The Biden Administration Considered, And Rejected the Trillion Dollar Platinum Coin

During a debt crisis, the trillion dollar platinum coin invariably turns up like a bad penny. And, predictably, Paul Krugman pushed the idea in the New York Times. I flagged this possibility on September 17. And I pondered it the Biden Administration would endorse this proposal. According to the Washington Post, the White House considered, but rejected the idea.

As part of their internal review, White House officials have circulated internal memos with a range of untested theories should Congress fail to resolve the debt ceiling standoff, including the creation of a $1 trillion “coin” idea that has been popular among some liberals for years, the people said. But these options have been set aside as unworkable, the people said. . . .

A senior official familiar with the matter said it was the administration’s responsibility to review all possible options. Still, White House officials have reached the conclusion that unilateral action is not viable and the only way to avoid economic devastation is for Congress to act to maintain the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, according to the officials and Michael Gwin, a White House spokesman.

The White House has also considered the Section 4 option:

One legal theory that was reviewed is based on the idea that Congress in the event of a debt ceiling breach will have passed essentially irreconcilable laws. That is because the debt ceiling sets the maximum amount the Treasury can borrow to pay its obligations. But Congress has also simultaneously approved legislation requiring the federal government to spend more than the amount authorized by the debt ceiling.
According to some legal experts, the administration might then say the laws are in conflict, forcing the administration to pick between them. In that case, the administration would maintain that continuing payments is the best of two options — either of which would put them in defiance of congressional statute. . . .

Some legal scholars have pointed to the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which states that the “validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned.” The Obama administration also extensively reviewed this option during the debt ceiling standoff of 2013. But some legal experts say the 14th Amendment would not have to be cited for the administration to say it has to fulfill its spending obligations under congressional mandate

Mike Dorf, a leading proponent of this view, was interviewed by the Post:

“In my view, all the options under these circumstances are illegal if the administration is told to do something and also not do that very same thing,” said Michael Dorf, a constitutional law expert at Cornell University, who said he has not been in communication with lawmakers about the matter.

“The view is often misattributed to me that it would be no big deal for the president to issue debt [after a debt ceiling breach]. It would be a big deal. It would be quite terrible and very likely would spook the markets. But the question is what to do if the spending and borrowing laws are inconsistent. I’ve expressed the view that the least bad thing to do under those circumstances would be to issue debt.”

This option was considered by the Administration, but was ruled out–at least so far:

This theoretical possibility has been discussed by at least two high-ranking Biden aides in conversations in recent days, but ruled out because they believed it would be devastating for the country, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive internal deliberations.

The people involved in discussing this theory stress that they are not saying the White House would have the authority to unilaterally ignore the debt ceiling. They are also adamant that such a measure is not constitutional, and say it could still lead to enormous financial and economic damage. But, they say, should the administration reach the “X Date” — after which Treasury can no longer meet all its payment obligations — continuing to spend in defiance of the debt ceiling may be plausible if not necessary.

“They would have two choices — each of which is unconstitutional,” one of the people aware of the discussions said. “This is the theory of the ‘less constitutional choice’: If the president did this it would violate the constitution, but to not do it would violate the constitution even more seriously.”

I don’t quite understand this comment. Neither does Gerard Magliocca, who writes:

I also must say that I did not understand what the unnamed source in the article means by saying that the President cannot act unilaterally if Congress fails to act because that would be devastating to the country. It would be devastating to the country to stop the country from being devastated?

If we are about to crash into the debt ceiling, we may yet see the Trillion dollar coin, or the Section 4 option. The unitary executive, and departmentalism, are alive and well.

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

NYC Restaurateurs: Business Down 40-60% Due To Vaccine Mandate

NYC Restaurateurs: Business Down 40-60% Due To Vaccine Mandate

By Enrico Trigoso of Epoch Times,

New York City restaurateurs are complaining that their business has been slashed severely by the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which requires people 12 and older to show vaccination proof for indoor dining, indoor fitness, and indoor entertainment.

O’Donoghue’s Pub and Restaurant in Times Square, N.Y., on Sept. 30, 2021. (Enrico Trigoso/The Epoch Times)

Pre-pandemic, O’Donoghue’s Pub and Restaurant was a successful business that has been open for 10 years in Times Square, Manhattan. Fergal Burke, the owner of O’Donoghue’s noticed that his business has seen “a massive drop,” since the vaccine mandate came into effect.

