brownface is racist and regrets his actions.

“I shouldn’t have done that,” he said. “I should have known better but I didn’t and I’m really sorry.”

Another photo has been produced of Trudeau in the ‘Arabian Nights’ getup that was reportedly found in an old school newspaper.

In the second photo, Trudeau has his arms around what appears to be two Sikh colleagues.

Then, of course, there’s the original, where three lovely ladies are flanking Trudeau, who is apparently reveling in his status as the PM’s son.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh made an emotional statement after the first photo was made public, bashing Trudeau for his offensive comments.

Singh said it’s up to Canadians, not him, to decide whether Trudeau deserves forgiveness.

“I have to really point out what we’re seeing now is an ongoing pattern of behavior that’s really going to hurt Canadians,” he said. “They’re going to see the prime minister mocking the realities that so many Canadians live with. And it is not a joke.”


Tyler Durden

Thu, 09/19/2019 – 10:36

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3090AUc Tyler Durden

The Growing Right-Wing Threat to Campus Free Speech

When it comes to free speech on American campuses, there seems to be a law of conservation at work: Just when the internal threat of censorship from left-wing campus activists is abating, the external threat from right-wing lawmakers starts rising. Given that the new threat relies not on the decibel level of immature 18-year-olds but the state power of motivated adults, it may be much harder to fight.

Concerns about political correctness on campus date back at least 25 years before Philip Roth wrote The Human Stain, his brilliant novel depicting the travails of a half-black classics professor pretending to be Jewish who gets summarily fired after black students take offense over his use of the word “spooks.” But after a brief hiatus, these concerns came back with a vengeance in the last decade, at least partly because a well-oiled right-wing machine emerged to pounce on every student transgression—big and small, real and imagined, in order to paint a picture of a “free speech crisis” in academia.

Consider the experience of Ursinus College’s Jonathan Marks, a conservative professor who writes extensively about higher education: He recounts with amusement how first The College Fix, a right-wing campus watchdog website, and then Breitbart picked up a piece he wrote for Commentary earlier this year making fun of California State Fresno’s new faculty and staff rules prescribing that “everyone be nice to each other.” Both outfits distorted the story and blamed students who had nothing to do with the rules, because that was better aligned with their narrative of easily triggered snowflakes demanding safe spaces. The College Fix appended a grudging “update” after some coaxing from Marks, but Breitbart didn’t bother. “If you investigated the dental profession with as much intensity as college campuses and devoted entire websites to covering it, you could come up with lots of bad things too,” he laughs.

Though the notion of a campus free speech crisis may be overblown, it’s still a problem. Otherwise, New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait, a liberal, wouldn’t write about the damage that a culture rife with trigger warnings and microaggressions does to the cause of free and open dialogue. Vox even thought it fit to run a piece by a liberal professor under a pseudonym complaining that some of his liberal students “terrify” him.

But regardless of how one characterizes what’s transpiring on campuses, there are encouraging signs that things are getting better.

A report last year by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), an outfit that does yeoman’s work tracking the threats to free speech in colleges, found that the percentage of institutions with speech codes “that clearly and substantially restrict freedom of speech,” a genuine problem in the 1990s, had diminished by 42 percentage points since 2009 in the sample it surveyed. Even better, 37 universities earned its green light rating for having no speech codes whatsoever compared to merely eight in 2009. Meanwhile, 27 schools or faculty bodies embraced University of Chicago’s widely-praised free speech principles—up from just seven the year before. The principles reaffirm the university’s commitment to stand firm against the disinvitation of controversial speakers or disruption of events.

There is more good news on the disinvitation front: After peaking in 2016 at 43 disinvitations, the number plummeted to 18 last year, according to FIRE’s non-comprehensive tracking list. This year, the disinvitation number has moved up to 30—including 13 leftist speakers—but that’s still lower than the peak. The most likely reason for the overall drop isn’t self-censorship or state laws protecting campus speech, Acadia University’s Jeffrey Adam Sachs has convincingly argued. Rather, it is a combination of boredom over the tactics of campus yahoos and a new culture of campus tolerance with students forming clubs and networks to promote respectful cross-political dialogue. It also helps that, unlike 2016, this is not a polarizing presidential election year.

