Trump Would Bar ‘Child Sexual Mutilation In All 50 States’

Trump Would Bar ‘Child Sexual Mutilation In All 50 States’

Former President Donald Trump told an audience at a Faith and Freedom Coalition event on Saturday that he would sign a law barring transgender surgeries for children.

“Something else I find hard to believe that I have to even say,” said Trump. “It’s so ridiculous. It’s so horrible and so ridiculous. I will keep men out of women’s sports.”

“And I will sign a law prohibiting child sexual mutilation in all 50 states. Prohibited,” he continued, adding: “And on day one I will reinstate the Trump ban on transgenders in the military. Because a warrior should be focused on crushing American enemies, on being strong, on having the image of being strong.”

“They have to be powerful. They have to be strong, especially when you see what’s happening in the world today, not catering to radical gender ideology.”

Trump also slammed critical race theory, and vowed to cut federal funding to any school which promotes it, or any ‘inappropriate political, sexual or racial content.’

“Can you believe this? Can you imagine saying this 10 or 15 years ago? I will fight for parents’ rights,” Trump told the crowd, adding “I will fight for the direct election of school principals by the parents, the parents of the school. If any principal is not getting the job done, the parents should be able to fire them immediately and select someone who will.”

Likewise, Trump vowed that he “will not give one penny to any school that has a vaccine mandate or mask mandate from kindergarten to college.”

More via The Epoch Times;

During his 2016 campaign, Trump rarely focused on social issues and instead targeted illegal immigration, taxes, manufacturing, and growing the economy. On the other hand, his chief rival, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis—who is polling about 30 points behind Trump—has often focused on social issues as governor of Florida, including signing a bill earlier this year that would prohibit teachers to instruct or discuss sexual orientation or gender issues with small children.

About a dozen Republican-led states have passed laws or rules that bar transgender medical procedures and drugs for minors, and around a dozen other states are considering other measures. Around 20 states have also banned biological males claiming to be transgender women from competing in women’s sports.

Earlier this year, Trump said at a National Rifle Association (NRA) event that he would use the federal government to investigate transgender medical procedures and drugs, while accusing top U.S. officials of “pushing the transgender cult” on younger Americans, while “persecuting Christians” and “demonizing patriots.”

Also at the Faith and Freedom event, Trump stated that he is “proud to be the most pro-life president in American history,” adding, “I took historic action to protect the unborn.”

As your President, I will continue to stand proudly for pro-life policies just as I did for four strong years … we cannot be afraid to take on the Democrat extremists, we can’t be afraid. We have to be strong and powerful,” he remarked. “That’s why when I’m reelected, I will continue to fight against the demented late-term abortionists in the Democrat Party who believe in unlimited abortion on demand and even executing babies after birth.”

At that same conference, Trump touched on the Department of Justice’s charges that were brought against him for allegedly mishandling classified documents. He pleaded not guilty to those counts earlier this month.

Every time the radical left Democrats, Marxists, Communists, and fascists indict me, I consider it a great badge of courage,” he told supporters, referring to the case.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/28/2023 – 22:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/ioHdWqJ Tyler Durden

Dr. Peter Hotez’s Funding Linked To Controversial Chinese Military Scientists At Wuhan Lab

Dr. Peter Hotez’s Funding Linked To Controversial Chinese Military Scientists At Wuhan Lab

Authored by Kanekoa The Great via Kanekoa News (emphasis ours),

In a groundbreaking revelation, it has come to light that Dr. Peter Hotez, an esteemed vaccine researcher, has been entangled in a web of funding, collaboration, and research with Chinese military scientists potentially involved in the development of COVID-19. The intricate tale weaves together key Chinese military virologists and culminates in the smoking gun evidence surrounding COVID-19’s notorious furin cleavage site.

At the center of this narrative lies Dr. Hotez, a distinguished professor at Baylor College of Medicine, who secured a substantial research grant (R01AI098775) from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) led by Dr. Anthony Fauci. This grant, amounting to over $1 million per year, supports Dr. Hotez’s project titled “RBD Recombinant Protein-Based SARS Vaccine for Biodefense,” with Dr. Shibo Jiang listed as a Principal Investigator.

Dr. Shibo Jiang, a professor at Fudan University, boasts an impressive academic background. After completing his Master’s degree from the People’s Liberation Army’s Guangzhou First Military Medical University (广州第一军医大学) and his Medical Doctor degree from Xi’an Fourth Military Medical University (西安第四军医大学微), he pursued postdoctoral training at Rockefeller University in New York from 1987 to 1990.

Subsequently, he held various positions at the New York Blood Center’s Lindsley F. Kimball Research Institute until 2010, including Head of the Viral Immunology Laboratory. Since then, he has served as a professor at Fudan University’s Key Laboratory of Medical Molecular Virology in Shanghai, China.

During his time in the United States, Dr. Shibo Jiang also acted as a visiting professor at several prestigious People’s Liberation Army (PLA) universities, including the First and Fourth Military Medical University, the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS), and Southern Medical University (formerly known as the First Military Medical University). Despite his collaboration with the Chinese military, he received research grants totaling over $20 million from NIAID under Dr. Fauci’s leadership between 1997 and 2016.

Professor Jiang, a member of China’s renowned Thousand Talents Plan, actively collaborated with PLA scientists on numerous scientific papers supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the First Military Medical University, and the AMMS. However, concerns have been raised regarding the nature of these collaborations, as a 2020 FBI report indicates that such talent recruitment plans “usually involve undisclosed and illegal transfers of information, technology, or intellectual property detrimental to U.S. institutions.”

Together with Dr. Zhou Yusen, a distinguished PLA virologist and fellow AMMS alumnus, Professor Jiang co-invented multiple U.S. patents and published numerous scientific papers on SARS and MERS coronaviruses, often with the support of NIAID funds. Dr. Yusen, the former director of the PLA’s AMMS Laboratory of Pathogen and Biosecurity at the Beijing Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology, filed the world’s first patent application for a COVID-19 vaccine in China on February 24, 2020, just a month after the country acknowledged human-to-human transmission.

This discovery raises suspicions that the Chinese military may have been working on a vaccine even before officially notifying the World Health Organization about the outbreak.

 

Interestingly, concerns surrounding the origins of the COVID-19 virus intensify when examining the furin cleavage site. Dr. Richard Ebright, a respected molecular biologist, and laboratory director, highlights the unique nature of the furin cleavage, stating that:

“SARS-CoV-2 is the only member of the SARS-related betacoronavirus group that contains a furin cleavage site. The SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site exhibits unusual codon usage, and the SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site is located at a position that previously has been used to engineer coronaviruses having enhanced infectivity.”

Further compounding the intrigue, Dr. David Baltimore, a renowned US virologist and co-discoverer of reverse transcriptase, expresses his belief that the furin cleavage indicates a laboratory origin for the virus, stating, “When I first saw the furin cleavage site in the viral sequence, with its arginine codons, I said to my wife it was the smoking gun for the origin of the virus.”

With an esteemed career, a Nobel Prize, and extensive scientific expertise, Dr. Baltimore’s observations carry significant weight. Of additional concern is Professor Jiang’s expertise in inserting furin cleavage sites into coronaviruses.

Moreover, Professor Jiang and Dr. Lanying Du, another prominent Chinese virologist funded by Dr. Fauci and Dr. Hotez’s R01AI098775 grant, have collaborated on various scientific papers with the PLA’s AMMS and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The untimely death of Dr. Yusen, who fell from the roof of the Wuhan Institute of Virology within three months of filing the patent, further fuels suspicions surrounding the origins of COVID-19.

Dr. Du, the widow of Dr. Yusen, published at the PLA’s AMMS before migrating to the United States, where she joined Professor Jiang at the New York Blood Center’s Lindsley F. Kimball Research Institute. Remarkably, a U.S. Senate report reveals that the data referenced in Dr. Yusen’s patent could not have been generated as quickly as claimed, suggesting that he and his team may have started developing a COVID vaccine as early as November 2019.