“We don’t have the money here to survive without the help of our landlord, [who] has been very supportive and has been giving us breaks on the rent, but without our landlord, we would not be in business,” Burke told The Epoch Times. He said that he needed to hire another person to be at the door checking for vaccination proof, which increased his expenses.

Comparing the clientele from pre-mandate to when it kicked in about two weeks ago, “Our business is definitely down 50, I’m going to say 60 percent,” Burke said with a somewhat downhearted tone. “There’s just not people coming into the restaurant, they have the fear of being asked for vaccines.”

Burke and his staff have had to refuse a lot of customers for not having the passes.

“They’re being refused and they get a resentment against us, they don’t get a resentment against Bill de Blasio or Biden, or whoever is mandating us to check for this.”

“It comes as a personal rejection,” he said, further stressing that it’s not O’Donoghue’s that wants this. “We don’t want this mandate, we want nothing to do with this.”

He also noted how the subway is full of people but there’s no requirement to show vaccination proof.

“I mean how is that fair in New York City, that the trains are jammed with people with a silly mask on and they’re not being mandated to show nothing, and yet they’re coming against the heart of the city. We’re the ones that’s trying to keep 20 people employed here,” Burke said.

“We will go out of business if this continues, it’s gonna force us to shut our doors.”

Despite winter coming soon, they now need to build an outdoor dining area to facilitate an outdoor space, which will cost about 10 to $15,000.

Luke’s Lobster in Manhattan, N.Y., on Oct. 1, 2021. (Enrico Trigoso/The Epoch Times)

Some restaurants like Luke’s Lobster have been less affected by the vaccine mandates since their restaurant has little indoor dining space and is located near a park and many outdoor tables on Broadway. The manager there told The Epoch Times that people are mostly compliant, and if anyone can’t dine-in due to lack of proof, they will go to the tables outside.

“Some people are obviously not super happy about it but they will comply and if they don’t want to comply they’ll take it outside,” she said.

‘No One Size Fits All’

Restauranteur Stratis Morfogen, a managing partner at Brooklyn Chop House, thinks that the government needs to start considering bailouts to help the restaurant industry again.

“Business is down probably 50 percent because people are not comfortable with being forced to take a vaccine,” Morfogen told The Epoch Times.

“All of a sudden, we dropped 40 percent from week to week, since the mandate started.

“The politicians don’t understand it is that there is no one size fits all with medicine. And you can’t tell a person has just finished chemotherapy, that they have to take a vaccine to have a dinner, when their doctor says they can’t.”

Morfogen said that now they have to police COVID-19 vaccination cards, most of which are written in pen. He says 2 million were distributed before the city implemented a central database.

“It’s as smart as my 1983 driver’s permit. My daughter who is 13 can print out one of the fakes on her bedroom printer and you want me to question the customers if this card is legitimate, when every one of them is pretty much is written in pen?”

Morfogen said that his business did fairly well during COVID-19 and survived the restaurant crisis, but that he feels a responsibility to speak up.

“Nobody steps up for the little guys,” he said.

“I’m not fighting for myself. I’m fighting for the ones that don’t have a platform that are getting screwed by these politicians every day.”

“The Counter” custom burger shop in Times Square, N.Y., on Aug. 7, 2021. (Enrico Trigoso/The Epoch Times)

The manager of custom burger restaurant The Counter located in Times Square told The Epoch Times that “everyone is losing thousands of dollars,” and that they will go out of business due to the vaccine mandate.

“The mayor is a jerk,” she said.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/02/2021 – 12:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3B400pb Tyler Durden

The Biden Administration Considered, And Rejected the Trillion Dollar Platinum Coin

During a debt crisis, the trillion dollar platinum coin invariably turns up like a bad penny. And, predictably, Paul Krugman pushed the idea in the New York Times. I flagged this possibility on September 17. And I pondered it the Biden Administration would endorse this proposal. According to the Washington Post, the White House considered, but rejected the idea.

As part of their internal review, White House officials have circulated internal memos with a range of untested theories should Congress fail to resolve the debt ceiling standoff, including the creation of a $1 trillion “coin” idea that has been popular among some liberals for years, the people said. But these options have been set aside as unworkable, the people said. . . .

A senior official familiar with the matter said it was the administration’s responsibility to review all possible options. Still, White House officials have reached the conclusion that unilateral action is not viable and the only way to avoid economic devastation is for Congress to act to maintain the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, according to the officials and Michael Gwin, a White House spokesman.