But even as universities are beginning to defuse the threat to free speech from leftist radicals on campus, they are facing new ones from right-wing lawmakers off campus.

Conservatives warn day and night about liberal political correctness but give scarcely a thought to how their own brand of patriotic correctness stifles free expression. If they did, they wouldn’t be instigating anti-flag-burning amendments on a regular basis. And they certainly wouldn’t have stood squarely behind this president when he berated 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick for kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality and demanded that the NFL fire him.

Nor are conservative lawmakers shy about launching their own jihad on academic freedom to squelch professors or viewpoints they dislike.

There is a rising trend that goes something like this, as per New York University’s Jonathan Haidt: A left-wing professor says something provocative on social media or elsewhere and the right-wing media goes into overdrive, covering the story ad nauseum to gin up viewer outrage. Republican politicos jump in and demand action. University administrators, terrified of the PR damage but unworried about academic freedom, put the professor on leave and begin the “process of termination,” especially if the professor isn’t tenured. (Haidt, incidentally, is no liberal pleader. He is a celebrity in conservative circles because he founded the highly respected Heterodox Academy, whose purpose is to address the lack of intellectual diversity on liberal-dominated campuses.)

In just the last six months, Acadia University’s Sachs has documented several incidents in Iowa, California, and Connecticut that fit exactly this pattern.

In another incident just last month, the University of Alabama fired Jamie R. Riley, its black assistant vice president and dean of students, after Breitbart exposed past tweets in which Riley criticized the American flag and made a connection between police and racism. Meanwhile, the chief of staff of Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R–Neb.) personally called and threatened University of Nebraska Professor Ari Kohen for “liking” a Facebook post depicting a defaced campaign sign of the congressman showing googly eyes and calling him Fartenberry. The staffer accused Kohen of encouraging “vandalism,” arguably an attempt at chilling speech.

It isn’t just professors that Republicans are going after. In January, FIRE had to send a cease-and-desist letter to the University of Georgia after it invited an investigation by the state’s Republican attorney general into a philosophy graduate student who called white people “crappy” at a meeting.

Meanwhile, bills are proliferating across Republican-controlled states such as Wisconsin requiring universities to expel students engaging in “disruptive” protests, which could potentially include anything from loud clapping to walkouts, according to the ACLU. Also in Wisconsin, a Republican lawmaker threatened to cut the University of Wisconsin’s budget over an “obscene” reading assignment aimed at exploring how sexual preferences can lead to racial segregation in the gay community.

In another disturbing incident, Rep. Ted Budd (R–N.C.), successfully petitioned the Department of Education secretary to investigate Duke University and the University of North Carolina to ensure that the $235,000 grant that the universities’ Middle East consortium received isn’t being used to promote “anti-Israel bias.”

Conservatives pose as the guardians of free speech against the excesses of political correctness. Yet they have few qualms about deploying the purse and power of the state to police the boundaries of acceptable speech and speakers. It is too bad that conservatives’ threat of censorship is heating up just when campus snowflakes are showing signs of melting away.

A version of this column originally appeared in The Week.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2V5SgPm
via IFTTT

Democrats Smell Blood After Whistleblower Says Trump Made Troubling ‘Promise’ To Foreign Leader

Democrats Smell Blood After Whistleblower Says Trump Made Troubling ‘Promise’ To Foreign Leader

Congressional Democrats led by Rep. Adam Schiff are salivating over an August 12 whistleblower complaint by an intelligence officer over a ‘troubling promise’ President Trump allegedly made to a foreign leader during a phone call. 

It is not clear which foreign leader Trump was speaking with, or what was promised, according to the Washington Post – however the complaint itself has given the president’s opponents a brand new ‘gotcha’ to chase in their quest to bring Trump down. 

What’s more, acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire has been refusing to share details about the phone call with lawmakers.

Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson determined that the complaint was credible and troubling enough to be considered a matter of “urgent concern,” a legal threshold that requires notification of congressional oversight committees.

But acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire has refused to share details about Trump’s alleged transgression with lawmakers, touching off a legal and political dispute that has spilled into public view and prompted speculation that the spy chief is improperly protecting the president. –WaPo

And as NBC News reports, over the last several days “the secret whistleblower complaint has been the subject of an increasingly acrimonious standoff between the acting intelligence chief and Schiff, who has demanded Maguire’s testimony and a copy of the complaint.” 

Maguire has agreed to testify publicly next week, Schiff announced Wednesday, saying in a statement that the Inspector General “determined that this complaint is both credible and urgent,” adding “The committee places the highest importance on the protection of whistleblowers and their complaints to Congress.”

The matter burst into public view Friday, when Schiff disclosed that an unspecified whistleblower complaint had been filed with the inspector general of the intelligence community, but was being withheld from his committee. That independent watchdog deemed the matter an “urgent concern” that he was required by law to turn over to the congressional intelligence committees.

But Maguire, after consulting with the Justice Department, overruled him, according to a series of letters between a DNI lawyer and Schiff that have been made public. –NBC News

According to Schiff, withholding the information from the House Intelligence Committee he chairs is illegal – and has raised questions over a potential coverup

Piecing it together:

The Washington Post noted in their report that President Trump had conversations or interactions with “at least five foreign leaders in the preceding five weeks,” including a call with Russian President Vladimir Putin on July 31. 

In fact, here’s Trump’s schedule since June 11, per the Post (which is absolutely creaming in their pencil-fit jeans over this story right now). 

***

June 11: Trump says he has received another “beautiful” letter from Kim. Trump also responds to news that Kim’s assassinated half brother was a CIA asset by saying he would tell Kim, “I wouldn’t let that happen under my auspices.”

June 18: Trump holds a call with Chinese President Xi Jinping about the ongoing U.S.-China trade war.

June 27-29: Trump attends the Group of 20 summit in Osaka, Japan. There, he holds bilateral meetings with foreign officials including Xi, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

June 30: Trump meets with Kim in the demilitarized zone and briefly becomes the first sitting U.S. president to set foot on North Korean soil.

July 1: Trump holds a phone call with French President Emmanuel Macron, which covers topics including Iran, the G-20 and Trump’s meeting with Kim, according to a readout from the White House.

July 9: Trump meets with the emir of Qatar, Tamim Bin Hamad Al Thani

July 18: Trump meets with Netherlands Prime Minister Mark Rutte.

July 22: Trump meets with Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan.

July 28: Trump announces Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats will resign in August.

July 31: Trump holds a phone call with Putin. The call is first reported by the Russians. The White House doesn’t confirm it till late that evening, saying Trump “expressed concern over the vast wildfires afflicting Siberia” and, “The leaders also discussed trade between the two countries.” The Russians, in a much more substantial readout, claim Trump and Putin also spoke about restoring full relations one day.

July 31: Trump meets with President Khaltmaagiin Battulga of Mongolia.

Aug. 2: The United States officially withdraws from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with Russia, as had been previously announced.

Aug. 2: Trump announces a trade deal alongside European Union leaders Stavros Lambrinidis (the E.U. ambassador to the United States) and Jani Raappana (deputy head of mission for the Finnish presidency of the Council of the E.U.).

Aug. 8: After Trump’s pick of Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Tex.) to replace Coats falls through, Trump announces Joseph Maguire would take on the role in an acting capacity. In doing so, he bypassed Sue Gordon, who had been Coats’s No. 2 at DNI and was a career intelligence official with bipartisan support. Gordon would also resign.

Aug. 9: A brief letter from Gordon to Trump is released. It makes her disappointment clear, “I offer this letter as an act of respect & patriotism, not preference,” she writes. “You should have your team.

Aug. 12: Whistleblower files complaint.

Sept. 13: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) subpoenas Maguire to compel him to disclose the whistleblower complaint. Schiff says the complaint was determined to be “credible” by Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, but doesn’t say much more.