Furthermore, at least five publications funded by Dr. Fauci and Dr. Hotez’s grant list Dr. Zhou Yusen, a People’s Liberation Army officer central to the COVID-19 origin controversy at the Wuhan lab, as a co-author. These findings raise concerns about the connections between Dr. Fauci, Dr. Hotez, Dr. Jiang, Dr. Du, Dr. Yusen, and the Chinese military scientists potentially involved in the origin of COVID-19.

Additionally, both Professor Jiang and Dr. Du have published scientific research for the AMMS, which was added to the U.S. government’s Foreign Entity Blacklist in 2021 due to its use of “biotechnology processes to support Chinese military end uses.” Dr. Hotez’s involvement in this complex situation becomes evident when examining his subcontracted funding for these scientists connected to the People’s Liberation Army and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, particularly in the field of artificially inserting furin cleavage sites into coronaviruses.

During a February 2021 interview, Dr. Hotez discussed their collaboration, stating, “About ten years ago, we got approached by a group at the New York Blood Center led by Shibo Jiang and Lanying Du that had a pretty good idea for coronavirus vaccines.

Notably, in 2013, Professor Jiang and Dr. Du, along with their Chinese military colleagues, demonstrated the artificial insertion of a furin cleavage site similar to the one found in the COVID-19 virus. This study was funded by the Chinese government and a private Chinese biotech company, while Professor Jiang and Dr. Lanying also received funding from Dr. Fauci and Dr. Hotez.

A study published by Dr. Shibo Jiang, Dr. Lanying Du, Dr. Shi Zhengli, and Dr. Ralph Baric, an American scientist considered a pioneer in gain-of-function research on coronaviruses, demonstrated the introduction of a human protease cleavage site into the spike protein of coronaviruses, enabling cross-species transmission to humans. Notably, this aligns precisely with the furin cleavage site found in the S1/S2 junction of SARS-CoV-2.

While Dr. Hotez criticizes congressional hearings on the origins of COVID-19, stating that they are “inviting fringe elements to testify and promote outlandish conspiracy theories,” even warning that investigation will “undermine the fabric of science in America,” it is crucial to examine the mounting connections between Dr. Hotez, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Jiang, Dr. Du, and Dr. Yusen with Chinese military scientists, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and the suspicious furin cleavage site. This evidence demands a thorough investigation to uncover the truth about the origins of the COVID-19 virus, a truth that holds profound implications for people worldwide.

.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/28/2023 – 21:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Xxjvn1m Tyler Durden

Bud Light To Permanently Lose Nearly 25% Of Its Business: Analysts

Bud Light To Permanently Lose Nearly 25% Of Its Business: Analysts

After self-destructing in the name of signaling virtue, Bud Light is looking at a permanent loss of nearly 25% of its business, according to Deutsche Bank analyst Mitch Collett in a recent Barron‘s article.

“We believe recent underperformance implies a permanent reduction in ABI’s U.S. business,” writes Collett, referring to Anheuser-Busch InBev, the parent company of Bud Light. “Our proprietary survey data suggests these headwinds are likely to fade even if we do not expect the U.S. business ever to fully recover from its current challenges.”

Data gathered by Deutsche Bank suggests that 24% of Bud Light consumers no longer purchase the brand, while another 18% are buying less of it.

“Taken together, our survey data shows that Bud Light as a brand faces significant challenges—particularly with older consumers. However, we believe the forward-looking data sets imply that the challenges will at least partially fade,” wrote Collett, who actually upgraded shares of AB InBev to “buy” from “hold,” with a new price target of $65.92, up from $64.83.

That said, another analyst, Evercore’s Robert Ottenstein, said Bud Light will “permanently lose” between 15 and 20% of its volume, after which “declines will resume at about the average rate of the prior 10 years.”

Budweiser will also see a similar pattern, with consumers lost in 2022 not coming back,” he continued in a note highlighted by Yahoo Finance in which quotes Collett as saying Bud Light and Anheuser-Busch are “at the end of the tunnel” of the controversy.

In May, HSBC downgraded the stock to “hold” over its “Bud Light crisis,” adding that there may be “deeper problems” at the company.

“Is ABI’s leadership getting the brand culture transformation right? It’s mixed,” he said. “At Ambev, we think the answer is ‘yes’; in the U.S., we think it’s ‘no.’ The way this Bud Light crisis came about a month ago, management’s response to it and the loss of unprecedented volume and brand relevance raises many questions.”

More via the Epoch Times;

Since its ill-fated promotional exercise in early April with Mulvaney, a transgender TikTok influencer, Bud Light has seen its weekly sales decline. Recent data from Bump Williams Consulting and Nielsen IQ show that for the week ending on June 10, Bud Light’s year-over-year sales have declined by 26.8 percent, representing the worst week so far.

And for the month of May, Constellation Brands-owned Modelo Especial was the No. 1-selling brand in the United States, outpacing Bud Light, which fell to No. 2, industry data show.

Bump Williams, chief of the eponymous consulting company, told the New York Post on June 21: “This was a tough week for Bud Light and other beer brands” that are owned by Anheuser-Busch, including Budweiser. Sales of Budweiser were down by 10 percent, Natural Light was down by 2.3 percent, and Michelob Ultra was down by 2.4 percent.

Anheuser-Busch’s CEO, Michel Doukeris, told investors last month that he believes that online “misinformation” was the primary reason for the sales numbers, and he asserted that it was just “one can” that was produced with Mulvaney’s face on it and appeared to deny that there was a partnership. However, Mulvaney posted on social media that there was a partnership.

The can drew the ire of multiple celebrities and conservative influencers on Twitter. Some suggested that consumers boycott the brand in a bid to send a message to corporations who may be pursuing a “woke” leftist agenda.

An executive with Anheuser-Busch recently spoke out about the boycott as he got an award during the Cannes Lions International Festival in southern France.

“It’s tough to see the controversial and divisive debates that have been happening in the U.S. in the last couple of weeks involving lots of brands and companies, including and especially Bud Light,” Anheuser-Busch’s global chief marketing officer, Marcel Marcondes, told the Cannes Lions International Festival, according to an Ad Age report. “It’s tough exactly because what we do is all about bringing people together.”

Marketing Pivot

With summer officially starting last week, Bud Light pivoted and launched a new promotional campaign. But that, too, was derided on social media, with some demanding that the company apologize for its promotional efforts with Mulvaney.

Responding to the latest ad, podcast host Liz Wheeler wrote on Twitter that the company was trying to whitewash the past two months of controversy.

“None of this is funny until & unless you apologize for using Dylan Mulvaney—a man pretending to be a woman—as your spokesperson. It’s insulting that you think an ad about summer will make us forget our principles. The boycott continues,” she wrote in a post.

Anheuser-Busch didn’t respond to a request from The Epoch Times for comment by press time.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/28/2023 – 21:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/6jFOqGu Tyler Durden

America’s First State Trans Representative Arrested For Child Pornography

America’s First State Trans Representative Arrested For Child Pornography

Authored by Jackson Elliott via The Epoch Times,

New Hampshire police arrested transgender state representative Stacie-Marie Laughton for distributing child sex abuse images.

A mug shot of Stacie-Marie Laughton, a transgender-identifying man. (Courtesy of Nausha, New Hampshire’s police department)

Laughton, a Democrat, was America’s first transgender state representative. Born male, he went through sex change procedures to resemble a woman.

This incident isn’t Laughton’s first brush with the law. Police arrested Laughton on Nov. 12, accusing him of violating a court order prohibiting him from posting on social media about another individual. According to court documents, prosecutors also seek to impose a suspended sentence of up to nine months he was given last year.

In that case, police accused Laughton of texting 911 “for no emergency or police related matter” a dozen times between May and July 2021. Prosecutors dropped nine of the 12 charges. On the others, courts ordered him to perform community service, participate in a peer support program and remain on good behavior.

A transgender flag sits on the grass outside the U.S. Capitol building in Washington on May 22, 2023. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

In 2012, Laughton, a New Hampshire state-level representative, was the first openly transgender person elected to a state legislature.

