Month: June 2021

Cop Flipped Pregnant Woman’s SUV While She Was Searching for a Safe Place To Pull Over


Screen Shot 2021-06-09 at 2.17.27 PM

Nicole Harper, pregnant with her daughter, was driving her SUV home on a Arkansas freeway in July 2020 when Arkansas State trooper Rodney Dunn decided to stop her for allegedly driving 84 in a 70 mph zone. He turned on his lights in an attempt to make her pull over.

Following what she understood to be standard safe procedure in this situation, Harper moved into the right lane, slowed down, turned on her hazards to indicate to the officer that she understood what was going on, and was seeking a safe shoulder or exit to pull over.

No sane person could have imagined, given Harper’s behavior, that she was involved in any active attempt to escape the raw justice of a speeding ticket. Fewer than two or three minutes had passed since the cop first turned on his lights.

Corporal Dunn was having none of that. Using an insanely dangerous strategy that police in Arkansas are using more and more—144 times last year, double the number of times the year before—he slammed into her SUV causing her to hit the concrete median, flipping her SUV. The practice, called the “precision immobilization technique” (PIT), killed at least three people in 2020.

That stops a speeder! It also runs a real risk of killing a speeder. In a perfect world, the technique is supposed to just send the vehicle spinning out and thus stop the chase.

Post-assault dialog, as reported by local NBC station KARK:

“Why didn’t you stop?” Dunn questioned.

“Because I didn’t feel it was safe,” Harper said.  Dunn responded, “well this is where you ended up.”

Harper went on to say, “I thought it would be safe to wait until the exit.” Dunn said, “no ma’am, you pull over when law enforcement stops you.”…

Dunn can be heard saying, “no we don’t anticipate vehicles rolling over nor do we want that to happen.” He went on to say, “all you had to do was slow down and stop.”

Harper responded,  “I did slow down, I turned on my hazards, I thought I was doing the right thing.”

She was very literally doing the textbook right thing, according to Arkansas driver’s license test guides.

Harper is now, understandably, suing Dunn, his supervisor Sgt. Alan Johnson, and Arkansas State Police Director Col. Bill Bryant, claiming Dunn’s potentially murderous maneuver was an excessive and negligent use of force given the circumstances. A wider shoulder and an exit were less than a mile away when Dunn attacked her.

The suit, as KARK reports, asserts that “Arkansas State Police ‘failed to train’ Dunn on ‘proper and safe PIT maneuver technique,’ failed to ‘investigate allegations of excessive force,’ and ‘failed to discipline officers for violations of policy related to excessive force.'”

A statement from Arkansas State Police Director Col. Bill Bryant provided to local press merely repeated a bunch of nonsense not relevant to this situation about “fleeing drivers pull[ing] away at a high rate of speed, wildly driving, dangerously passing other vehicles, showing no regard for the safety of other motorists, creating an imminent threat to the public,” and how “all incumbent troopers receive recurring annual training in emergency vehicle operations which includes PIT instruction,” and that most times an Arkansas trooper wants someone to pull over, they don’t resort to slamming into the vehicle at high speed.

A separate report from KARK detailed a November 2019 PIT stop in which a suspect who had his high beams on inappropriately and did not stop fast enough for the officer but rather drove away at very high speeds was slammed into, sending the car into a tree and killing 22-year-old Brian Brooks.

As KARK reported:

The risk and liability around the PIT maneuver prompted several law enforcement agencies to put strict limits on the move or ban it outright. In North Carolina, a fatal PIT involving Highway Patrol prompted the department to cap speeds at 55 mph, unless the fleeing driver has committed a violent crime or there are other circumstances that warrant the use of deadly force. PIT maneuvers are used by state police in several states including Texas, Georgia, and Oklahoma.

A comment from a state Senator given to KARK alas shows a common politician attitude toward second-guessing police actions, no matter how reckless, dangerous, or absurd: “‘End of the day when somebody is fleeing I will never question the method police officer uses to stop them,’ said Sen. Bart Hester (R-Cave Springs). ‘I don’t care if it’s 60 miles an hour, I don’t care if its 100 miles an hour, I want them stopped as soon as possible.'”

Hopefully, this lawsuit will find the judicial system approaching the matter with less thoughtless obeisance to reckless police decisions.

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

3 Young Minnesotans Sue the State for Their Right To Bear Arms


pantherphotos7255696

Three young adults in Minnesota are fighting for recognition of their full rights as adult citizens of the United States by filing a lawsuit against Minnesota challenging its requirement that a person must be at least 21 years old to obtain a handgun permit. 

Under current Minnesota state law, carrying a handgun in public for the purpose of self-defense is illegal without a permit. And though 20-year-olds are considered old enough to vote, serve on a jury, hold public office, get married, and fight in the armed forces, Minnesota doesn’t consider them old enough to be issued a handgun permit.

On June 7, Kristin Worth, 18, Austin Dye, 19, and Axel Anderson, 18, of Minnesota filed a lawsuit challenging this requirement. They’re joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and the Second Amendment Foundation.

“This is an action to uphold Plaintiffs’ right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,” their complaint states. It cites District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own and carry firearms, and McDonald v. City of Chicago, in which the court held that the right to bear arms is “among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty” and applies to laws passed by the states. 