The White House has also considered the Section 4 option:

One legal theory that was reviewed is based on the idea that Congress in the event of a debt ceiling breach will have passed essentially irreconcilable laws. That is because the debt ceiling sets the maximum amount the Treasury can borrow to pay its obligations. But Congress has also simultaneously approved legislation requiring the federal government to spend more than the amount authorized by the debt ceiling.
According to some legal experts, the administration might then say the laws are in conflict, forcing the administration to pick between them. In that case, the administration would maintain that continuing payments is the best of two options — either of which would put them in defiance of congressional statute. . . .

Some legal scholars have pointed to the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which states that the “validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned.” The Obama administration also extensively reviewed this option during the debt ceiling standoff of 2013. But some legal experts say the 14th Amendment would not have to be cited for the administration to say it has to fulfill its spending obligations under congressional mandate

Mike Dorf, a leading proponent of this view, was interviewed by the Post:

“In my view, all the options under these circumstances are illegal if the administration is told to do something and also not do that very same thing,” said Michael Dorf, a constitutional law expert at Cornell University, who said he has not been in communication with lawmakers about the matter.

“The view is often misattributed to me that it would be no big deal for the president to issue debt [after a debt ceiling breach]. It would be a big deal. It would be quite terrible and very likely would spook the markets. But the question is what to do if the spending and borrowing laws are inconsistent. I’ve expressed the view that the least bad thing to do under those circumstances would be to issue debt.”

This option was considered by the Administration, but was ruled out–at least so far:

This theoretical possibility has been discussed by at least two high-ranking Biden aides in conversations in recent days, but ruled out because they believed it would be devastating for the country, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive internal deliberations.

The people involved in discussing this theory stress that they are not saying the White House would have the authority to unilaterally ignore the debt ceiling. They are also adamant that such a measure is not constitutional, and say it could still lead to enormous financial and economic damage. But, they say, should the administration reach the “X Date” — after which Treasury can no longer meet all its payment obligations — continuing to spend in defiance of the debt ceiling may be plausible if not necessary.

“They would have two choices — each of which is unconstitutional,” one of the people aware of the discussions said. “This is the theory of the ‘less constitutional choice’: If the president did this it would violate the constitution, but to not do it would violate the constitution even more seriously.”

I don’t quite understand this comment. Neither does Gerard Magliocca, who writes:

I also must say that I did not understand what the unnamed source in the article means by saying that the President cannot act unilaterally if Congress fails to act because that would be devastating to the country. It would be devastating to the country to stop the country from being devastated?

If we are about to crash into the debt ceiling, we may yet see the Trillion dollar coin, or the Section 4 option. The unitary executive, and departmentalism, are alive and well.

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

Who Will Argue in Favor of the Free Exercise Clause in Ramirez v. Collier?

In September, the Court granted cert in Ramirez v. Collier. This case presents the question whether Texas can prohibit a chaplain from laying his hands on a prisoner during an execution. And the Court accelerated oral arguments, which have been set for November 1, 2021. This case involves claims under both the Free Exercise Clause and RLUIPA.

Ramirez is represented by Seth Kretzer and the UT Supreme Court clinic. His brief focuses entirely on the RLUIPA claim. Indeed, a footnote states:

Petitioner’s RLUIPA and First Amendment claims seek the same relief, JA 101-02, so petitioner’s brief frames arguments in terms of RLUIPA’s requirements to streamline the analysis.

The United States filed a brief in support of neither party. The SG’s brief did not present any arguments based on the Free Exercise Clause. Employment Division v. Smith isn’t even cited. The SG filed a motion to participate in oral argument. Both parties consented.

Pursuant to Rule 28 of the Rules of this Court, the Acting Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States, respectfully moves that the United States be granted leave to participate in the oral argument in this case as an amicus curiae supporting neither party; that the time allotted for oral argument be enlarged to 65 minutes; and that the United States be allowed 15 minutes of argument time. Petitioner and respondents have each consented to this motion and have each agreed to cede five minutes of argument time to the United States.

Two days later, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty sought leave for Professor Michael McConnell to present argument on behalf of amicus. The brief argues that there is no adversity on the Free Exercise Clause issue, and the Court would benefit from arguments by McConnell:

Granting this motion would materially assist the Court by providing adversary presentation on three issues central to the resolution of this case and not substantially addressed by Petitioner or the United States: (1) the Free Exercise Clause claims (on which this Court granted certiorari); (2) the role historic religious practices should play in resolving the merits of Petitioner’s claims; and (3) the role historic equity practice should play in resolving Petitioner’s claims. 