But he never took his seat, resigning after a prior felony conviction raised questions about his legal ability to serve.

New Hampshire politicians can only run for office after “final discharge” from prison. When Republicans noted that Laughton was still outside prison only on condition of good behavior, he resigned.

In 2020, Laughton ran for office as a state representative and won. He won again in 2022.

But at the time of his most recent arrest, Laughton wasn’t in office in his third Hillsborough district. He resigned in December 2022 after facing stalking charges.

The Epoch Times reached out to Laughton for comment but received none by publication time.

On the Nausha, New Hampshire, police records website, the press release describing his arrest wasn’t available and displayed an error message.

An officer told The Epoch Times that the website had been hacked and had problems displaying criminal charges.

The police supplied records that referred to Laughton with female pronouns as they charged him with four counts of child pornography distribution.

“On Tuesday, June 20, 2023, Officers responded to a local facility for a juvenile matter. They spoke with reporting parties that indicated Laughton distributed sexually explicit images of children,” the police report reads.

Daycare Worker Arrested

The police also sent The Epoch Times a press release on the arrest of 38-year-old Lindsay Groves on child pornography charges.

“Due to the nature of the investigation members of the Homeland Security Investigations were notified,” the police press release reads.

Groves is a Hudson, New Hampshire, resident.

According to a press release by the Massachusetts Attorney General, authorities arrested Groves for taking sexually explicit pictures of children at Creative Minds, a daycare in Tyngsborough, Massachusetts.

Groves, a daycare employee, sent these pictures to “an individual with whom she was previously in an intimate relationship,” according to the press release. However, the press release never names this individual.

A mug shot of Lindsay Groves. (Courtesy of Nausha, New Hampshire’s police department)

“Due to Groves’s case now being investigated federally, I cannot comment on the connection between the two cases,” Sergeant John Cinelli of the Nashua Police Department told The Epoch Times.

However, New Hampshire city of Nashua police public information officer Sgt. John Cinelli told The Union Leader that Laughton’s arrest stemmed from the same investigation that led to Grove’s arrest.

In office, Laughton sponsored and cosponsored a range of bills that included legalizing marijuana, decriminalizing psychedelic mushrooms, and prohibiting anti-union activities by employers.

Along with Democrats Rep. David Cote and Rep. Fred Davis, Laughton won office in 2022 in his three-seat district with 26.4 percent of the vote.

Voters also chose Laughton in the 2012 state election and 2020 state election.

“Democrats in the State House will always work to protect a women’s (sic) right to an abortion, push to adopt domestic renewable energy so we can lower energy costs and fight to keep public money in public schools so every student in New Hampshire has the opportunity succeed,” Laughton’s House Democrats campaign page reads.

From Prison to Preaching

Recently, Laughton was ordained as a minister, according to his YouTube page.

GetOrdained.org shows Laughton affiliated with Buddhism, Methodism, New Age, Oneness Pentecostalism, Pentecostalism, Protestantism, Rastafarianism, Spiritualism, Tibetan Buddhism, Unitarian Universalism, and Universal Life Church.

It’s not clear what Laughton’s position on child transgenderism is. On his Facebook page, he links to a video from Caitlyn Jenner, a man who says he is a woman.

In the video, Jenner condemns the “radical rainbow mafia.”

“Government’s basically trying to take over our children,” Jenner said. “This is an issue between the parents, God, and their doctor.”

Caitlyn Jenner arrives at the Elton John AIDS Foundation Academy Awards Viewing Party on Sunday, in West Hollywood, Calif., on March 27, 2022. (Willy Sanjuan/Invision/AP)

Experts and activists have voiced concern over men who enjoy dressing as women receiving access to children.

Jon Uhler, a therapist who treats sex offenders, said that in his experience if a man feels comfortable performing sexual dance in a skimpy women’s outfit for children, he’s likely extremely sexually deviant and “poses a significant risk to women and children.”

Some transgender-identifying men experience autogynephilia, a feeling of sexual arousal by thinking of themselves as female.

According to government surveys, nearly 3 percent of men experience this feeling, and increasing numbers of these men identify as transgender.

“Autogynephilia exemplifies an unusual paraphilic category called ‘erotic target identity inversions’, in which men desire to impersonate or turn their bodies into facsimiles of the persons or things to which they are sexually attracted.”

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/28/2023 – 21:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/CJuTRkG Tyler Durden

Tucker Carlson Dares To Ask “Why Exactly Are We At War With Russia?”

Tucker Carlson Dares To Ask “Why Exactly Are We At War With Russia?”

“Why exactly are we at war with Russia?”

Those are the verboten words that Tucker Carlson to utter at the start of Episode 7 Of his Tucker on Twitter series where he highlights the irony that the so-called ‘war for democracy’ is actually enabling dictatorship and tyranny.

With nuclear extinction a possibility and 1000s of lives and billions of dollars already wasted, “what’s the point” he asks, “are we really doing this so that the Biden family can repay its debts to the oligarchs that financed their beachhouse.”

“Thankfully” the former Fox News star explains, “we have an answer.”

“The war against Putin and for Ukraine is in fact a war for democracy.”

Sounds familiar?

“Democracy must prevail” exclaims Nancy Pelosi as Carlson offers bipartisan examples of warmongers pushing for ‘democracy’ and all the military-industrial complex enrichment that comes with it.

Carlson further mocks the rhetoric surrounding the war as a fight for democracy, highlighting the irony of supporting Ukrainian President Zelensky, who suspended democracy in his own country.

we are currently fighting a war for democracy on behalf of a leader who just casually announced he’s happy to end democracy and our democracy and supporting leaders have no problem with that

In fact, the Biden administration continual support for Ukraine despite Zelensky’s disregard for democracy, implies that their motives are questionable.

He argues that during wartime, politicians become powerful and can justify any action, including silencing political opponents, leading to a potential erosion of democracy.

Carlson suggests that those in Washington, including Republicans, support Biden’s stance on Ukraine because ending the war would threaten their power.

He concludes by speculating on the future of Joe Biden, pointing out his age-related decline and potential implications for the Democratic Party, suggesting that Gavin Newsom may be a potential successor.

Watch the full episode below:

Full transcript below:

Hey it’s Tucker Carlson, you may have found yourself wondering recently as the world slides closer to nuclear Annihilation than any time in human history why exactly are we at war with Russia.

It seems like there’s a pretty significant downside to this particular foreign policy decision, starting with economic collapse and ending potentially with Extinction so is there a good reason we’re doing it so many innocent young people have been killed so many hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted some of them from the U.S treasury so what’s the point are we really doing this so the Biden family can repay its debts to the oligarchs who finance their beach house in Rehoboth.

We’re doing it so our government can continue to lie about its illicit bio labs in Eastern Europe so that flabby losers like Toria Newland and Tony Blinken can feel like they’re doing something important with their sad empty lives.

Really honestly there’s got to be a better reason for waging this the most pointless war of all.

What is it.

Well thankfully we have an answer: the war against Russia ladies and gentlemen the war against Putin and for Ukraine is in fact a war for democracy.

Watch and recall the motive the president has said many times “we’re focused on what we can do to support Ukraine’s effort to fight for their democracy”.

“Democracy must prevail. The Ukrainian people are fighting the fight for their democracy and in doing so for ours as well.”

“Assisting and helping Ukraine win this fight for democracy and freedom and of course Ukrainian president zielinski understand that what’s at stake in Ukraine is bigger than just his Nation it is literally a battle for freedom and democracy themselves.”

“They are showing the world what an existential fight for democracy looks like.”

“President Zelenky and the Ukrainians have changed the course of history for the better and we unequivocally are with the Ukrainian people in their fight to remain a sovereign democracy.

Unequivocally with the Ukrainian people to remain in democracy it’s a bipartisan view democracy must Prevail.

You just heard noted democracy expert Nancy Pelosi say the daughter of the mobbed up mayor of Baltimore as Pelosi puts it the Ukrainian people are fighting the fight for their democracy and for ours as well that’s right for ours as well without Ukrainian democracy in other words we can have no democracy here if the ukrainians aren’t free.

