The Missing Part of the State Court Mangione Suppression Ruling?

The state trial court handed down its ruling in People v. Mangione, on whether to suppress part of all of the contents of the backpack Luigi Mangione was carrying at the time of his arrest in the state prosecution against him.  In the federal case against Mangione, the federal court back in January denied the motion to suppress the contents of the backpack. But today the state court suppresses some of the contents for the state court prosecution (in particular, the magazine, cellphone, passport, wallet and computer chip) and allows the government to use other contents (in particular, the red notebook).

I found the new opinion a little odd. There’s a part I was expecting that wasn’t addressed. I thought I would explain what it is.

First, the opinion.  The court begins by concluding that the relevant law is the federal Fourth Amendment and the New York Constitution, even though the actions were those of Pennsylvania police in Pennsylvania. So the heightened restrictions of New York law apply to the Pennsylvania officers, even though they presumably didn’t know (and maybe couldn’t know) they would be governed by New York state search and seizure law.

Second, the court concludes that New York search and seizure law settles what I have called the “moving property problem”: If someone has a backpack, and it is moved away from a person, New York law says it can’t be searched incident to arrest because the exigency is gone and the backpack is no longer in the area of the suspect’s control.

Third, the court turns to the search at the police station, where the items in the backpack were searched. This search was fine, the court says: although the search at the McDonalds can’t be allowed as an incident-to-arrest search, the search at the police station was valid as an inventory search. In particular, this allows admission of the notebook found in the backpack that wasn’t searched at the McDonalds.

Fourth, the court says that the warrant the government obtained later that today to search the backpack does not make the contents admissible under the independent source doctrine, as this wasn’t an independent source.

Beyond the part about New York law applying—a matter of the scope of New York law that I don’t have a view of myself—I’m puzzled as to why there’s no inevitable discovery argument based on the inventory search.  That’s the main argument that the federal court rested on in denying the motion to suppress, based on the same facts: the police were going to inventory everything anyway and find everything anyway, so everything they found in the backpack was going to be discovered anyway in the inventory, regardless of whether they initially searched it lawfully or not.

As far as I can tell, the state court does not address this argument, although I would think it’s the key argument to address. Did the state not raise it? Or is there something about New York state law that makes that an improper argument?  I don’t know, as I haven’t followed the case closely enough to say.

The post The Missing Part of the State Court <i>Mangione</i> Suppression Ruling? appeared first on Reason.com.

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

Donald Trump, Thomas Massie, and the Long, Slow Death of the Tea Party


An illustration of Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, and Donald Trump | KEVIN DIETSCH/UPI/Newscom/Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom/Yuri Gripas - Pool via CNP/CNP / Polaris/Newscom

In one of Tuesday, May 19th’s most-watched primaries, libertarian-leaning Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.) will go up against an opponent backed by President Donald Trump. The winner of the primary will almost certainly win the general election in Kentucky’s 4th congressional district. As Reason‘s Editor in Chief Katherine Mangu-Ward opined in The New York Times last week, “Congress, and the Republican Party, would be worse off without the friction and clarity Mr. Massie provides.”

I share her estimation, adding only that the country would be worse off, too. Since arriving in Congress in late 2012, Massie has been a reliable advocate for smaller government, lower spending, and abstention from foreign conflicts. More of all that, please.

But as important: What kind of country have we become if unlikely characters like Massie no longer haunt the halls of power? By his own account, he’s equal parts country boy and tech genius, and his “gateway issue into liberty was gun rights” when he showed up at the urbane, liberal Massachusetts Institute of Technology after growing up in the wilds of Kentucky. As he told me a decade ago, “I grew up in a rural area where everybody had guns. And then I went to college and realized people in college wanted to ban these things.” As an engineer, he went from that insight to building a mental system that consistently puts him on the side of a federal government that does less and controls less.

But if Massie loses, it’s not just the end of his career. (He told Mangu-Ward that if GOP primary voters send him packing, he’s going back to his plow and “nobody will ever hear from me again”). It would also effectively be the end of what used to be called the Tea Party, a loose conglomeration of Republican representatives and senators who rode a wave of anti-Barack Obama and anti-George W. Bush sentiment to office in the early 2010s.