Becket contends that the prisoner’s rights are protected by the Free Exercise Clause, without regard to statutory protections:

As Becket explained in its amicus brief, there is a significant question as to whether the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause protects the religious exercises at issue—audible clergy prayer and clergy touch—independently of statutory protections subject to legislative modification. Becket’s brief described centuries of Anglo-American legal history, including pre-Founding history, placing these exercises at the center of historical practices and understandings with respect to clergy access for the condemned. Becket has thus argued that just as historical practices and understandings guide the courts in interpreting most other parts of the Bill of Rights, including the other Religion Clause, those historical practices and understandings should support the Free Exercise claims here. Those arguments are both central to this appeal and unique.

The brief also makes an obvious point: this appeal does not only affect Ramirez, but will set a nationwide standard.

Amicus argument should remain the exception, but this case is one of the exceptions that prove the rule. This appeal has proceeded on an atypical schedule, and the Court will benefit from hearing arguments that better elucidate a crucial constitutional issue that affects many litigants. Moreover, neither Petitioner nor the United States (should it be granted time to argue as amicus) has indicated that it will present argument on the granted petition’s First Amendment claims, the role of historic religious practices in defining clergy access to the condemned, or the role of historic equitable doctrines in deciding what relief this or other courts may give Petitioner. Respondent’s opposition to those arguments—and the Fifth Circuit’s treatment of them below (in particular the Free Exercise Clause)—will therefore receive no adversarial testing at argument. Becket respectfully submits that, under these unique circumstances, the Court would benefit from adversarial oral argument by Professor McConnell on Becket’s behalf.

Professor McConnell is perhaps the ideal amicus to present arguments here, on which there is no adversity. He is a leading scholar in this area, and has been cited in many Free Exercise cases. Especially since the case is being litigated on an expedited basis, more voices will help the Court reach an informed decision.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3A7lBLU
via IFTTT

Fed Vice Chair Clarida Traded Millions One Day Before Powell Emergency Pandemic Statement

Fed Vice Chair Clarida Traded Millions One Day Before Powell Emergency Pandemic Statement

Earlier this week, with Fed hawks suddenly dropping like flies following the resignations of Boston and Dallas Fed presidents, Rosengren and Kaplan, amid a public outcry over their recently-revealed daytrading activities which benefited them as a direct result of monetary policy decisions they were explicitly and directly involved in, we joked that if the Fed wants to get rid of all the hawks, they just need to leak the trading records of Kansas City Fed president Esther George, widely viewed as the most vocal hawk among all FOMC members.

Well, it may not be George (yet) but overnight the government ethics office published forms which showed that none other than the (centrist) Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida may be the next to “retire” (perhaps he too is on a kidney transplant list) following the revelation that he was trading in and out of millions in securities on February 27, 2020 just one day before Fed Chair Powell issued an (extremely bullish) emergency statement hinting at possible policy action as the pandemic worsened.

According to the disclosure, just as markets were starting to freak out about the Covid pandemic, Clarida shifted anywhere between $1 and $5 million out of a Pimco bond fund (the Pimco Income Fund PIMIX) on Feb. 27, 2020, and on the same day buying between $1 and $5 million of the Pimco StocksPlus Fund (PSTKX) and the iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor exchange-traded fund (USMV). Aside from these three trades, Clarida had a grand total of two more trades in 2020, the sale of $500K-$1MM of the Shwab SCHK ETF on August 3 and another purchase of the USMV ETF to the tune of $250K-$500K.

Why does this matter? Because his trades took place just a day before Powell issued an emergency statement on Feb 28 at 2:30pm with which he sought to reassure suddenly panicking markets that the Fed has their back (something he would amply demonstrate a few weeks later when the Fed nationalized the corporate bond market). Specifically, Powell said that the virus poses “evolving risks to economic activity” adding that the Fed was “closely monitoring developments and their implications for the economic outlook.”

Statement from Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell

The fundamentals of the U.S. economy remain strong. However, the coronavirus poses evolving risks to economic activity. The Federal Reserve is closely monitoring developments and their implications for the economic outlook. We will use our tools and act as appropriate to support the economy.

As shown in the chart below, following the chart drop in the days prior, Powell’s clearly market-moving statement served to spike the market by over 100 points in minutes.

Just a few days later, on March 3, with stocks crashing, the Fed launched the first of many emergency market bailout operations that would double the S&P from its March 2020 lows, including trillions in QE, repo and reverse repo operations. Everyone knows what happened after.