Neither are we we must make sure they can vote in Kiev so we can continue to vote in Kansas City.

It’s really that simple and yet tonight we regret to tell you that we have a problem it looks like they’re not going to be able to vote in Kiev anymore and no for once it’s not Putin’s fault.

Democracy in Ukraine seems to be suspended by the world’s foremost democracy Advocate himself Field Marshal zielinski.

Watch:

If we win” he says “we’ll let people vote otherwise no you vote” and we feel like it because ultimately we’re completely in charge and make all the rules.

Your job is to obey or be punished.

That’s our version of self-government.

Self means me – I’m the government now.

That’s not just any autocrat that’s our chief Ally in the war for democracy.

This is the guy who just announced he’s like did you cancel next year’s elections.

So you’ve got to wonder what the Biden Administration thinks of this – we can’t possibly continue to support zielinski, that guy, after he said that can we because in a clip less than 30 seconds long he just blew up our entire rationale for supporting his side in the war.

So we can’t support him.

Oh of course we can and we will.

Here’s Joe Biden from yesterday reaffirming America’s unequivocal support for Ukraine no matter what happened in Russia “we the United States should continue to support Ukraine’s defense and its sovereignty and its territorial integrity”.

So to recap we are currently fighting a war for democracy on behalf of a leader who just casually announced he’s happy to end democracy and our democracy and supporting leaders have no problem with that in fact they’re strongly for it.

Shocked?

You shouldn’t be.

Of course they’re for it. You should have seen this coming.

Wars for democracy always cancel democracy in the process – that’s why our leaders love them and they all do it – even The Virtuous leaders Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, the British government under Winston Churchill through an entire opposition party into prison and let them rot for the duration – in some cases with their families.

So in a war for democracy you can do anything.

Imagine what a man might do who has fewer principles.

If that man say ran Ukraine he might seize churches arrest priests ban all criticism of himself disappear his political opponents and that’s happening.

Just last month zelinski threw a man called Gonzalo Lira into prison indefinitely for the crime of daring to write about the Ukrainian government in unflattering ways.

Now what’s interesting what separates this from other such cases is that lira is an American citizen, so Joe Biden who was quite a bit of SWAT as they say in Ukraine could have freed Gonzalo Lira within hours, but he didn’t. He didn’t want to – he didn’t say a word about it – he remains in prison tonight.

So that makes you wonder what’s the real motive here when normal people see War they see death and destruction, sadness and suffering; but that’s not what demagogues see – they understand it differently they know that War means power mostly for them.

During wartime everything they do can be justified – war is the gravest of all emergencies – imagine the coveted lockdowns times a thousand plus drones.

Once War breaks out politicians become Gods with the power of life and death. So in a peaceful democracy you have to debate your political opponents in public and that’s tiresome but in a war for democracy you can just throw them in jail or have them executed. You can see that many in Washington are looking forward to that moment and that may be why they so fervently support Joe Biden – even many Republicans – against a potential opponent – the only opponent who opposes the war in Ukraine.

If you were to end the war their power would evaporate.

Last week a whistleblower produced WhatsApp messages from Hunter Biden proving that at the very least his father knew about his influence peddling businesses abroad and probably participated in them “I’m sitting here with my father” Hunter Biden wrote to his Chinese Partners demanding money as much as anything reported about the bidens over the last several years this was The Smoking Gun.

There it is right there in the message that would have been enough to a normal president it would have been more than enough to keep a normal president from running for office again but had virtually no effect on Joe Biden.

Most media Outlets ignored it completely or tried to spin Biden’s relationship with his son as some kind of moral Victory “the real meaning of the hunter Biden Saga as I see it” wrote Nick Kristoff of the New York Times “isn’t about presidential corruption but is about how widespread addiction is and about how a determined parent with unconditional love can sometimes reel a child back.”

He actually wrote that and if you doubt it you should know that view was common.Here’s the take from ABC “the hunter Biden story, the Scandal, the this, that, it’s also the story of a Father’s Love and Joe Biden has never and will never give up on his son Hunter and will never treat him lesser than and so he is a father first take it or leave it.

So whistleblower produces a text message showing that Joe Biden was in the room with his son when his son was selling influence to an enemy power the Chinese government and ABC’s take on it Joe Biden is a father first take it or leave it.

What accounts for a response like that?

Well that’s the way you talk when you’ve got nothing to fear from an upcoming presidential election – you don’t even bother to think of an excuse for your candidate because you don’t need to. Your country has electronic voting machines – Joe Biden got 81 million votes in 2020 and you’re pretty sure he can do it again.

In fact you know he can you’re not worried but actually they should be a little worried

The people who control Joe Biden – Susan Rice and the rest – know they can continue to run our government, writing the press releases, formulating the policies, and they can do it effectively forever, as long as Joe Biden gets dressed in the morning, and of course that’s their strong preference.

These are fervent opponents of change but the one thing these people cannot control is aging.

Joe Biden is old he’s 80 now he will be 85 at the end of the next term.

People imagine that old age is a long predictable progression from Acuity to permanent unconsciousness but often that’s not at all how it actually works.

When old people start to slide they tend to Slide fast.

Joe Biden has begun that descent.

Here he was yesterday and here’s what she wrote to me and I quote you can imagine my joy she called them right away and the next day they sent someone out to survey her yard as Beth wrote this is the best thing that’s happened in Rural America since the rural electrification act for electricity to farms in the 30s and 40s end of quote.”

End of quote you weren’t supposed to hear that – Joe Biden read the stage directions out loud –  that’s like eating the garnish that comes with your entree you’re supposed to know not to do that.

Joe Biden no longer does in a year or two he will be gone completely and there will be no hiding it at that point the Democratic party will face a secession problem.

If Joe Biden is re-elected next year and then forced to leave office during his term due to disability or death that means Kamala Harris will become president of the United States and nobody wants that not even her husband.

In real life nobody likes Kamala Harris.

That’s not an attack on her in fact it’s possible to feel pity for someone who’s so universally reviled. It is instead an observation of unchanging physical reality like gravity or photosynthesis nobody wants Kamala Harris to be president no one will benefit if she becomes president so logic suggests there’s going to be a change.

It’s going to have to be somebody else and whoever that person is is going to have to enter the race soon before the election after Biden drops out.

Who could that person be? We don’t know obviously this is all just guessing but we do know whoever that is we’ll have to have two essential criteria he’ll have to be as shallow ruthless and transactional as Joe Biden is and he’ll need to have flattery skills that are so polished and advanced they’d be considered Superior even in the Saudi Royal Court and there’s only one man in modern America who fits that description Gavin Newsom the governor of California and perhaps not coincidentally Joe Biden’s new closest friend.

“I am here Mr President” Newsom told Biden at an event that they did together last week. “I am here as a proud American as a proud Californian mesmerized by not just your faith and your Devotion to this country and the world we’re trying to build but by your results by your action by your passion by Your Capacity to deliver.”

I get mesmerized by you Joe Biden – imagine saying that as a compliment you couldn’t do it.

Few human beings could do it but Gavin Newsom had no problem at all those words rolled right off his Fork tongue. He never stopped smiling so if you’re looking for the leader of the coup there he is right there she’s in Kennedy’s motorcade.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/28/2023 – 19:55

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/1ZFCHVv Tyler Durden

Steve Calabresi on Moore v. Harper

I am putting this post up on behalf of Northwestern University law Prof. Steven Calabresi, at his request. While Steve is a contributor to the Volokh Conspiracy blog, he has been having difficulty accessing his account. In the interests of getting this post up as quickly as possible, I am posting it for him. Everything that follows this sentence was written by Steve, not me (Ilya Somin):

In Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. ____ (2023), the Supreme Court in a landmark opinion issued yesterday rejected the Independent State Legislature Doctrine.  At issue was the meaning of the word “legislature” in the Elections Clause of Article II.  That Clause provides that: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators”

Proponents of the Independent State Legislature Theory believed that after President Trump’s rejection by the voters in the 2020 presidential election in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Arizona, the Republican State Legislatures of those four states, acting alone without the Governor or judicial review by the State Supreme Court, could have awarded Pennsylvania’s, Georgia’s, Wisconsin’s, and Arizona’s Electoral College votes to Trump, which would have caused him to win a second term in 2020.  Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 in the Presidential Electors Clause says that “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

The issue for the Supreme Court in Harper v. Moore is does the word “legislature” in these two clauses mean “the state senate and house of representatives” or does it mean “the lawmaking process in the state including the governor, who in all 50 states has a veto; the state supreme court, which in all 50 states have the power of judicial review under state constitutions; and popular initiatives and referenda, which exist in about half the states, and which in some states have set up Non-Partisan Redistricting Commissions, which would be unconstitutional under the Independent State Legislature Theory.”