The plaintiffs argue that the Second Amendment applies to all adults, including those between the ages of 18 and 21, “who are considered adults for almost all purposes and certainly for the purposes of the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights.” These young adults are also entitled to exercise their First Amendment rights, the plaintiffs argue.

By requiring people to be at least 21 years old to obtain a handgun permit, “the State of Minnesota prohibits a certain class of law-abiding, responsible citizens—namely, adults who have reached the age of 18 but are not yet 21—from fully exercising the right to keep and bear arms,” the complaint states. 

It goes on to include testimonies about why each of the three young Minnesotans challenging the law desire to carry a handgun for self-defense, and—in a seeming touch of whimsy—exactly which gun they would carry if they got a permit. 

Kristin Worth is from Mille Lacs, Minnesota. She works part-time as a manager and cashier of a grocery store and, as part of her job, often has to close up the store late at night and walk alone through the parking lot to her car. “Based on this general vulnerability and the prevalence of street crime, including sex offenses, in her immediate neighborhood of Milaca, Plaintiff Worth desires to carry a handgun for self–defense,” the complaint says. It notes that if Worth could legally carry, she would carry a Beretta 92x handgun.

The lawsuit is one of four recent lawsuits that the Firearms Policy Coalition has been involved with that challenge bans on adults under 21 carrying handguns. The other lawsuits were filed in Illinois, Georgia, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania. If one of these legal challenges succeeds, it might set a precedent that would overturn similar policies in states across the country. 

These challenges could also help bring recognition to the rising legal infantilization of young adults which has followed their cultural infantilization, with the legal minimum age for drinking, smoking, and other activities now raised to age 21.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3wa5k7W
via IFTTT

Biden Vows To Show Russia & China That US-Europe Alliance Is “Tight” In High Stakes 1st Trip Abroad 

Biden Vows To Show Russia & China That US-Europe Alliance Is “Tight” In High Stakes 1st Trip Abroad 

President Biden previewed in a Washington Post op-ed that his eight day trip for which he embarked Wednesday, “Will the democratic alliances and institutions that shaped so much of the last century prove their capacity against modern-day threats and adversaries? I believe the answer is yes. And this week in Europe, we have the chance to prove it.”

And White House press secretary Jen Psaki Tuesday described somewhat dramatically how he’s been preparing for what’s the first foreign trip of his presidency: “He’s been getting ready for 50 years. He has been on the world stage. He’s known a number of these leaders for decades, including President Putin, and including a number of the leaders he’ll see at NATO and he’ll see at the G7. Now, this is an important opportunity for him to see them in person, and there’s nothing like face-to-face engagement in diplomacy.”

Or less ambitiously the administration might hope to simply reverse the PR hit it took with Kamala Harris’s series of missteps in her Guatemala trip. It seems she’s the only one calling it a “success” – and of note is that even CNN dubbed it “rocky”  and described that admin officials were “perplexed” by some of her statements. As he boarded Air Force One on Wednesday morning, Biden said as cited in AFP that in the upcoming summits with allies as well as Putin, he will show Russia and China that the US-Europe alliance is “tight”. The administration has further been repeating its mantra “America is back” following what it characterizes as damaged relations with allies after four years of Trump.

Via Reuters

Already there were some minor hick-ups as the trip got off the ground…

Below is President Biden’s trip schedule as outlined in Reuters…

* * *

Wednesday, June 9: RAF Mildenhall

Biden and his wife, Jill, depart on Wednesday morning from Washington. Their first stop in the UK will be at Royal Air Force Mildenhall to greet U.S. Air Force personnel stationed there. Mildenhall is home to the 100th Air Refueling Wing, the only permanent U.S. Air Force air refueling wing in the European theater.

Thursday, June 10: Prime Minister Boris Johnson

Biden will meet British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in Cornwall, England, site of the G7 summit, to reaffirm the special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom.

Friday, June 11 and Saturday, June 12: G7 in Cornwall

Biden will attend more G7 summit meetings in Cornwall and have bilateral meetings with fellow G7 leaders.

Sunday, June 13: The Queen

Biden will finish his meetings at the G7 summit. Afterward, the Bidens will meet Britain’s Queen Elizabeth at Windsor Castle. Then Biden will travel to Brussels for the night.

Monday, June 14: NATO

Biden will meet NATO leaders and have a private meeting with the president of Turkey, Tayyip Erdogan.

Tuesday, June 15: EU, trade and technology

Biden will hold more NATO meetings and then fly to Geneva for the night.

Wednesday, June 16: Russia

Biden will meet Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday, their first face-to-face meeting since Biden became president. White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said on Monday it was unclear whether the two leaders would hold a joint news conference after their talks.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/09/2021 – 15:10

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3waUI8S Tyler Durden

Cop Flipped Pregnant Woman’s SUV While She Was Searching for a Safe Place To Pull Over


Screen Shot 2021-06-09 at 2.17.27 PM

Nicole Harper, pregnant with her daughter, was driving her SUV home on a Arkansas freeway in July 2020 when Arkansas State trooper Rodney Dunn decided to stop her for allegedly driving 84 in a 70 mph zone. He turned on his lights in an attempt to make her pull over.

Following what she understood to be standard safe procedure in this situation, Harper moved into the right lane, slowed down, turned on her hazards to indicate to the officer that she understood what was going on, and was seeking a safe shoulder or exit to pull over.

No sane person could have imagined, given Harper’s behavior, that she was involved in any active attempt to escape the raw justice of a speeding ticket. Fewer than two or three minutes had passed since the cop first turned on his lights.