Sept. 17: Maguire says he will not testify or hand over the whistleblower complaint. Schiff said Maguire told him he couldn’t “because he is being instructed not to, that this involved a higher authority, someone above.”

Sept. 18: The Post reports the complaint involves Trump’s communications with a foreign leader and some kind of “promise” that was made

***

Did Trump offer to do something after the 2020 election when he’d have more flexibility or something?


Tyler Durden

Thu, 09/19/2019 – 10:24

Tags

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2M1dvNZ Tyler Durden

Existing Home Sales Rise At Fastest Rate In Over 2 Years

Existing Home Sales Rise At Fastest Rate In Over 2 Years

On the heels of tumbling mortgage rates, existing home sales jumped 1.3% MoM in August (notably better than the expected 0.7% drop) pushing the annual rise to +2.6% – the biggest rise in sales since May 2017.

Source: Bloomberg

This is the highest level of existing home sales SAAR since March 2018.

Source: Bloomberg

And all this as the median home price rose 4.7% from last year to $278,200 as multi-family units led the rise in sales (+1.7% MoM) vs +1.2% MoM for single-family homes.

The question is – how sustainable is this improvement given the carnage in bond markets in September?

 


Tyler Durden

Thu, 09/19/2019 – 10:08

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2MeYtV9 Tyler Durden

Former Overstock CEO Byrne Dumps $90 Million Stock Gains Into Gold, Crypto “Out Of Reach Of Deep State”

Former Overstock CEO Byrne Dumps $90 Million Stock Gains Into Gold, Crypto “Out Of Reach Of Deep State”

After falling out of favor with shareholders over his company’s poor stock performance, comments about the “deep state” and his alleged relationship with Russian honeypot Marina Butina, Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne announced his resignation weeks ago.

And now, it looks like Byrne has finally checked out completely: on Wednesday after hours, he filed a Form 4 showing that he had sold his entire ~$90 million stake in the company into the stock’s recent squeeze as lending desks struggled to figure out how to handle the company’s recently proposed “digital dividend”.

His Form 4 showed that he sold about 4.8 million shares over the course of the past three trading sessions. His remaining 87,000 shares were given as a gift to an undisclosed recipient. 

Then, in a blog post on his site Deep Capture, Byrne blamed the SEC, who he called “the Deep State’s pets”, according to MarketWatch

The “digital dividend” that Byrne left in his wake to his shareholders could only be accessed through Overstock’s blockchain based exchange and required the holder to retain the asset for 6 months. Many thought it was an attempt to squeeze shorts and, if it was, it worked. Overstock stock shot from about $15 on September 4 to a high of almost $30 on September 13 as shorts covered in an attempt to avoid having to deal with the dividend. 

But on Wednesday, Overstock had to walk back some of their plans, announcing that the dividend would be freely tradable upon its issue. The company suggested that the change was a reaction to “feedback we received from industry participants, investors and regulators.” The company also moved back the date of the distribution and promised to announce a new record date in 3 to 6 weeks.

On his blog, Byrne said that the pressure to change the digital dividend came from the “Deep State’s pets”:

“We heard over the weekend that starting last Friday, the Deep State’s pets at the SEC began leaking something to their clients JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman (and here as citizens I bet you thought we were their clients, right? lol). They leaked that they were going to Bazoomba our digital dividend. Once that started getting back to me, I realized this: Whenever I have had any question about whether the SEC would or would not do something totally outrageous in order to hurt our company to benefit their clients on Wall Street, they never let me down: they always did the evil thing.”

Byrne said the assertion that he sold his shares due to lack of confidence in the company was “wrong” and said he would be using his newfound riches to invest in gold, silver and two unnamed cryptocurrencies as a “hedge” against the economy failing. He also promised that if Overstock failed due to the broader economy failing, that he would use his gains from his hedges to recapitalize the company.

“…after paying tens of millions in taxes (after all, “We didn’t build that,” right?) by Friday the rest will be in investments that are counter-cyclical to the economy: Gold, silver, and two flavors of crypto. The gold and silver are stored outside of the United States, in Switzerland, and within two weeks, will be scattered in other locations that are even more outside of the reach of the Deep State, but are places that are safe for me.