The original public meaning of the word “Legislature” in 1787 and 1788, when the U.S. Constitution was ratified, is set out in Samuel Johnson’s 1755 Dictionary of the English LanguageHere it is, with examples of the correct usage in Italics:

“Legisla’ture. n.s. 

 [from legislator, Latin.] The power that makes laws.

Without the concurrent consent of all three parts of the legislature, no law is or can be made.
Hale’s  Com. Law.

In the notion of a legislature is implied a power to change, repeal, and suspend laws in being, as well as to make new laws.
Addison’s  Freeholder, №. 16.

The Hale’s Com. Law definition refers to the fact that in Great Britain, in 1755, the enactment of a law required the approval of the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the King.  The Addison’s Freeholder, No. 16 definition makes it clear that in half of the United States popular initiatives and referenda are legislatures, because they can change, repeal, and suspend.as well as to make new laws.

Samuel Johnson’s 1755 Dictionary of the English Language makes it crystal clear that the Independent State Legislature Doctrine is just plain wrong on originalist grounds.

Chief Justice Roberts’ superb opinion for six justices of the Supreme Court emphasized that state senates and state houses of representatives are merely creatures of state constitutions.  They share the power to make laws with governors who in all 50 states have the veto power and with state supreme courts, which in all 50 states have the power of judicial review.  In addition, in half the states elections laws can be made by popular initiatives and referenda.  By 1787 and 1788, state supreme courts had, as Chief Justice Roberts points out, exercised the power of judicial review.  Executive vetoes were also constitutionally provided for in Massachusetts and New York.

It is thus inconceivable that the conventions that ratified the Constitution would have meant the word “Legislature” to mean only state senates and state houses of representatives as opposed the whole lawmaking process of a state.  Chief Justice Roberts also notes that the Independent State Legislature Doctrine conflicts with several Supreme Court precedents and finds support only in a three-justice concurrence in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), an opinion that was written with great haste and insufficient briefing.

Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion notes that ordinarily the Supreme Court defers to state supreme courts as having the last word on questions involving the meaning of state law as was held in Murdock v. City of Memphis, 87 U.S. 590 (1875).  Quite importantly, however, Chief Justice Roberts qualified the deference federal courts should give to state court interpretations of state law by suggesting that such state court decisions must be the product of an ordinary course of judicial review.  Cf Bush v. Gore?  I wrote an amicus brief in this case with Yale Sterling Professor of Law, Akhil Reed Amar and Professor Vikram D. Amar, which is linked here.

The post Steve Calabresi on Moore v. Harper appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/amk9Ro1
via IFTTT

CNN’s Tapper Warns Of RFK Jr’s “Dangerous Misinformation” Rebukes NewsNation For ‘Platforming’ Live Townhall Meeting

CNN’s Tapper Warns Of RFK Jr’s “Dangerous Misinformation”, Rebukes NewsNation For ‘Platforming’ Live Townhall Meeting

Democratic challenger Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will face voters tonight during a live town hall on NewsNation at 9pmET on affiliated broadcast television stations (due to be replay open on that site later in the evening).

Having flexed his muscles during the week, now is his turn to flex his policy mind – something he has been doing on various podcasts (mostly more right-leaning since the establishment left has done their best to discredit Kennedy at every stop).

He will take questions in front of a live audience comprised of voters in partnership with the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College. Voters in the key states of South Carolina and New Hampshire can also question the candidate.

Kennedy’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination has garnered support from as many as 20% of Democrats, but Republicans viewed him more favorably at 40%, according to recent reports.

Polling this month from Quinnipiac University found that among Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters, 70% support Biden, 17% support Kennedy, and 8% support Marianne Williamson.

“This is a moment where RFK Jr., who first got a lot of attention for having a famous name, and then got a lot of attention for some pretty wild positions that he has taken on a number of issues – including vaccines, including the war in Ukraine, including the CIA – and he’s generated a lot of buzz. This is the moment where he is going to face, what I would submit, is probably the toughest test of his candidacy so far, which is answering real voter’s real, practical questions about his candidacy and doing it in front of a national television audience,” NewsNation Political Editor Chris Stirewalt told KOIN 6 News.

As Peter Barry Chowka notes, Kennedy has been attacked and largely shunned by the mainstream media but in at least a half dozen live interviews on FOX News, including the one with Tucker Carlson, he has expressed a message that suggests he could potentially draw support from across the political spectrum.

Kennedy, who declared his candidacy in April, is one of two Democrats (the other is self-help author Marianne Williamson) to challenge President Joe Biden for their party’s 2024 presidential nomination.

His comments, including describing the aim of his campaign as “end[ing] the corrupt merger of state and corporate power,” might resonate with a variety of constituencies.

Why is RFK Jr on NewsNation and not on a left-leaning mainstream media outlet?

Simple – here’s ‘fake-dossier-peddling’ Jake Tapper explaining that Kennedy should not have a platform its because of his “dangerous ideas”.

Here’s one colleague’s (unedited) take (that we thought worth sharing) on Tapper’s (and likely all of mainstream media’s) attitude and self-immolation:

“If RFK’s ideas are dangerous a real journalist would be able to draw attention to what RFK has wrong.  Jake Tapper just admitted he isn’t a journalist, and CNN does NOT disseminate objective information.

The real threat to democracy is Jake Tapper failing to do his basic job. Tappers job isn’t to preemptively draw conclusions about presidential candidates.

I don’t give a fuck what Tapper thinks, his job is objective arbitrator. If he wants to work on behalf of the “re-elect” Biden campaign he should have to declare that and we can stop pretending CNN does “news”.

As AmericanThinker’s Thomas Lifson noted:

I think NewsNation is very smart to feature RFK, Jr. as it tries to establish itself as a full-fledged rival to CNNMSNBCFOXNEWSMAX.

RFK, Jr. already has a fan base that will want to tune in and see him, and I suspect most have never watched NewsNation.

They may like what they see and come back now that they have searched for and found it on their cable/satellite/streaming feed.

NewsNation is trying to establish itself in the middle of the political spectrum, accessible to both sides. Featuring RFK, Jr. is a good way to highlight that orientation.

Kennedy is also catching up to Newsom in the betting markets…

Where Kennedy stands on key issues…

(via NewsNationNow.com)

Vaccines

Kennedy pushes back against critics that say he has anti-vaccine views.

During a June 23 town hall hosted by WMUR-TV, Kennedy said if he were president, he would mandate pre-licensing safety trials for vaccines and “allow parents to make of their minds about whether they want to use vaccines for their children.”

“What I’ve said is I’m pro-science and pro-safety and we ought to subject vaccines…to at least the kind of rigorous placebo-controlled trials that are mandated for every other medicine,” Kennedy told WMUR.

Vaccines are tested extensively by manufacturers before the FDA issues a license.

A vaccine being developed for distribution in the United States goes through two separate research phases before an initial three phases of clinical trials, according to the Food And Drug Administration. Those trials test the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. By the time it reaches the third phase of initial clinical trials, the vaccine is generally given to thousands of people, and researchers compare those who received the vaccine against those who received a placebo.