Although some said that the tea in Tea Party stood for the “taxed-enough already,” the rallying cry of the early Tea Party movement was “stop the spending.” For a brief, shining moment, the populist right was fully in favor of actually reducing government spending across the board, full stop.

Covering the movement for Reason, including a truly massive demonstration in Washington, D.C., on September 12, 2009, what was striking to me about the Tea Party back then was that it pulled in many types of people from all over the country. As Reason‘s Matt Welch observed:

The general vibe was that they were conservative, and then either Republican, formerly Republican, or independent. Every single one had unkind words to say about George W. Bush’s spending and governing record, though none had protested him. None expressed trust in Republicans, and most preferred a “throw-all-the-bums-out” strategy. All but one did not care about Obama’s birth certificate controversy, and those I asked thought it was foolish to bring guns to political gatherings.

As our early video coverage suggested, this was a movement that was pretty tightly (though not exclusively) focused on spending and debt issues. Recall that under the self-styled compassionate conservatism of George W. Bush, the federal budget grew by about 50 percent over eight years, including huge increases in domestic programs such as prescription drugs for seniors on Medicare and the No Child Left Behind education initiative. Bush was a big-government disaster, and, taking office at the start of a major recession with a large Democratic majority, Obama kicked spending into even higher gear, first in the name of stimulus and then in the name of health care for all.

The 2010 and 2012 elections swept dozens of Tea Party candidates into office, including such high-profile senators as Ted Cruz (R–Texas), Marco Rubio (R–Fla.), Mike Lee (R–Utah), and Rand Paul (R–Ky.), and representatives such as Justin Amash (R–Mich.), Mick Mulvaney (R–S.C.), Mark Meadows (R–N.C.), and Massie himself.

In 2011, Amash and others created the Liberty Caucus, which was very much in keeping with Tea Party principles and explicitly libertarian. By 2015, Tea Party Republicans still had enough swagger to create the Freedom Caucus, a wider-ranging coalition still committed to Tea Party ideals and focusing on procedural rules to ensure even a GOP-led Congress allowed for fair hearings of pending legislation.

At its peak, the Tea Party could claim credit for electing dozens of people to the House and the Senate, and fueling the 2013 government shutdown over the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare). But even as all that was happening, leaders in the movement, including veteran House members such as Reps. Michele Bachmann (R–Minn.) barely kept their seats or lost them like Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), while rookies like Reps. Allen West (R–Fla.) and Joe Walsh (R–Ill.) were sent home.

Often discussed as a “leaderless” and “decentralized” movement, key organizations claiming to speak for Tea Party voters started to include anti-immigrant appeals in their communications and call for defense exemptions to spending cuts. The dramatic failure of Mitt Romney not only to beat an eminently beatable Barack Obama in the 2012 election but also to seriously advance a small-government agenda didn’t energize the GOP to get more principled as much as it opened the door for Donald Trump, who promised all things to all people.

With Trump’s ascendance, whatever energy was left in the Tea Party was pure populist rage and tribal animus rather than anti-government in character. Senators like Mike Lee and Ted Cruz rarely cross Donald Trump, and Marco Rubio continues to fill more and more roles in his second administration. Members of Congress like Mark Meadows and Mick Mulvaney joined the first Trump administration, only to face his wrath and get cashiered, even after pledging fealty to his big-spending ways. Justin Amash left the Republican Party in July 2019, voted to impeach Trump in December 2019, drew rebukes from the Freedom Caucus, and left Congress in 2021 in the face of a very difficult primary. His 2024 bid for the Republican nomination for Senate in Michigan put him at odds with a Trump pick who lost the general election.

The only consistent, libertarian-leaning Tea Party politicians left from the early 2010s are Rand Paul, who seems to be tapping into his small-government bona fides with renewed vigor, and Thomas Massie, who may be on his way back to civilian life. Indeed, even if he wins his primary and reelection, the GOP of which he is part is very different from the one he belonged to when he first arrived in Washington.

And the question remains: What might jumpstart the next broad-based political movement to challenge and reduce the size, scope, and spending of government that is also capable of electing dozens of people to office?