The crypto is stored in the place where all crypto is stored: in mathematical mist, behind long keys held only in the memory of someone who is quite good at storing such things in memory (with paper backups in the hands of a priest I met 35 years ago who never sits foot in the West). “

These acts, Byrne continued, accomplish a critical obvjective: 

”You will have not just access to capital, you will have access to the friendliest capital imaginable: my own. I have to wait six months for it to be legal, but anytime after March 17, 2020 I can provide a capital injection if needed by buying back into Overstock. Please remember that as you watch the global chaos.”

Meanwhile, the SEC has had an ongoing investigation into Overstock’s tZero blockchain subsidiary and its token security offering since February 2018. Overstock disclosed in May that the SEC had expanded its investigation to include certain public statements made by the company. 


Tyler Durden

Thu, 09/19/2019 – 09:51

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/30a67db Tyler Durden

The Paradoxical Instability Of Fed-Induced ‘Stability’

The Paradoxical Instability Of Fed-Induced ‘Stability’

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

“Only those that risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go.” – T.S. Eliot

Well, this certainly seems to be the path that the Federal Reserve, and global Central Banks, have decided take.

Yesterday, the Fed lowered interest rates by a quarter-point and maintained their “dovish” stance but suggested they are open to “allowing the balance sheet to grow.” While this isn’t anything more than just stopping Q.T. entirely, the markets took this as a sign that Q.E. is just around the corner.

That expectation is likely misguided as the Fed seems completely unconcerned of any recessionary impact in the near-term. However, such has always been the case, historically speaking, just before the onset of a recession. This is because the Fed, and economists in general, make predictions based on lagging data which is subject to large future revisions. Regardless, the outcome of the Fed’s monetary policies has always been, without exception, either poor, or disastrous.

“In the U.S., the Federal Reserve has been the catalyst behind every preceding financial event since they became ‘active,’ monetarily policy-wise, in the late 70’s. As shown in the chart below, when the Fed has lifted the short-term lending rates to a level higher than the 2-year rate, bad ‘stuff’ has historically followed.”

The idea of pushing limits to extremes also applies to stock market investors. As we pointed out on Tuesday, the risks of a liquidity-driven event have increased markedly in recent months. Yet, despite the apparent risk, investors have virtually “no fear.” (Bullish advances are supported by extremely low levels of volatility below the long-term average of 19.)

First, “record levels” of anything are records for a reason. It is where the point where previous limits were reached. Therefore, when a ‘record level’ is reached, it is NOT THE BEGINNING, but rather an indication of the MATURITY of a cycle. While the media has focused on employment, record stock market levels, etc. as a sign of an ongoing economic recovery, history suggests caution.”

In the “rush to be bullish” this a point often missed. When markets are hitting “record levels,” it is when investors get “the most bullish.” That is the case currently with retail investors “all in.”

Conversely, they are the most “bearish” at the lows.

It is just human nature.

“What we call the beginning is often the end. And to make an end is to make a beginning. The end is where we start from.” – T.S. Eliot

The point here is that “all things do come to an end.” The further from the “mean” something has gotten, the greater the reversion is going to be. The two charts below illustrate this point clearly.

Bull markets, with regularity, are almost entirely wiped out by the subsequent bear market.

Despite the best of intentions, market participants never act rationally.

Neither do consumers.

The Instability Of Stability

This is the problem facing the Fed.

Currently, investors have been led to believe that no matter what happens, the Fed can bail out the markets and keep the bull market going for a while longer. Or rather, as Dr. Irving Fisher once uttered:

“Stocks have reached a permanently high plateau.”

Interestingly, the Fed is dependent on both market participants, and consumers, believing in this idea. As we have noted previously, with the entirety of the financial ecosystem now more heavily levered than ever, due to the Fed’s profligate measures of suppressing interest rates and flooding the system with excessive levels of liquidity, the “instability of stability” is now the most significant risk.

The “stability/instability paradox” assumes that all players are rational and such rationality implies an avoidance of complete destruction. In other words, all players will act rationally, and no one will push “the big red button.”