In some cases, the FDA requires additional post-market studies or clinical trials for continued research.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says immunization is the best protection against certain illnesses. Annually, tens of thousands of people get sick from diseased that could be prevented by vaccines.

Foreign Policy

Kennedy has made peace a priority when it comes to foreign policy, promising to “end the proxy wars, bombing campaigns, covert operations, coups, paramilitaries, and everything else that has become so normal most people don’t know what’s happening.”

He’s specifically vowed to end the war in Ukraine. His plan to stop the fighting includes offering to withdraw U.S. troops and missiles from Russia’s borders and convince Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine.

“UN peacekeepers will guarantee peace to the Russian-speaking eastern regions,” Kennedy said on his campaign website. “We will put an end to this war.”

Border

Kennedy visited the nation’s southern border earlier this month, calling it a “dystopian nightmare.”

The presidential candidate described seeing hundreds of people cross the border – a seemingly “hopeless” situation he said was “created by the federal government, that local people are being forced to hold the bag on.”

“It’s extraordinary,” Kennedy told NewsNation. “It’s kind of the best part of America and the worst part at the same time.”

During WMUR’s town hall, Kennedy said he’s “not a big fan of Trump” or his border wall. After speaking with officers patrolling the border, however, he said physical barriers are necessary in some areas with high-density populations and advocated doing more to keep migrants and U.S. citizens safe from cartels.  

Economy

Kennedy has said he will enact policies that favor “small and medium businesses” and break up “too-big-to-fail” banks and monopolies.

“When crisis strikes, bail out the homeowners, debtors, and small business owners instead,” Kennedy said on his campaign site.

He also believes healthcare is a key economic issue, and has vowed to make existing services available to all, including “alternative and holistic therapies that have been marginalized in a pharma-dominated system.”

One wonders just how long MSM can continue ignoring RFK Jr?

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/28/2023 – 20:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/kOftRYm Tyler Durden

Why AirBnB Owners Are About To Be Forced Property Sellers

Why AirBnB Owners Are About To Be Forced Property Sellers

Authored by Nick Gerli via Reventure Consulting,

Many Airbnb owners will soon be forced to sell their properties, resulting in a housing bust that could be on par with the 2008 Subprime Crisis in some cities.

These Airbnb owners are getting ready to sell because of “Airbnb bust”, a downturn in the short-term rental market that started in the second half of 2022, with Airbnb operators in some cities facing a 50% decline in revenue. These declining revenues are the result of a slowdown in post-pandemic travel demand to go along with a massive increase in Airbnb supply, trends which are now causing many Airbnb operators to lose money on their rental.

I believe these losses will cause a wave of distressed selling from Airbnb operators in 2023 and 2024, particularly in cities where:

1) revenue has crashed the most, and

2) Airbnb supply increased the most

If you’re a homebuyer or real estate investor it’s important to understand the exposure your city and neighborhood has to the Airbnb crash, particularly the timing and depth of the downturn. Because when it all shakes out, I believe that there will be some great buying opportunities for homebuyers and investors across the real estate spectrum.

So, without further ado, let’s dive into the data.

(Note that when I refer to “Airbnb” in this article, I am referring to the broader short-term rental market, which includes listings found on Airbnb, VRBO, Booking.com, and other travel sites.)

65% more Airbnbs than Homes for Sale in 2023

But before getting into the city-specific data, it’s important to understand the broader national trends. Most notably, that the number of Airbnb rentals in America has skyrocketed from less than 200,000 seven years ago to nearly 1 million in 2023 according to data from AllTheRooms.

At the same time, the number of homes Listed For Sale has plummeted, dropping from roughly 1.2 million prior to the pandemic to less than 600,000 today according to data from Realtor.com. The result is that there are currently 65% more homes listed for rent on Airbnb than listed For Sale.

The rise in Airbnb rentals was caused by 1) investors buying up houses to rent out short-term and 2) existing homeowners deciding to list their houses on Airbnb instead of selling them. A double whammy, one-two punch that has sucked inventory out of the US Housing Market.

50% Crash in Airbnb Revenue reported in some Cities

But there are now signs that this trend of increased Airbnb listings might be coming to an end as the market reaches saturation in 2023, with Airbnb’s CEO warning of a “booking slowdown”. At the same time, vacation rental management companies reported a 13% drop in revenue per property in the first quarter of 2023.

Clearly, something is up, with the deluge of Airbnb supply over the last several years now intersecting with a recessionary slowdown in travel demand. A cocktail which is leading to a collapse in revenue for Airbnb operators across America.

The collapse is most notable in the Southwest and Mountain West areas of the country, where Airbnb revenue per listing is down 40-50% YoY. With owners in cities such as Austin, Phoenix, Denver, and San Antonio taking the hardest hit according to data from AllTheRooms.

But the declines weren’t isolated to these areas. Of the 182 counties in America with the most short-term rental listings, revenues were down in 179 of them (98%), with the average county experiencing a 29% decline in revenue per listing comparing the three-month period from March to May 2023 to the previous year.

Phoenix is ground zero for Airbnb Bust

The epicenter of Airbnb bust is undoubtedly Phoenix, AZ, a market that is now plagued with a huge glut of short-term rental supply, with the number of Airbnb rentals in Maricopa County increasing by 500% over the last seven years.

Much of that listing growth has come in the last 15 months, as a downturn in the Phoenix housing market pushed many owners to list their properties on Airbnb instead of selling them. The result was that Airbnb supply increased from 10,000 in early 2022 to nearly 18,000 today.

At the same time, For Sale listings on the Phoenix housing market have plummeted, dropping from an average of 14,000 prior to the pandemic to 7,800 in May 2023.

This has caused the short-term rental Supply Ratio in Phoenix, a metric calculated by dividing Airbnb listings in by homes For Sale. The resulting ratio in Phoenix is 2.3x, which indicates there are 2.3 listings on Airbnb for every 1 house listed for sale.

The historical Supply Ratio in Maricopa County is much lower at 1.0x, reinforcing the notion that the area’s Airbnb market is oversupplied while its For Sale market is undersupplied. A situation that will likely correct itself in coming years as struggling Airbnb owners elect to sell their properties.

In some cities, this correction could be on par with the Subprime Crisis in terms of how much inventory hits the market. Particularly in an area like Sevierville, a vacation destination in East Tennessee, where the number of Airbnbs currently outnumbers the homes For Sale by 10 to 1!

How does this 10:1 Airbnb Supply Ratio in Sevierville play out in the coming months and years as the Recession worsens and travel demand drops further? No one knows for sure. But a scenario where For Sale inventory doubles or triples in a short period of time is entirely possible.

The Airbnb selloff will happen in urban Neighborhoods. And Vacation Destinations.

The oncoming Airbnb bust in America will be primarily felt in two types of locations:

1) dense, urban areas that have the most Airbnb inventory in big cities, and

2) vacation destinations.

You can get a sense of this urban-area exposure in big cities by looking at the Airbnb heatmap below from AllTheRooms, which shows that Phoenix Airbnbs cluster in four main pockets: 1) Downtown Phoenix, 2) Scottsdale, 3) Paradise Valley, and 4) Tempe.

These four areas account for roughly 65% of the short-term rental inventory in Maricopa County, and thus will be the most negatively impacted from an Airbnb owner selloff. Meanwhile, outlying suburban and rural neighborhoods will be less impacted since they have a much lower share of Airbnb inventory.

You can get an even better sense of this by looking at the short-term rental Supply Ratio across a metro like Austin, TX, another area that’s been hard-hit by Airbnb bust. In Travis County, which is the main urban county in Austin, there are nearly 9,200 rentals on Airbnb compared to 4,000 listings For Sale, good for a hefty 2.3x supply ratio.

But in Williamson County, the suburban area to the north of Austin, the situation is flipped and there are more homes listed for sale. With the implication being that the Airbnb bust is going to hit the urban Travis County much harder than suburban Williamson County.

However, the more rural one goes, especially to vacation destinations, the more Airbnbs begin to pop-up once again. Nearby Fredericksburg, TX, located about two hours west of Austin, has a Supply Ratio of 6.3x, indicating that there are over 6 Airbnb Listings for every one house for sale. Highlighting the potential for big price declines as Airbnb bust worsens.