Corporal Dunn was having none of that. Using an insanely dangerous strategy that police in Arkansas are using more and more—144 times last year, double the number of times the year before—he slammed into her SUV causing her to hit the concrete median, flipping her SUV. The practice, called the “precision immobilization technique” (PIT), killed at least three people in 2020.

That stops a speeder! It also runs a real risk of killing a speeder. In a perfect world, the technique is supposed to just send the vehicle spinning out and thus stop the chase.

Post-assault dialog, as reported by local NBC station KARK:

“Why didn’t you stop?” Dunn questioned.

“Because I didn’t feel it was safe,” Harper said.  Dunn responded, “well this is where you ended up.”

Harper went on to say, “I thought it would be safe to wait until the exit.” Dunn said, “no ma’am, you pull over when law enforcement stops you.”…

Dunn can be heard saying, “no we don’t anticipate vehicles rolling over nor do we want that to happen.” He went on to say, “all you had to do was slow down and stop.”

Harper responded,  “I did slow down, I turned on my hazards, I thought I was doing the right thing.”

She was very literally doing the textbook right thing, according to Arkansas driver’s license test guides.

Harper is now, understandably, suing Dunn, his supervisor Sgt. Alan Johnson, and Arkansas State Police Director Col. Bill Bryant, claiming Dunn’s potentially murderous maneuver was an excessive and negligent use of force given the circumstances. A wider shoulder and an exit were less than a mile away when Dunn attacked her.

The suit, as KARK reports, asserts that “Arkansas State Police ‘failed to train’ Dunn on ‘proper and safe PIT maneuver technique,’ failed to ‘investigate allegations of excessive force,’ and ‘failed to discipline officers for violations of policy related to excessive force.'”

A statement from Arkansas State Police Director Col. Bill Bryant provided to local press merely repeated a bunch of nonsense not relevant to this situation about “fleeing drivers pull[ing] away at a high rate of speed, wildly driving, dangerously passing other vehicles, showing no regard for the safety of other motorists, creating an imminent threat to the public,” and how “all incumbent troopers receive recurring annual training in emergency vehicle operations which includes PIT instruction,” and that most times an Arkansas trooper wants someone to pull over, they don’t resort to slamming into the vehicle at high speed.

A separate report from KARK detailed a November 2019 PIT stop in which a suspect who had his high beams on inappropriately and did not stop fast enough for the officer but rather drove away at very high speeds was slammed into, sending the car into a tree and killing 22-year-old Brian Brooks.

As KARK reported:

The risk and liability around the PIT maneuver prompted several law enforcement agencies to put strict limits on the move or ban it outright. In North Carolina, a fatal PIT involving Highway Patrol prompted the department to cap speeds at 55 mph, unless the fleeing driver has committed a violent crime or there are other circumstances that warrant the use of deadly force. PIT maneuvers are used by state police in several states including Texas, Georgia, and Oklahoma.

A comment from a state Senator given to KARK alas shows a common politician attitude toward second-guessing police actions, no matter how reckless, dangerous, or absurd: “‘End of the day when somebody is fleeing I will never question the method police officer uses to stop them,’ said Sen. Bart Hester (R-Cave Springs). ‘I don’t care if it’s 60 miles an hour, I don’t care if its 100 miles an hour, I want them stopped as soon as possible.'”

Hopefully, this lawsuit will find the judicial system approaching the matter with less thoughtless obeisance to reckless police decisions.

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

Contagious Lies: CDC Claims Hospitalization Rising Among Unvaccinated Teens… Contrary To Its Own Data

Contagious Lies: CDC Claims Hospitalization Rising Among Unvaccinated Teens… Contrary To Its Own Data

Authored by Daniel Horowitz via TheBlaze.com,

We all knew this was coming.

In order to justify the forced vaccination of children, the powers that be would somehow have to overturn 15 months of observations that COVID is less a threat to children than the flu and that unvaccinated children are less at risk than vaccinated adults (100 times less at risk than seniors), even if we are to believe Pfizer’s efficacy data.

“CDC director reports spike in teen hospitalizations, urges parents to vaccinate kids over 12,” was the headline at the Hill on Friday, reporting on the CDC’s new study of hospitalizations.

Naturally, it caught my attention because we all know that hospitalizations among all age groups have been plummeting to record lows across the country in recent weeks.

It turns out that along with its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the CDC published a “study” purporting to show an increase in hospitalizations among 12- to 17-year-olds, with one-third of them being in the ICU and 5% of them being placed on ventilators.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky was ready to pounce.

“I am deeply concerned by the numbers of hospitalized adolescents and saddened to see the number of adolescents who required treatment in intensive care units or mechanical ventilation,” said Walensky in a statement.

Of course, the solution is the great experimental gene therapy.

“Until they are fully vaccinated, adolescents should continue to wear masks and take precautions when around other [sic] who are not vaccinated to protect themselves, and their family, friends, and community,” Walensky stated.

CNN dutifully echoed the false data and the premise it engenders without investigating it.

But there’s one problem. The CDC’s own data show that hospitalizations among all groups have plummeted over the past six weeks.

It turns out they picked arbitrary start and end points – an old trick they’ve used with mask studies – which coincides with a period of increased hospitalizations among all age groups, including those with high vaccination rates.