When contacted by Bloomberg, a Fed spokesman for the vice chair said that “Vice Chair Clarida’s financial disclosure for 2020 shows transactions that represent a pre-planned rebalancing to his accounts,” adding that “The transactions were executed prior to his involvement in deliberations on Federal Reserve actions to respond to the emergence of the coronavirus and not during a blackout period. The selected funds were chosen with the prior approval of the Board’s ethics official.”

Of course they were… just like the Dallas Fed was perfectly fine with Kaplan’s “tens of millions” in stock trades in a year when the Fed’s policies injected trillions to the balance sheet until he was busted and an epic scandal followed… just like “daytrader” Rosengren suddenly deciding to retire for “health reasons.”

Adding to the shadiness, Bloomberg notes that Clarida – who is a former PIMCO executive, if not one blasting the theme song to Gilligan’s Island in his back yard – was visiting faculty and students at Yale University the day of the trading, and not in his office in Washington. Furthermore, his calendar for the month shows a single phone call with a Board member on Feb. 27 at 4:45 p.m. after the market close, as well as numerous meetings with Fed staff on prior days. No calls to either PIMCO or a brokerage are disclosed.

What makes Clarida’s trading transgressions even worse, is that the Fed can’t punt them on the flawed policy book of some regional Fed – these come from the Marriner Eccles building itself. The Fed spells out clear guidelines for trading activity by policy makers. Its Voluntary Guide to Conduct for Senior Officials says “they should carefully avoid engaging in any financial transaction the timing of which could create the appearance of acting on inside information concerning Federal Reserve deliberations and actions.” It also says that they should avoid dealings that might “convey even an appearance of conflict between their personal interests, the interests of the system, and the public interest.”

And yet, casting even more doubt on the Fed’s integrity, ethics and especially capacity to think clearly, even the Vice Chair failed to realize that buying millions in stock ahead of a greatly market moving decision had all the “appearance” of massive insider trading.

It goes without saying, that February 2020 was a time of extreme moves in financial markets as investors (belatedly) panicked to the threat of the global spread of Covid-19. Stocks plunged and bond markets were in a powerful rally. Stocks would then continue to fall until March 23 when the Fed unleashed the monetary nukes, injecting trillions in the market and started buying corporate bonds to avoid a systemic crash, thereby nationalizing the bond market.

“The pandemic was spreading quickly and the economic outlook was evolving rapidly. That was not the appropriate time for top Fed officials to be making multi-million dollar changes to their portfolios,” Andrew Levin, a Dartmouth College professor and former special advisor to the Fed’s Board pointed out what should have been patently obvious to all, except entitled Fed Vice Chairs who are somehow exempt from the rules that apply to peasants. He added that “the Fed should welcome an external review of all financial transactions made by Federal Reserve Board members last year.” One wonders if the entire FOMC will be forced to retire “for health reasons” immediately after.

And while we wait, it’s probably safe to say that Clarida will be drafting his resignation in the coming days, which means that with two hawks down, the Fed is about to have another vacancy, this time to replace its centrist vice chair.

And while we urge readers to go over Clarida’s entire asset and income statement (link), we can’t help but note two things: i) according to the Vice Chair, cash is anything but trash with millions spread between bank and money market accounts, and ii) judging by the aggressive diversification of his bank account holdings, the Fed Vice Chair is hardly confident about the stability of the US banking system.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/02/2021 – 12:15

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2WEzOm4 Tyler Durden

Who Will Argue in Favor of the Free Exercise Clause in Ramirez v. Collier?

In September, the Court granted cert in Ramirez v. Collier. This case presents the question whether Texas can prohibit a chaplain from laying his hands on a prisoner during an execution. And the Court accelerated oral arguments, which have been set for November 1, 2021. This case involves claims under both the Free Exercise Clause and RLUIPA.

Ramirez is represented by Seth Kretzer and the UT Supreme Court clinic. His brief focuses entirely on the RLUIPA claim. Indeed, a footnote states:

Petitioner’s RLUIPA and First Amendment claims seek the same relief, JA 101-02, so petitioner’s brief frames arguments in terms of RLUIPA’s requirements to streamline the analysis.

The United States filed a brief in support of neither party. The SG’s brief did not present any arguments based on the Free Exercise Clause. Employment Division v. Smith isn’t even cited. The SG filed a motion to participate in oral argument. Both parties consented.

Pursuant to Rule 28 of the Rules of this Court, the Acting Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States, respectfully moves that the United States be granted leave to participate in the oral argument in this case as an amicus curiae supporting neither party; that the time allotted for oral argument be enlarged to 65 minutes; and that the United States be allowed 15 minutes of argument time. Petitioner and respondents have each consented to this motion and have each agreed to cede five minutes of argument time to the United States.