Expect to see more For Rent signs as well

Of course – an Airbnb owner that runs into financial distress might not have to sell. Instead, they could decide to rent out their property long-term, a trend that I suspect is already happening given the flood of rental inventory that has hit the market over the last year.

For instance, in a metro like Nashville, TN, a fairly big Airbnb market, the number of vacant apartment rentals has recently skyrocketed, nearly doubling over the last 15 months all the way up to an 8.0% vacancy rate. This surge in apartment vacancies is similarly echoed in Airbnb-heavy metros like Dallas, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Tampa.

Meanwhile, the number of vacant houses for rent has also skyrocketed in the same period, increasing from 43,000 houses available across America’s 54 largest counties in March 2022 to nearly 80,000 today (meaning that the number of vacant houses for rent has nearly doubled in the last year).

But what if this surge in rental inventory worsens in coming months as more Airbnb operators try out the long-term rental market? Well, it could provide a shock that many institutional landlords are not expecting.

In a place like Maricopa County in Phoenix, roughly 59% of the Airbnb supply is comprised of houses according to AllTheRooms. That compares to 13% condos, 9% apartments, and 20% of guesthouses/other.

Indicating that biggest surge in rental inventory from Airbnb bust in Phoenix would likely come in the form of houses hitting the market for rent in neighborhoods like Downtown, Scottsdale, Paradise Valley, and Tempe. Such a big surge in rental inventory in such a concentrated area has the potential to cause a massive drop in rents.

Cities where Airbnbs are Performing Better

It’s also important to remember that real estate is local, and that not every city or neighborhood is getting hit by Airbnb bust. In fact, some parts of America are experiencing increased Airbnb demand over the last year even as the broader market tanks.

One of these areas is Washington DC, where gross Airbnb revenues are still up 1.6% YoY, while revenue per listing is only down -6%. The reason that DC is holding up better is because there has been a return to big cities over the last year since the pandemic ended, increasing demand for short-term stays. Moreover, Washington DC never got hit with the same surge in Airbnb supply as other cities, with its number of operating Airbnbs today about 15% lower than in 2019.

Another area to watch is Milwaukee, WI. Gross market revenues are up 5.2% YoY while revenue per listing is only down -15% (much better than the -50% in an area like Phoenix). Milwaukee’s main draw is a lack of Airbnb supply competition, with the market being the rare case where the number of homes for sale is higher than the Airbnb listings.

Of course, Airbnb investors in 2023 needs to be very careful, because I suspect we are just at the start of Airbnb bust. Over the next year we will likely see more layoffs and a higher unemployment rate in America, which will weigh further on travel demand and profits.

Airbnb bust creates opportunity for Homebuyers and Investors

Finally, I’d like to conclude with some perspective. I believe that Airbnb bust is a positive trend that will help to rebalance the real estate market and provide fresh opportunity to a new batch of homebuyers and investors in 2023 and 2024.

Once the current level of Airbnb supply starts to drop, that should correlate with an increase in both For Sale and For Rent inventory that pushes home prices and rents down further. Enabling homebuyers and long-term real estate investors who have been waiting on the sidelines to re-enter the market.

At the same time, once the Airbnb supply drops enough, it will stabilize the short-term rental market and eventually cause revenues to start going back up. Which will inevitably create fresh opportunity for aspiring Airbnb investors, particularly in hard-hit markets.

The depth and timing of the downturn, and the resulting opportunity created by the downturn, really depends on the city you’re in as well as your specific neigborhood. Is your area oversupplied in terms of Airbnbs? If so, by how much? Are revenues dropping? Those are worthwhile questions for homebuyers and investors to figure out the answers to in 2023.

Data in this Post / YouTube Video

The data in this post came from two principal sources:

1) Data on Airbnb revenues and supply comes from AllTheRooms, a short-term rental data tracking service.

2) Data on For Sale Inventory comes from Realtor.com. This data can also be found on Reventure App.

Also stay tuned for a YouTube video on this topic coming later today. You won’t want to miss it.

-Nick

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/28/2023 – 19:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/0jumH3F Tyler Durden

When Couple Is Divorcing What Should Happen to Their Fertilized Pre-Embryos?

From Jocelyn P. v. Joshua P., decided yesterday by the Maryland Appellate Court (nonprecedential opinion by Judge Andrea Leahy, joined by Justices Christopher Kehoe & Terrence Zic):

“Promises are the uniquely human way of ordering the future, making it predictable and reliable to the extent that is humanly possible.” -Hannah Arendt ….

The parties, Jocelyn P. … and Joshua P. …, resorted to the IVF process during the course of their marriage after they attempted, unsuccessfully, to conceive a child by natural means. The couple managed to produce three viable pre-embryos for uterine implantation after Jocelyn gave up her job and endured years of emotional and physical pain and suffering. The implantation of the first pre-embryo resulted in a miscarriage, while implantation of the second happily culminated in the birth of the parties’ first child, F.P. Unfortunately, after F.P.’s birth, Jocelyn and Joshua’s relationship deteriorated and the parties ultimately sought dissolution of the marriage. After agreeing to settlement terms on all other matters, the fate of the parties’ third pre-embryo—which Jocelyn desires to use for implantation and Joshua desires to destroy—remained in dispute.

[The trial court] took … testimony and entered a memorandum opinion and order (1) finding that the parties’ oral agreement only contemplated disposition of the pre-embryos during their marriage, and (2) awarding the pre-embryo to Joshua after balancing the parties’ interests….

We hold that the trial court erred in finding that the parties’ prior oral agreement did not control the disposition of the parties’ remaining pre-embryo. While Jocelyn and Joshua certainly contemplated using all of the pre-embryos within the confines of an intact marriage, Jocelyn has consistently testified that they both agreed to give each pre-embryo an opportunity to be born “no matter what.” Joshua—who testified after Jocelyn—did not testify to having placed any limitations or conditions on that unequivocal mandate and acknowledged that they had “agree[d] to give all the embryos a chance at life.” In reliance on that agreement, and as consideration thereunder, Jocelyn:

  • Underwent a surgical procedure to remove eggs from her uterus;
  • As a result of the hormone injections required to prepare for that procedure, suffered, among other things, thinning hair and significant weight gain;
  • Experienced the trauma of a miscarriage during the parties’ first attempt to bear a child; and
  • Attended “hundreds” of medical appointments and shifted to part-time work to accommodate that grueling schedule.

The circuit court, in reaching its decision, relied entirely on Joshua’s testimony that the parties did not specifically discuss giving the embryos a chance at life outside their marriage. The court’s holding, therefore, added a qualifier to the parties’ clear oral agreement—i.e., to give each pre-embryo a chance at life, no matter what, except in the event of divorce—to which Jocelyn and Joshua never actually agreed. We cannot, under an objective theory of contract interpretation, accede to the court’s revision of the parties’ oral agreement….

Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in finding that the parties’ prior oral agreement to give each pre-embryo a chance at life “no matter what” did not control the disposition of Jocelyn and Joshua’s remaining pre-embryo. In the future, to avoid these disputes, we would encourage couples—no matter how hopeful they are as to the future success of their marriage—to “think through [all] possible contingencies and carefully specify their wishes in writing.” …

We recognize that, because we now reverse the judgment of the circuit court and instruct that the parties’ pre-embryo should be awarded to Jocelyn for purposes of achieving pregnancy, the parties’ rights and obligations respective to a potential future child shift to the forefront. Because the circuit court determined that the parties’ pre-embryo should be awarded to Joshua for purposes of destruction, it did not have an opportunity to define the parties’ rights and obligations to a possible child. Although Jocelyn testified in the first evidentiary hearing that she could “absolutely” be financially responsible for any child and that she wouldn’t “have any issues supporting [her]self[,]” the record is not fully developed as to whether the parties had any particular agreement regarding Joshua’s potential role and obligations in the event of a successful birth.