The study period of the CDC’s report was from March 1, 2020, to April 24, 2021. It just so happens that April 24 was roughly the peak period for ALL age groups!

Most of that mini increase (after the major winter spread) was due to the final spring spread in the northeast and upper Midwest. Based on the CDC’s headlines, one would think that childhood hospitalizations are spreading now and that they are rising relative to other age groups. In reality, they have plummeted and only rose slightly from a near-zero baseline earlier this year along with other groups.

If anything, the April 24 “peak” hospitalization rate among teens was lower than the peak during the winter, yet nobody ever felt there was an emergent situation with teen COVID hospitalizations during the worst months of the winter.

This is the same thing the CDC and others did when they picked arbitrary start and end points last year showing a decline in cases after mask mandates were instituted, while ignoring the massive subsequent increase over the winter in these same places.

Read more here…

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/09/2021 – 14:50

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3g5QPwk Tyler Durden

Oops, I Did It Again: Did Ross Gerber Actually Just Take Out A Third PPP Loan

Oops, I Did It Again: Did Ross Gerber Actually Just Take Out A Third PPP Loan

Surely at this point, we have to be imagining things, right? 

We have reported twice on Tesla uber-bull and well known talking head-of-hair “investment advisor” Ross Gerber’s propensity for taking out government loans despite boasting on Twitter of how rich he was and how well his advisory firm was doing.

Back in July of 2020, we first pointed out that Gerber’s firm, Santa Monica-based Gerber Kawasaki, was among the many firms nationwide to take PPP money. His firm took out a total of $515,458 in PPP funds via Wells Fargo.

The irony, of course, came from the fact that on April 27, 2020, just 6 short days before his firm’s loan was approved, Gerber virtue signaled to the #resistance by tweeting that “this whole PPP thing looks like a scam. Another big Trump scam”.

Then, we noted that Gerber appeared to have taken out a second PPP loan (this time as a sole proprietor) in early May. Ross Gerber himself was approved for a $20,833 loan as a sole proprietorship, according to information on ProPublica. The website lists a “Ross Gerber” as “approved” for a PPP loan of $20,833 as of March 29, 2021.

In response, Gerber called Zero Hedge a Russian “misinformation site run by US enemies” and said the loan hadn’t been disbursed. 

And now – despite the public ridicule Gerber received after both loans were revealed, it appears that Gerber may have “done did it” again. At least, that seems to be the claim of a new Substack article by well known FinTwit personality Keubiko. 

Keubiko’s latest article first confirms our previous reporting that Gerber received a second loan of $20,833. Additionally, upon further sleuthing, it also seems to confirm that Gerber’s second loan had “been disbursed, and is outstanding”. 

Then the kicker. Keubiko notes that while “poking around the current SBA database”, they came across yet another PPP loan of Gerber’s, approved on May 12, 2021. This loan appears to not be disbursed yet and appears to be a “second draw” loan, the report notes. 

It concludes by stating its unsure when the loan will be disbursed, but notes the interesting timing for Gerber to be drawing off the government teat, since he is apparently “about to take delivery of a $150,000 supercar”.

Keubiko concludes:

“I can’t say definitively what’s going on here. Maybe Russian hackers are putting fake information into the SBA database. Maybe there is another Ross Gerber living at the same address in Pacific Palisades and they just keep missing running into each other, blissfully unware of each other’s existence. Maybe he just filled out the forms by accident, or forgot. Maybe the PPP Hobgoblins are up their usual antics. Or maybe someone is fraudulently applying for a loan in his name, in which case I’m sure he’s informed the FBI by now.”

We look forward to Gerber’s forthcoming claims of additional Russian information. 

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/09/2021 – 14:38

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3x7FC3Y Tyler Durden

Empowered by Voters, Pennsylvania Legislators Are Poised To End the Governor’s 15-Month COVID-19 Emergency


Tom-Wolf-5-13-21-Newscom-cropped

Newly empowered by a constitutional amendment that voters approved last month, Pennsylvania’s legislature is on the verge of ending the COVID-19 emergency that Gov. Tom Wolf first declared on March 6, 2020, and has repeatedly extended since then. The election results and the resolution they authorized amount to a sharp rebuke of the Democratic governor’s COVID-19 response, which a federal judge described as “shockingly arbitrary.” The Pennsylvania measures are part of a broader movement to restrict governors’ emergency powers based on lessons learned from the pandemic.

In the May 18 primary election, Pennsylvania voters approved a constitutional amendment that authorizes the legislature to terminate a disaster declaration by a simple majority vote. Previously that required either a two-thirds majority or the governor’s consent. Voters also approved an amendment that reduces the length of future disaster declarations from 90 days to 21 days and requires the legislature’s approval to extend them.

Yesterday the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed a Republican-backed resolution terminating Wolf’s disaster declaration by a party-line vote. Assuming the state Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans, follows suit, the resolution, which does not require the governor’s signature, will take effect once the election results are officially certified.

While Wolf already has lifted most of his COVID-19 edicts, some measures are still in place, including a face mask mandate and a waiver of the work-search requirement for unemployment benefits. “For more than 13 months during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Senate President Pro Tempore Jake Corman (R–Centre) told reporters before the election, “Gov. Wolf has exerted nearly unlimited power to suspend state statutes, spend money without the authorization of the legislature, and close schools and businesses as he saw fit.” After the election, Corman and Senate Majority Leader Kim Ward (R–Westmoreland) issued a joint statement saying “this decision by the people is not about taking power away from any one branch of government” but about “re-establishing the balance of power between three equal branches of government as guaranteed by the constitution.”