Two days later, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty sought leave for Professor Michael McConnell to present argument on behalf of amicus. The brief argues that there is no adversity on the Free Exercise Clause issue, and the Court would benefit from arguments by McConnell:

Granting this motion would materially assist the Court by providing adversary presentation on three issues central to the resolution of this case and not substantially addressed by Petitioner or the United States: (1) the Free Exercise Clause claims (on which this Court granted certiorari); (2) the role historic religious practices should play in resolving the merits of Petitioner’s claims; and (3) the role historic equity practice should play in resolving Petitioner’s claims. 

Becket contends that the prisoner’s rights are protected by the Free Exercise Clause, without regard to statutory protections:

As Becket explained in its amicus brief, there is a significant question as to whether the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause protects the religious exercises at issue—audible clergy prayer and clergy touch—independently of statutory protections subject to legislative modification. Becket’s brief described centuries of Anglo-American legal history, including pre-Founding history, placing these exercises at the center of historical practices and understandings with respect to clergy access for the condemned. Becket has thus argued that just as historical practices and understandings guide the courts in interpreting most other parts of the Bill of Rights, including the other Religion Clause, those historical practices and understandings should support the Free Exercise claims here. Those arguments are both central to this appeal and unique.

The brief also makes an obvious point: this appeal does not only affect Ramirez, but will set a nationwide standard.

Amicus argument should remain the exception, but this case is one of the exceptions that prove the rule. This appeal has proceeded on an atypical schedule, and the Court will benefit from hearing arguments that better elucidate a crucial constitutional issue that affects many litigants. Moreover, neither Petitioner nor the United States (should it be granted time to argue as amicus) has indicated that it will present argument on the granted petition’s First Amendment claims, the role of historic religious practices in defining clergy access to the condemned, or the role of historic equitable doctrines in deciding what relief this or other courts may give Petitioner. Respondent’s opposition to those arguments—and the Fifth Circuit’s treatment of them below (in particular the Free Exercise Clause)—will therefore receive no adversarial testing at argument. Becket respectfully submits that, under these unique circumstances, the Court would benefit from adversarial oral argument by Professor McConnell on Becket’s behalf.

Professor McConnell is perhaps the ideal amicus to present arguments here, on which there is no adversity. He is a leading scholar in this area, and has been cited in many Free Exercise cases. Especially since the case is being litigated on an expedited basis, more voices will help the Court reach an informed decision.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3A7lBLU
via IFTTT

While Everyone Cheers Soaring “Wealth”, America’s Social Order Is Unraveling

While Everyone Cheers Soaring “Wealth”, America’s Social Order Is Unraveling

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

So by all means, focus on the inexorable rise of stocks, cryptos and housing as “proof” of America’s soaring “wealth” while the social order unravels beneath our feet.

It is a supremely tragic irony that while the corporate media ceaselessly touts America’s soaring financial “wealth,” the nation’s true wealth–its social order–is fast unraveling. While we’re encouraged to cheer billionaires blowing a tiny sliver of their wealth on space tourism and $500 million yachts as evidence of “prosperity,” our media and leadership (ahem) professes to being mystified by The Great Resignation, known here on Of Two Minds as The ‘Take This Job and Shove It’ Recession, and other unmistakable signs of unraveling.

(This era’s anthem should be Johnny Paycheck’s timeless classic, Take This Job And Shove It 2:31).

In my analysis, the social order is comprised of all the intangible social elements which serve to bind a nation’s people beyond their legal rights. The social order includes (but is not limited to) social (upward) mobility–the ladder to advancing one’s agency (control of one’s life) and opportunities for improved security and well-being.

The social order also includes civic virtue, the willingness to share the sacrifices of one’s fellow citizens for the common good in proportion to one’s wealth and power, and equal treatment before the law, not just as an abstraction but in the real world of the judicial system.

The social order also includes the moral legitimacy of the governance system: does the state (government) serve the citizenry, or is it the other way around?

Lastly, the social order manifests social cohesion, which is the capacity for shared values and purpose and common ground, all of which generate a concern for the well-being of other citizens and a willingness to focus on shared interests.

America has lost all of these elements, as self-interest is the only value, purpose and goal that guides behavior, starting at the top: how do politicians acquire fortunes in excess of $100 million (cough, Pelosi, cough)? Through public service? (Don’t bust a gut laughing…) How do billionaires gain additional wealth so effortlessly (cough, Federal Reserve, cough)?