The post Donald Trump, Thomas Massie, and the Long, Slow Death of the Tea Party appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/bz9qvMZ
via IFTTT

Why Is Trump Trying To Purge Thomas Massie?

This week, editors Peter SudermanKatherine Mangu-Ward, and Matt Welch are joined by Reason Senior Editor Robby Soave to discuss Rep. Thomas Massie’s (R–Ky.) competitive Republican primary challenge and why President Donald Trump has made him one of his top political targets. The panel examines Massie’s opposition to the Iran war, his push to release the Epstein files, his longstanding focus on spending, and why his brand of libertarian-style politics has become increasingly rare inside today’s Republican Party.

Next, the panel turns to the economy, where inflation continues to rise, the U.S. debt has surpassed gross domestic product (GDP), and working-class voters appear increasingly frustrated with Trump’s economic agenda. The editors then examine New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s claim that he closed the city’s massive budget gap without cutting services and whether the plan relies more on gimmicks than serious fiscal reform. Finally, a listener asks how to develop political confidence without losing intellectual humility.

 

0:00—Massie’s primary challenge

20:57—Inflation and the national debt

40:31—Listener question on intellectual humility

51:15—Mamdani’s $12 billion budget gap

57:41—Weekly cultural recommendations

 

Mentioned in the podcast:

Thomas Massie’s Moment Has Come,” by Robby Soave

Thomas Massie’s Enemies Are Attacking Him With an Unfair Accusation,” by Robby Soave

The War Comes for Your Wallet: Inflation Hits 3.8%, Highest Level in 3 Years,” by Eric Boehm

When Businesspeople Run Government, the Government Doesn’t Become a Business,” by Veronique De Rugy

Pete Hegseth Can’t Explain Why America Needs a $1.5 Trillion Military Budget,” by Eric Boehm

Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ Estimated To Cost $1.2 Trillion, New Report Reveals,” by Meagan O’Rourke

Mamdani ‘Balanced’ New York City’s Budget—With a Bailout From Albany,” by Joe Lancaster

The post Why Is Trump Trying To Purge Thomas Massie? appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/rz3pHIs
via IFTTT

Why Is Trump Trying To Purge Thomas Massie?

This week, editors Peter SudermanKatherine Mangu-Ward, and Matt Welch are joined by Reason Senior Editor Robby Soave to discuss Rep. Thomas Massie’s (R–Ky.) competitive Republican primary challenge and why President Donald Trump has made him one of his top political targets. The panel examines Massie’s opposition to the Iran war, his push to release the Epstein files, his longstanding focus on spending, and why his brand of libertarian-style politics has become increasingly rare inside today’s Republican Party.

Next, the panel turns to the economy, where inflation continues to rise, the U.S. debt has surpassed gross domestic product (GDP), and working-class voters appear increasingly frustrated with Trump’s economic agenda. The editors then examine New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s claim that he closed the city’s massive budget gap without cutting services and whether the plan relies more on gimmicks than serious fiscal reform. Finally, a listener asks how to develop political confidence without losing intellectual humility.

 

0:00—Massie’s primary challenge

20:57—Inflation and the national debt

40:31—Listener question on intellectual humility

51:15—Mamdani’s $12 billion budget gap

57:41—Weekly cultural recommendations

 

Mentioned in the podcast:

Thomas Massie’s Moment Has Come,” by Robby Soave

Thomas Massie’s Enemies Are Attacking Him With an Unfair Accusation,” by Robby Soave

The War Comes for Your Wallet: Inflation Hits 3.8%, Highest Level in 3 Years,” by Eric Boehm

When Businesspeople Run Government, the Government Doesn’t Become a Business,” by Veronique De Rugy

Pete Hegseth Can’t Explain Why America Needs a $1.5 Trillion Military Budget,” by Eric Boehm

Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ Estimated To Cost $1.2 Trillion, New Report Reveals,” by Meagan O’Rourke

Mamdani ‘Balanced’ New York City’s Budget—With a Bailout From Albany,” by Joe Lancaster

The post Why Is Trump Trying To Purge Thomas Massie? appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/rz3pHIs
via IFTTT

Be Very Afraid: The Hantavirus And Suicide Dolphins

Be Very Afraid: The Hantavirus And Suicide Dolphins

Authored by Donald Jefferies vis substack,

Bend over and keep smiling

Our incomparably bad leaders appear ready to foist another “pandemic” on the always unwary public. They proved in 2020 that the entire world could be shut down in a matter of days. With no troops or police needed. Just a corrupt, kept press, and compromised political “representatives.” They know that nothing sells like fear porn.