Pennsylvania’s governor has very broad powers once he declares a “disaster emergency.” Among other things, he can suspend statutes and regulations, commandeer private property, issue evacuation orders, suspend the sale of “alcoholic beverages, firearms, explosives and combustibles,” and “control ingress and egress to and from a disaster area, the movement of persons within the area and the occupancy of premises therein.” Wolf relied on that last power when he closed all K–12 schools and all “non-life-sustaining” businesses and when he ordered Pennsylvanians to stay home “except as needed to access, support, or provide life sustaining business, emergency, or government services.”

Last September, responding to a federal lawsuit by business owners, four Pennsylvania counties, and several Republican legislators, U.S. District Judge William Stickman concluded that Wolf had exercised his powers in a “shockingly arbitrary” way. While Wolf’s reopening plan allowed people to congregate for commercial purposes, for instance, it banned political gatherings, including campaign events as well as protests in which the governor himself had nevertheless participated.

Even if those restrictions were treated as content-neutral “time, place, and manner” rules, Stickman said in County of Butler v. Wolf, they could not be reconciled with the First Amendment, which requires that such policies be “narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest.” Wolf’s orders perversely treated gatherings protected by the First Amendment as less important than quotidian activities such as shopping and dining.

When Wolf decided which businesses could operate during his lockdown, he likewise drew puzzling distinctions with no obvious relationship to the risk of virus transmission. Small businesses were forbidden to sell hair products, furniture, and appliances, for example, while big-box retailers, because they were deemed “life-sustaining,” continued to offer the very same items—a decree that shifted transactions from one place to another without stopping people from visiting stores to buy stuff.

Such capricious dictates, Stickman concluded, could not pass muster even under the highly deferential “rational basis” test, which applies to economic regulations and to equal protection claims that do not involve “suspect” categories such as race and religion. “Distinctions cannot be arbitrary or irrational and pass scrutiny,” he noted.

While the country has faced “many epidemics and pandemics,” Stickman emphasized, “there have never previously been lockdowns of entire populations,” which he called “such a dramatic inversion of the concept of liberty in a free society as to be nearly presumptively unconstitutional.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit stayed Stickman’s decision on October 1, and Wolf’s appeal is still pending. But whatever the ultimate outcome, the case illustrates the anger and frustration driving the new restrictions on the governor’s emergency powers.

In addition to his own statutory authority, Wolf’s COVID-19 orders cited the Pennsylvania Department of Health’s powers, which on their face are even broader. The department is empowered to “determine and employ the most efficient and practical means for the prevention and suppression of disease.” Another provision says that when the department receives “a report of a disease which is subject to isolation, quarantine, or any other control measure,” it “shall carry out the appropriate control measures in such manner and in such place as is provided by rule or regulation.”

As the Associated Press notes, “Wolf’s office has said repeatedly that measures designed to limit the spread of the virus are unaffected by the constitutional amendments because they are authorized under powers given to the health secretary.” In addition to the resolution ending Wolf’s emergency declaration, the Pennsylvania Senate is considering a bill that would restrict the health secretary’s powers. An amendment to S.B. 618 says “the Secretary of Health may not order or otherwise require a closure” and may not require people to restrict their travel, wear face masks, “shelter in place,” “physically distance from other individuals,” or “conduct a specific hygienic practice” unless they have been “exposed or potentially exposed to a contagious disease.”

Sen. Judy Ward (R–Altoona), who sponsored that amendment, says the aim is to require legislative approval of such policies. “These kinds of decisions should not be made in a vacuum by someone who was not elected by the people,” Ward said when she introduced the amendment. “We must work together to develop policies that protect lives and livelihoods. The Disease Prevention and Control Act has been used as a nearly absolute power to take any action they want—regardless of the opinion of state lawmakers, local and county officials, or the public….The amendment simply prevents one person from unilaterally throwing tens of thousands of citizens out of work, barring children from school, and spending millions of taxpayer dollars.”

Legislators in many other states agree that the public health powers of governors and their underlings need to be reined in. USA Today reports that “lawmakers in 46 states, Guam and Puerto Rico have drafted 300 proposals this year to curtail their governors’ executive powers, as legislative and executive branches fight for authority over school and business closures, mask orders and more.” Such limits already have been enacted in several states, including New York, Florida, and Kentucky.

Although Republicans generally have been more skeptical of government-imposed COVID-19 restrictions than Democrats, these debates do not simply pit one party against the other. Democrats in New York and Republicans in Ohio, for example, have supported restrictions on the emergency powers exercised by governors of the same party. As Pam Greenberg, a policy researcher at the National Conference of State Legislatures, noted in an interview with USA Today, there is a principle at stake that goes beyond partisan interests. “Although governors need to be able to respond to emergencies quickly,” she said, “legislatures have an important role in making sure these powers are not abused.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/351VlW7
via IFTTT

Empowered by Voters, Pennsylvania Legislators Are Poised To End the Governor’s 15-Month COVID-19 Emergency


Tom-Wolf-5-13-21-Newscom-cropped

Newly empowered by a constitutional amendment that voters approved last month, Pennsylvania’s legislature is on the verge of ending the COVID-19 emergency that Gov. Tom Wolf first declared on March 6, 2020, and has repeatedly extended since then. The election results and the resolution they authorized amount to a sharp rebuke of the Democratic governor’s COVID-19 response, which a federal judge described as “shockingly arbitrary.” The Pennsylvania measures are part of a broader movement to restrict governors’ emergency powers based on lessons learned from the pandemic.