The rot starts at the top and then seeps down into every fiber of the nation’s economic, social and political orders. As noted here previously, America is now a moral cesspool, and “democracy” is merely the public-relations cover for a neofeudal autocracy.

Behind every PR narrative lies the corruption of self-interest. How is it that day-traders now rabidly follow Pelosi’s stock portfolio, and super-wealthy Federal Reserve “leaders” front-run the Fed’s policies to further enrich themselves while claiming the mantle of “public service”?

How does a child molester like Jeffrey Epstein end up entertaining Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, the Harvard elite, and a veritable who’s who of America’s wealthy and powerful players?

The evidence of irreversible social decay is everywhere: road rage is now ubiquitous in aircraft and other social settings, common ground has vanished, and the willingness or even the capacity to identify common interests has been pulverized by the supremacy of self-interest.

“Reform” is another insider joke. Real reform might impinge on the wealth and power of our self-interested elites, so what we have instead is simulacra of reform which only add additional friction to a system choking on bureaucratic sand in the gears.

Homeless encampments are now just another accepted reflection of “soaring wealth and prosperity” in America, along with the declining prospects and wealth of the bottom 80%. If you fail to repeat the party line with sufficient enthusiasm, Big Tech will send you to the Digital Gulag.

The more that politicians, Fed governors, insiders and billionaires bleat that they really, really care about commoners, the greater the gulf between the reality of their self-interest and their laughably transparent PR. As the apologists, toadies, lackeys, factotums and apparatchiks frantically spew rah-rah PR about the “recovery” (you mean we’re all addicts and are now “recovering”?), the workforce is finally awakening to the emptiness of the PR and the decay of America’s social order: the rewards of the economy have flowed to two classes, the Financial Aristocracy, the top 0.1% who now own more wealth than the bottom 80% of American households, and speculators, from the front-running scammers on Wall Street to the daytraders gambling their Pelosi portfolios.

So by all means, focus on the inexorable rise of stocks, cryptos and housing as “proof” of America’s soaring “wealth” while the social order unravels beneath our feet. 

Self-interest never had it so good.

*  *  *

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
Sat, 10/02/2021 – 11:50

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Yo4k4e Tyler Durden

“We’ve Been Locked Up For Almost 50 Days” – 1000s Rally Against Auckland Lockdown As Public Opposition Grows

“We’ve Been Locked Up For Almost 50 Days” – 1000s Rally Against Auckland Lockdown As Public Opposition Grows

As Australia finally begins to scale back some of its least-popular lockdown rules in the face of growth opposition by the public and the business community, anti-lockdown demonstrations in New Zealand are ramping up once again.

A large group of demonstrators gathered at a large park in Auckland on Saturday to protest ongoing COVID lockdown measures in the tiny Antipodean nation of roughly 5MM, many arriving with a procession of motorbikes lead by a local church leader.

The demonstrators, said to number between 1K and 2K, according to local media reports, descended on the Auckland Domain on Saturday to demand an end to the lockdowns.

A caravan of motorcycles led by Brian Tamaki, a vocal anti-lockdown activist who heads the Auckland-based Pentecostal Destiny Church, was among the first on scene at the protests on Saturday, and he captured videos as the procession made its way to the park.

Tamaki and the rest of the crowd remained peaceful during the demonstration, with Tamaki delivering a fiery, 40-minute speech denouncing the draconian shutdown orders, which have remained in effect in Auckland for nearly two months.

In his speech, Tamaki compared the lockdown in Auckland, which is nearing its 50-day milestone, to being on “house arrest”, while lamenting the dynamic of not being able to trust one’s own neighbors not to snitch on them.

“Now Auckland’s coming up to 50 days – 50 days we’ve been on home detention. That’s the same thing they give to prisoners who’ve done a crime; it’s an alternative to going to jail,” he said. “I’ve been locked up for over 50 days in my house, and I haven’t done a crime. I’ve done nothing wrong, and I’ve been punished. We are penalized.”

“I can’t go outside because the neighbor might tell on me. I can’t drive down the road to get some milk and bread because the policeman might pull me over.”

The police presence at Saturday’s demonstration was somewhat subdued, with no arrests or clashes reported. Still, National Party MP Simeon Brown, the party’s police spokesman, denounced the protest, while also taking a shot at law enforcement.

“The rules are clear. The police have rightly warned protesters in Auckland today – yet we see a blind eye turned to gangs breaking lockdown rules. Aucklanders want out of this lockdown – and it means rules being applied consistency [sic],” he said in a tweet, presumably referring to the biker procession as a ‘gang’.