The Fed is highly dependent on this assumption as it provides the “room” needed, after more than 10-years of the most unprecedented monetary policy program in U.S. history, to try and navigate the risks that have built up in the system.

Simply, the Fed is dependent on “everyone acting rationally.”

Unfortunately, that has never been the case.

The behavioral biases of individuals is one of the most serious risks facing the Fed. Throughout history, as noted above, the Fed’s actions have repeatedly led to negative outcomes despite the best of intentions.

  • In the early 70’s it was the “Nifty Fifty” stocks,

  • Then Mexican and Argentine bonds a few years after that

  • “Portfolio Insurance” was the “thing” in the mid -80’s

  • Dot.com anything was a great investment in 1999

  • Real estate has been a boom/bust cycle roughly every other decade, but 2006 was a doozy

  • Today, it’s ETF’s and “Passive Investing,” and levered credit.

As noted Tuesday, the risk to this entire house of cards is a credit-related event.

Anyone wonder what might happen should passive funds become large net sellers of credit risk? In that event, these indiscriminate sellers will have to find highly discriminating buyers who–you guessed it–will be asking lots of questions. Liquidity for the passive universe–and thus the credit markets generally–may become very problematic indeed.

The recent actions by Central Banks certainly suggest risk has risen. Whether this was just an anomalous event, or an early warning, it is too soon to know for sure. However, if there is a liquidity issue, the risk to ‘uniformed investors’ is substantially higher than most realize. 

Risk concentration always seems rational at the beginning, and the initial successes of the trends it creates can be self-reinforcing. That is, until suddenly, and often without warning, it all goes “pear\-shaped.”

In November and December of last year, it was the uniformity of the price moves which revealed the fallacy “passive investing” as investors headed for the door all at the same time. While, that rout was quickly forgotten as markets stormed back to all-time highs, on “hopes” of Central Bank liquidity and “trade deals.”

The difference today, versus then, are the warning signs of deterioration in areas which pose a direct threat to everyone “acting rationally.” 

“While yields going to zero] certainly sounds implausible at the moment, just remember that all yields globally are relative. If global sovereign rates are zero or less, it is only a function of time until the U.S. follows suit. This is particularly the case if there is a liquidity crisis at some point.

It is worth noting that whenever Eurodollar positioning has become this extended previously, the equity markets have declined along with yields. Given the exceedingly rapid rise in the Eurodollar positioning, it certainly suggests that ‘something has broken in the system.’” 

Risk is clearly elevated as the Fed is cutting rates despite the “economic data” not supporting it. This is clearly meant to keep everyone acting rationally for now.

The problem comes when they don’t.

The Single Biggest Risk To Your Money

All of this underscores the single biggest risk to your investment portfolio.

In extremely long bull market cycles, investors become “willfully blind,” to the underlying inherent risks. Or rather, it is the “hubris” of investors they are now “smarter than the market.”

Yet, the list of concerns remains despite being completely ignored by investors and the mainstream media.

  • Growing economic ambiguities in the U.S. and abroad: peak autos, peak housing, peak GDP.

  • Political instability and a crucial election.

  • The failure of fiscal policy to ‘trickle down.’

  • An important pivot towards easing in global monetary policy.

  • Geopolitical risks from Trade Wars to Iran 

  • Inversions of yield curves

  • Deteriorating earnings and corporate profit margins.

  • Record levels of private and public debt.

  •  More than $3 trillion of covenant light and/or sub-prime corporate debt. (now larger and more pervasive than the size of the subprime mortgages outstanding in 2007)

For now, none of that matters as the Fed seems to have everything under control.

The more the market rises, the more reinforced the belief “this time is different” becomes.

Yes, our investment portfolios remain invested on the long-side for now. (Although we continue to carry slightly higher levels of cash and hedges.)

However, that will change, and rapidly so, at the first sign of the “instability of stability.” 

Unfortunately, by the time the Fed realizes what they have done, it has always been too late.


Tyler Durden

Thu, 09/19/2019 – 09:31

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