In the May 18 primary election, Pennsylvania voters approved a constitutional amendment that authorizes the legislature to terminate a disaster declaration by a simple majority vote. Previously that required either a two-thirds majority or the governor’s consent. Voters also approved an amendment that reduces the length of future disaster declarations from 90 days to 21 days and requires the legislature’s approval to extend them.

Yesterday the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed a Republican-backed resolution terminating Wolf’s disaster declaration by a party-line vote. Assuming the state Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans, follows suit, the resolution, which does not require the governor’s signature, will take effect once the election results are officially certified.

While Wolf already has lifted most of his COVID-19 edicts, some measures are still in place, including a face mask mandate and a waiver of the work-search requirement for unemployment benefits. “For more than 13 months during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Senate President Pro Tempore Jake Corman (R–Centre) told reporters before the election, “Gov. Wolf has exerted nearly unlimited power to suspend state statutes, spend money without the authorization of the legislature, and close schools and businesses as he saw fit.” After the election, Corman and Senate Majority Leader Kim Ward (R–Westmoreland) issued a joint statement saying “this decision by the people is not about taking power away from any one branch of government” but about “re-establishing the balance of power between three equal branches of government as guaranteed by the constitution.”

Pennsylvania’s governor has very broad powers once he declares a “disaster emergency.” Among other things, he can suspend statutes and regulations, commandeer private property, issue evacuation orders, suspend the sale of “alcoholic beverages, firearms, explosives and combustibles,” and “control ingress and egress to and from a disaster area, the movement of persons within the area and the occupancy of premises therein.” Wolf relied on that last power when he closed all K–12 schools and all “non-life-sustaining” businesses and when he ordered Pennsylvanians to stay home “except as needed to access, support, or provide life sustaining business, emergency, or government services.”

Last September, responding to a federal lawsuit by business owners, four Pennsylvania counties, and several Republican legislators, U.S. District Judge William Stickman concluded that Wolf had exercised his powers in a “shockingly arbitrary” way. While Wolf’s reopening plan allowed people to congregate for commercial purposes, for instance, it banned political gatherings, including campaign events as well as protests in which the governor himself had nevertheless participated.

Even if those restrictions were treated as content-neutral “time, place, and manner” rules, Stickman said in County of Butler v. Wolf, they could not be reconciled with the First Amendment, which requires that such policies be “narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest.” Wolf’s orders perversely treated gatherings protected by the First Amendment as less important than quotidian activities such as shopping and dining.

When Wolf decided which businesses could operate during his lockdown, he likewise drew puzzling distinctions with no obvious relationship to the risk of virus transmission. Small businesses were forbidden to sell hair products, furniture, and appliances, for example, while big-box retailers, because they were deemed “life-sustaining,” continued to offer the very same items—a decree that shifted transactions from one place to another without stopping people from visiting stores to buy stuff.

Such capricious dictates, Stickman concluded, could not pass muster even under the highly deferential “rational basis” test, which applies to economic regulations and to equal protection claims that do not involve “suspect” categories such as race and religion. “Distinctions cannot be arbitrary or irrational and pass scrutiny,” he noted.

While the country has faced “many epidemics and pandemics,” Stickman emphasized, “there have never previously been lockdowns of entire populations,” which he called “such a dramatic inversion of the concept of liberty in a free society as to be nearly presumptively unconstitutional.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit stayed Stickman’s decision on October 1, and Wolf’s appeal is still pending. But whatever the ultimate outcome, the case illustrates the anger and frustration driving the new restrictions on the governor’s emergency powers.

In addition to his own statutory authority, Wolf’s COVID-19 orders cited the Pennsylvania Department of Health’s powers, which on their face are even broader. The department is empowered to “determine and employ the most efficient and practical means for the prevention and suppression of disease.” Another provision says that when the department receives “a report of a disease which is subject to isolation, quarantine, or any other control measure,” it “shall carry out the appropriate control measures in such manner and in such place as is provided by rule or regulation.”

As the Associated Press notes, “Wolf’s office has said repeatedly that measures designed to limit the spread of the virus are unaffected by the constitutional amendments because they are authorized under powers given to the health secretary.” In addition to the resolution ending Wolf’s emergency declaration, the Pennsylvania Senate is considering a bill that would restrict the health secretary’s powers. An amendment to S.B. 618 says “the Secretary of Health may not order or otherwise require a closure” and may not require people to restrict their travel, wear face masks, “shelter in place,” “physically distance from other individuals,” or “conduct a specific hygienic practice” unless they have been “exposed or potentially exposed to a contagious disease.”

Sen. Judy Ward (R–Altoona), who sponsored that amendment, says the aim is to require legislative approval of such policies. “These kinds of decisions should not be made in a vacuum by someone who was not elected by the people,” Ward said when she introduced the amendment. “We must work together to develop policies that protect lives and livelihoods. The Disease Prevention and Control Act has been used as a nearly absolute power to take any action they want—regardless of the opinion of state lawmakers, local and county officials, or the public….The amendment simply prevents one person from unilaterally throwing tens of thousands of citizens out of work, barring children from school, and spending millions of taxpayer dollars.”