Earlier this week, Brown denounced “gang members” – including bikers – after they gathered for a funeral, which was promptly dispersed by police in West Auckland. He said the funeral was “demoralizing for the more than 1.7MM Aucklanders” who have followed the rules and done what they have been told to do.

“This is just not good enough. The government needs to make clear that the rules apply to gang members and if they break them they will be treated just like everyone else,” he went on, calling for a harsher police response.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern declared a “short and sharp” national lockdown in mid-August after a single COVID case was detected in Auckland, the country’s largest metropolis. The measures have dragged on in Auckland, even as much of New Zealand has returned to normal. While the Australians next door are starting to move on from the “ZERO COVID” approach, New Zealand is still insisting on what scientists have described as an impossible standard. That should be a concern for all Aucklanders, since all this sacrifice ultimately likely won’t make much of a difference.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/02/2021 – 11:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3F9UWln Tyler Durden

“Biggest Tragedy Ahead Of Us” – New Lava Blast Detected At Canary Islands Volcano

“Biggest Tragedy Ahead Of Us” – New Lava Blast Detected At Canary Islands Volcano

The Canary Islands’ Cumbre Vieja volcano increased its eruptive force on Friday as a new fissure opened up. 

Spanish Geological and Mining Institute (IGME) said two new lava flows had emerged from a third fissure approximately 400 meters from the main crater. 

At least three vents have opened since the volcano erupted on Sept. 19, but the latest one is being closely ‘monitored.’ 

More than 6,000 people have been evacuated. Lava flows have destroyed 1,000 building structures, and Spain has approved a $12.2 million aid package to help the island. 

Satellite imagery captured by the European Space Agency shows the trail of destruction

A closer view of the lava meeting the ocean. 

On Friday, the regional leader of the Canary Islands, Ángel Victor Torres, told reporters during a scheduled press conference that Cumbre Vieja has released an astonishing 80 million cubic meters of lava, or more than double the amount than the last eruption in 1971. 

We have the biggest tragedy ahead of us, more people we have to help,” Mariano Hernández Zapata, the president of the island council of La Palma, told El País. “We are worried about the course this new flow of lava could follow, although we hope that it will join the other.”

Minister Felix Bolanos visited the island on Friday to reassure locals the Spanish government would support them in this time of need: 

“We are all clear about what is the priority: helping the citizens of La Palma. Residents must be calm and proud of their institutions,” Bolaños.

A new fissure emerging is not a positive sign that the eruption is abating anytime soon. Earlier this week, the volcano entered a ‘new explosive phase.’ There’s also the threat of toxic gases poisoning the air as the lava meets the ocean. Even in Europe, there have been reports of acid rain

Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/02/2021 – 11:00

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

UK Military Wants To Spy On Social Media To Detect “Change In Population Sentiment”

UK Military Wants To Spy On Social Media To Detect “Change In Population Sentiment”

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

The UK Ministry of Defence has inadvertently revealed its plan to spy on social media platforms in order to detect “change(s) in population sentiment.”

Despite ostensibly being about “better use of existing silos,” the MoD’s Data Strategy for Defence document explains how the military should move towards “Automated scanning of social media platforms” to detect “change in population sentiment.”

“Nowhere does the document explain why a strategy paper has gone so far off the beaten track that it promotes collecting data the MoD doesn’t have and using it for decidedly non-military purposes,” reports the Register.

Since the beginning of the COVID pandemic, the military has increasingly turned its attention inward towards its own citizens rather than doing what it should do, which is fighting foreign adversaries.

As author Laura Dodsworth revealed, GCHQ has embroiled itself in anti-vaccine and anti-lockdown messaging by targeting people who challenge the official COVID narrative online.

“She says some people believe they have been targeted by the 77th Brigade, part of the 6th Division of the Army,” reported the Telegraph.

According to the Ministry of Defence, the 77th Brigade uses “legitimate non-military levers as a means to adapt behaviours of the opposing forces and adversaries.”

The military’s main “adversaries” are now apparently British citizens who complain about lockdown while questioning the efficacy and safety of vaccines.

Dodsworth said she “hit a brick wall” when attempting to get answers about the unit’s activities, noting, “and I find that when someone puts up a brick wall, it’s because that’s where the real story lies.”

The unit played its role in the broader agenda, facilitated by government-affiliated behavioral psychologists, to terrify the public into mass obedience to lockdown rules by exaggerating the threat posed by COVID.

*  *  *

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Get early access, exclusive content and behinds the scenes stuff by following me on Locals.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/02/2021 – 10:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3A3zOJK Tyler Durden