While the parties may agree, as Jocelyn has suggested, to forego any child support and that no other obligations would be imposed on Joshua, any such agreement is not binding on the court precisely because “child support decisions always are within the sound discretion of the circuit court, regardless of any agreement between the child’s parents.” To permit otherwise would “elevate[ ] the parties’ contractual expectations over the best interests of the children and impermissibly allow[ ] the parties ‘to agree to preclude a child’s right to support by the other parent, or the right to have that support modified in appropriate circumstances.'” A remand for further proceedings to address this issue is appropriate.

For guidance on remand, we note that as a practical matter, Joshua’s rights and obligations with respect to any potential second child also hinge on whether he would be considered the child’s legal parent. Under Maryland law, the paternity of a child may be determined either “by a statutory action in a paternity proceeding under the Family Law Article or in an equitable action under the Estates & Trusts Article.” Because, as far as we can tell from the record, a final divorce decree has not been entered in this case, we leave it to the court’s discretion to conduct further proceedings under the appropriate framework either before the entry of a final divorce decree or, after the entry of such an order, under the court’s continuing jurisdiction to address issues of child support and custody.

As a general matter, “when paternity is in question for a child born during a marriage, the Estates and Trusts Article applies ‘because it presents the more satisfactory and less traumatic means of establishing paternity.'” Importantly—due to operation of the presumption of legal parentage set forth in Maryland Code (1974, 2019 Rep. Vol.), Estates & Trusts Article (“ET”), section 1-206—in a proceeding under the Estates & Trusts Article, “the presumption of legal parentage [for children born during a marriage] established under ET § 1-206 may only be rebutted after a showing that proceedings to disestablish parentage are in the best interests of the child.”

In contrast, “the Paternity Act, codified at Maryland Code (1984, 2012 Repl. Vol.), Family Law Article §§ 5–1001 et seq., is aimed at addressing putative fathers in regard to children born outside of marriage.” Perhaps to avoid deciding questions of paternity that may be mooted, the Paternity Act establishes that—although a “paternity proceeding under this subtitle may be begun during pregnancy”—a trial on the merits “may not be held until after the birth of the child who is the subject of the proceeding.” …

Accordingly, utilizing our authority under Maryland Rule 8-604(e), we shall remand to the circuit court with instructions to: (1) enter an order awarding the parties’ remaining pre-embryo to Jocelyn and (2) schedule a supplemental review hearing, whether before or after entry of a final divorce decree, to determine the parties’ rights and obligations to any potential second child.

{We observe that some of our sister states have adopted a version of Section 706 of the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA), which provides that, “[i]f a marriage is dissolved before placement of eggs, sperm, or embryos, the former spouse is not a parent of the resulting child unless the former spouse consented in a record that if assisted reproduction were to occur after a divorce, the former spouse would be a parent of the child.” As noted by a recent article, several of our sister states have adopted the UPA approach providing that a child born from a pregnancy commenced through IVF after divorce is not the child of the non-consenting former spouse unless that individual agrees to further involvement. By providing the non-consenting former spouse the option to retain a parental role, this approach reduces the impingement on that individual’s constitutional right to not procreate, at least in the sense of imposing unwanted legal (rather than genetic) parenthood.}

The post When Couple Is Divorcing, What Should Happen to Their Fertilized Pre-Embryos? appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/ag4ycE8
via IFTTT

Qualified Immunity Meets the Takings Clause

The doctrine of qualified immunity is best known—and most notorious—for protecting police officers from being held liable even for many very egregious violations of citizens’ rights. The issue came to public consciousness in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd by Minnesota police officers in 2020. But qualified immunity also protects a wide range of other government officials. In Sterling Hotels v. McKay, a recent ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, qualified immunity enabled a state elevator inspector to avoid Takings Clause liability for shutting down a hotel elevator for reasons not authorized by state law, as understood by the state’s Elevator Safety Board. Here is an excerpt from the court’s summary of the facts.

Sterling Hotels operated the Wyndham Gardens Hotel in Sterling Heights, Michigan….

On the morning of November 5, 2019, ThyssenKrupp tested the battery-lowering devices and found that they functioned as intended. Later that day, a state elevator inspector, Scott McKay, visited the Wyndham to verify that Sterling had brought the elevators into compliance. But McKay “failed” every elevator, purportedly on the ground that, in case of emergency, the elevators should have been programmed to descend to the hotel’s basement—notwithstanding that it lacked an exit. Although the [Michigan Elevator Safety] Board never told Sterling to program his elevators to reach the basement, McKay sealed the elevators that same day. As a result, Sterling could no longer rent rooms on five of the Wyndham’s six floors….

Sterling requested relief via email from the Board, unsuccessfully, and then brought this suit against McKay, asserting federal equal protection, takings, and due process claims…

In an opinion by Judge Raymond Kethledge, the Sixth Circuit ruled that qualified immunity protected McKay because there is no “clearly established law” saying that state officials could be held personally liable for Takings Clause violations:

Sterling next argues that McKay engaged in an unconstitutional regulatory taking when
he sealed the elevators. At the time of the alleged taking, however, no court in this circuit had yet decided whether an officer could be liable for a taking in his individual capacity—which is the capacity in which Sterling sued McKay here—and at least one case suggested the contrary. See Viceroy v. Walton, 730 F.2d 466, 467 (6th Cir. 1984) (“Plaintiff cites no case, and we can find none, that suggests that an individual may commit and be liable in damages for a ‘taking’ under the Fifth Amendment”). McKay’s potential individual liability for a regulatory takings claim was not clearly established when he sealed the elevators. That means McKay is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

This whole situation may seem laughable, particularly McKay’s conclusion that emergency exit procedures required the elevator to be able to reach the basement, even though there is no exit from there. But it was no laughing matter to the hotel chain, which probably lost a significant amount of money—or to patrons whose reservations had to be cancelled.

To my mind, it is entirely reasonable to expect a government official to understand that severely restricting property owners’ use of their land without proper legal justification might result in a takings claim. Unlike some situations involving police officers, McKay didn’t have to make a split-second decision in the heat of the moment. He could have taken time to check with his agency (and its counsel) about the relevant legal issues.

I’m far from certain that the hotel would have prevailed on the takings claim. While I think this kind of regulatory restriction should indeed be considered a taking (at least in  situation where it doesn’t meaningfully protect public safety, and therefore doesn’t fall within the “police power” exception to takings liability), current Supreme Court takings precedent arguably doesn’t go that far.

Because the restriction on property rights didn’t involve a physical invasion of the owner’s land, did not destroy 100% of the property’s economic value, and wasn’t necessarily a permanent constraint, McKay’s order probably doesn’t qualify as a “per se” (automatic taking). It would likely be subject to the vague and overly deferential Penn Central balancing test, under which it might well have been ruled not a taking. But the hotel should at least have been permitted to raise the takings issue.

I would add that the Vicory v. Walton, the 1984 case cited by the Sixth Circuit (it’s Vicory, not “Viceroy,” as Judge Kethledge mistakenly spelled it), isn’t much of a precedent, because it was merely a denial of a petition for rehearing en banc. The ruling on the merits in that case does not address the Takings Clause, but does include a concurring opinion by Judge Bertelsman suggesting that officials can in fact be held liable for Takings Clause claims in some situations.

Whether they be cops, inspectors, or even state university professors (like the present author!), government officials should not be allowed to escape liability for constitutional violations by relying on the bogus, judicially invented doctrine of qualified immunity. On that point, see critiques of qualified immunity by leading legal scholars, such as Joanna Schwartz, and co-blogger Will Baude.

The Sixth Circuit ruling is a reminder that police are not the only state officials who can hide behind qualified immunity.

While the Sixth Circuit dismissed the takings claim based on QI, it denied McKay qualified immunity on the hotel’s  Due Process Clause claim. Here, there was enough “clearly established” precedent to overcome even the ridiculous requirements of QI doctrine.  The due process issue has been remanded to the district court.

 

The post Qualified Immunity Meets the Takings Clause appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/INEyUd4
via IFTTT