Legislators in many other states agree that the public health powers of governors and their underlings need to be reined in. USA Today reports that “lawmakers in 46 states, Guam and Puerto Rico have drafted 300 proposals this year to curtail their governors’ executive powers, as legislative and executive branches fight for authority over school and business closures, mask orders and more.” Such limits already have been enacted in several states, including New York, Florida, and Kentucky.

Although Republicans generally have been more skeptical of government-imposed COVID-19 restrictions than Democrats, these debates do not simply pit one party against the other. Democrats in New York and Republicans in Ohio, for example, have supported restrictions on the emergency powers exercised by governors of the same party. As Pam Greenberg, a policy researcher at the National Conference of State Legislatures, noted in an interview with USA Today, there is a principle at stake that goes beyond partisan interests. “Although governors need to be able to respond to emergencies quickly,” she said, “legislatures have an important role in making sure these powers are not abused.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/351VlW7
via IFTTT

The Sources Of Rip-Your-Face-Off Inflation Few Dare Discuss

The Sources Of Rip-Your-Face-Off Inflation Few Dare Discuss

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

We’re getting a real-world economics lesson in rip-your-face-off increases in prices, and the tuition is about to go up–way up.

Inflation will be transitory, blah-blah-blah–I beg to differ, for these reasons. There are numerous structural sources of inflation, which I define as prices rise while the quality and quantity of goods and services remain the same or diminish. Since the word inflation is so loaded, let’s use the more neutral (and more accurate) term decline in purchasing power: an hour of your labor buys fewer goods and services of lesser quality than it did a decade ago or a generation ago.

While the conventional discussion focuses on monetary inflation, i.e. expansion of money supply, the real rip-your-face-off sources have nothing to do with money supply. The rip-your-face-off sources are scarcities that cannot be filled by substitution or globalization.

Consider skilled hands-on labor as an example. Let’s say some essential parts in essential infrastructure require welding. There is no substitute for skilled welders. But wait, doesn’t economic dogma hold that whenever costs rise, a cheaper substitute will magically manifest out of a swirl of dust? That dogma is false in cases such as skilled labor.

The only substitute for a skilled welder is another skilled welder, and while theory holds that there will be cheaper welders who can be brought in from elsewhere, this is also not true: due to deficiencies in education and a cultural bias against manual labor, there is a shortage of skilled welders virtually everywhere.

But wait, can’t we just offshore the project? Globalization always lowers costs, right? So by all means, load your busted boat trailer on a container ship to China, find a welder in Shanghai to do the work, and then ship the boat trailer back. Weeks later, you discover the plan and the specs weren’t followed, so all the time and money was wasted. It would have been so much cheaper and faster if you’d just paid the welder in town a few extra bucks and had it done right in a few hours.

But wait–we’ll just automate welding and have a robot do it all for next to nothing. OK, fine, pal–you manufacture the robot and program it to trundle out to the busted boat trailer, examine the breaks and do the welding so it actually works again. Go ahead and do that (at gargantuan expense), and then let’s see the robot do it right in dozens of different jobs in all sorts of situations, and then add up the cost of all that compared to the relatively low cost of an experienced welder.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, people with high levels of craft skills and experience are scarce, and the fantasy of robots replacing them are untethered from reality.

As I’ve noted before, central banks can conjure trillions of dollars out of thin air but they can’t conjure up experienced, motivated workers willing to work for lousy pay. As I noted last week, the minimum wage would have to double to even get close to the purchasing power of the minimum wage I earned two generations ago. If an economy can’t pay its workers enough to live, it doesn’t deserve to exist and should be shoveled into the dustbin of history.

Will Skilled Hands-On Labor Finally Become More Valuable? (8/20/20)

Fans of automation are rarely if ever the people tasked with designing, manufacturing and programming robots. Fans of automation don’t recognize any limits on the cost and efficacy of automation because their faith in technology is quasi-religious, but in the real world, there are many tasks that don’t lend themselves to automation.

If automation was as cheap and easy as many seem to think, then why does Amazon need 1.3 million human employees? In terms of automation, what could be easier than vast warehouses, vehicles and delivery? Amazon certainly has the money and talent to automate everything that can be automated, so why is Amazon hiring hundreds of thousands of humans and boosting wages for 500,000 humans? Amazon to raise pay for 500,000 workers (April 2021, NYT.com)

Although it’s heresy to true believers in automation, humans are cheaper and create more value than robots in many settings. Simply put, there are limits on the cost effectiveness and value creation of robotics and automation.

A strong case can be made that automation has drastically reduced the quality of services and created the illusion of effectiveness. For example, you go online, check the inventory in your local outlet, drive down there and discover a bare shelf even though the online app indicates dozens in stock. Where is the value in this travesty of a mockery of a sham?

Those at the top of the wealth-power pyramid avoid the systems they profit from like the plague. Abysmal customer service, poor quality goods, apps that don’t work–that’s all the debt-serfs will ever experience. Those who own the systems know how awful it all is and they never touch any of the goods and services they pour into the slop buckets of the commoners.

Few seem to have noticed that we’re already on the downside of Peak Globalization: labor costs are rising in China, too, for the same reason labor costs are rising here and elsewhere: the number of people willing to do dirty, boring, difficult work for low pay and no benefits is diminishing. Some of this scarcity is due to demographics, as the workforce shrinks, some of it is increasing opportunities for flexible gig work that pays as well or better, and some is a rejection of the status quo. Post-Pandemic Metamorphosis: Never Going Back (6/7/21).

Young Chinese take a stand against pressures of modern life — by lying down (Washington Post)

Apologists for the wunnerfulness of globalization also fail to take into account the nationalization of critical resources or resources being cut off for geopolitical reasons. Nice copper mine you got there, but now it’s ours, and we’re raising prices. Go find a substitute for copper, cobalt, rare earths– gosh, there are no substitutes? Wait a minute, economists promised us scarcity was impossible because there’s always a substitute.

In the real world, essentials for which there are no substitutes are scarce, and the world is awakening to the power of those who control these essentials. Globalization was always based on the notion that there was always another place to stripmine, but now the entire planet has been stripmined, put under the plow or clearcut.

The primary source of cost-cutting and profit-boosting–lowering quality and reducing quantities– have reached limits: if the package gets any smaller, we’ll need a microscope to see it. Cutting corners has been going on so long that there are no corners left to be trimmed. Shrinkflation has reduced cereal boxes such that the boxes are not wide enough to stand up on the shelf.

Producers have to raise prices to maintain profits, period. And anyone who lets profit margins slip is cashiered, to be replaced by someone even more pathological and ruthless.

So let’s review the sources of inflation:

— Scarcities of labor across the board. (see job openings chart below).

— Deglobalization / Peak Globalization.

— Cost and value-creation limits on automation.

— All the corners have been cut, now prices have to rise or companies will bankrupt themselves.

— The ‘Take This Job and Shove It’ Recession (5/12/21) — Never Going Back — people are abandoning the status quo hamster wheel.

Few are willing to acknowledge these sources because they run counter the the fantasy world narrative that’s spinning the frenzied hamster wheel. Purchasing power is prosperity, and since purchasing power is in free-fall, so is prosperity–at least for the bottom 90%. Trillions in free money have masked the decline temporarily, but what’s transitory isn’t inflation– it’s the illusion of prosperity that’s transitory. And that’s why nobody in a position of power wants to discuss prices being driven by scarcities caused by actual physical limits.

Those who think prices can’t double or triple haven’t experienced scarcities caused by actual physical limits. There are no substitutes for essentials or skilled labor, globalization has already stripmined the planet and central banks can’t print experienced workers willing to work for rapidly devaluing wages in dead-end jobs while billionaires pay pennies in taxes.

We’re getting a real-world economics lesson in rip-your-face-off increases in prices, and the tuition is about to go up–way up.

*  *  *

If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

*  *  *

My recent books:

A Hacker’s Teleology: Sharing the Wealth of Our Shrinking Planet (Kindle $8.95, print $20, audiobook $17.46) Read the first section for free (PDF).

Will You Be Richer or Poorer?: Profit, Power, and AI in a Traumatized World (Kindle $5, print $10, audiobook) Read the first section for free (PDF).

Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic ($5 (Kindle), $10 (print), ( audiobook): Read the first section for free (PDF).

The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake $1.29 (Kindle), $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF)

Money and Work Unchained $6.95 (Kindle), $15 (print) Read the first section for free (PDF).

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/09/2021 – 14:10

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3g85GGE Tyler Durden

Former L Brands CEO And Well Known Epstein Pal Les Wexner Has Sold About $500 Million In Stock This Year

Former L Brands CEO And Well Known Epstein Pal Les Wexner Has Sold About $500 Million In Stock This Year

Leslie Wexner, former founder and CEO of L Brands and well known former pal of Jeffrey Epstein, has offloaded about $500 million worth of stock this year. In a filing posted Monday, Wexner revealed he sold $327 million in shares of L Brands, the parent company of Victoria’s Secret, bringing his total for the year up to about $500 million.

The sales come after Wexner revealed that he and his wife would be stepping down from the company’s board, according to Bloomberg.

The company’s stock is up about 600% since hitting a 5 year low in March 2020. Though Wexner had sold stock in the past to the tune of between $100 million and $200 million annually, his sales accelerated this year. His remaining stake makes up about 25% of his $9.7 billion net worth, the report noted. 

Wexner is the latest in a long line of executives to ring the register on stock sales. Recall, in mid-May, we highlighted that billionaires were offloaded massive amounts of stock so far in 2021. 

Amazon.com’s Jeff Bezos and Google co-founder Sergey Brin are just two of the well known names that have been offloading stock. They are joined by names like Mark Zuckerberg and Larry Ellison. 

We have covered Bezos’ recent stock sales in this article. He has sold $6.7 billion in Amazon shares this year. Bezos still owns more than 10% of Amazon and remains the world’s richest person, according to the Bloomberg Billionaire’s Index. His worth comes in at about $191.3 billion. Bezos has hastened his stock sales over the last couple of years: he sold about $4.1 billion in stock last February and sold more than $3 billion in stock last November. 

But, in sum, public company insiders have sold shares worth $24.4 billion this year through the first week of May, the report noted. About half of these sales have come through trading plans. The number is almost at a par with the $30 billion insiders sold in the second half of 2020. 

Additionally, Bloomberg notes that members of the Walton family “offloaded more than $1.2 billion of Walmart Inc. shares in recent weeks”.

Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein claimed in 2003 he had “bought and sold stock on behalf of Wexner”. 

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/09/2021 – 13:50

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