The latest potential “pandemic” is called the Hantavirus. Authorities, who are always telling us something, tell us it’s been around for a while. It is spread primarily by contact with an infected rodent. Well, don’t we all routinely have contact with rodents, infected or not? Specifically, the CDC informs us, by contact with rodent “urine, droppings, and saliva.” That’s not a scenario I can easily picture. I didn’t even know rodents had saliva. Just how does one get close enough to come in contact with it? Hantavirus symptoms can include: fatigue, fever, chills, muscle aches, headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. To a novice, those symptoms sound pretty generic. Like the flu. Or the common cold. Or the never isolated COVID-19. Just read the information on these contrived maladies, provided by the discredited CDC and WHO, with a little discernment. The Medical Industrial Complex in all its splendor. And oh, yes- “Conspiracy theorists” claim “Hanta” means fraud. In Hebrew.

The “experts” also inform us that the primary way the Hantavirus spreads from human to human is through sexual intercourse. Well, we should all be breathing a sign of relief over that. I am not exactly in the loop, but it’s my distinct impression that people, especially young people, are having less sex than perhaps any time since when the Puritans and Calvinism reigned supreme. If you’re looking for a real epidemic, forget rodent excretions. How about the Incel Virus? We have more 30, 40, and 50 year old male virgins in America than this country has ever seen. I think that’s the case in other areas of the world. Young women have been indoctrinated to “not need” men, and thus they don’t really want them. Young men have been forced to the extreme of “going their own way” without female companionship. It’s all very sad, but good news for a virus that is spread through sexual contact. Just stop having sex and there will be nothing to worry about. And refrain from intimate contact with rodents.

It appears as if Donald Trump is once again going to play the dastardly villain here, as he did during the incredibly successful COVID Psyop. He is already being blasted in the state controlled media for “downplaying” this dire threat, and for cutting funding to study the Hantavirus last year. Exactly how would they “study” it? Use prisoners, mental patients, and orphans to test what happens if you French Kiss a rodent? Our government has historically used prisoners, mental patients, and orphans for all kinds of hideous experiments. I covered this in detail in my book Crimes and Coverups in American Politics: 1776-1963. We’ve seen this movie before. Remember, Trumpenstein “downplayed” the seriousness of COVID, as well. But he signed the lockdown orders, and pushed the dangerous warp speed vaccine, He mocked Fauci, but refuses to prosecute him. Naturally, The Simpsons saw it coming. The Hantavirus was referenced on the X-Files in the 1990s. They should have an Emmy for Predictive Programming.

Much as he did during COVID, Trump dismissed the concerns of “journalists” who have been assigned to peddle fear porn, by proclaiming: “We should be fine.” Then, asked by these laughable representatives of a “free press,” if the public should be worried about the “outbreak” spreading, Trumpenstein replied, “I hope not.” Scientific American was among those most alarmed, as they explained, “In 2025 the Trump administration eliminated funding for a group that had been running a pilot project aimed at studying the type of hantavirus that has been confirmed to be behind an ongoing outbreak on a cruise ship.” This project was “conducted through the West African Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases (WAC-EID), one of 10 centers that comprised the Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases (CREID) network.” All these centers “were shuttered last year after the National Institutes of Health decided the research was ‘unsafe.’” Wait, so they’re upset that he stopped funding research that was determined to be “unsafe?” And why are cruise ships always involved in these productions? Have you seen the video of the very, very gay passenger on the Hantavirus cruise? Assuring us it’s “real?” He invited immediate comparisons to Erika Kirk. I went on one cruise in my life. That was before that guy got knocked off on his honeymoon. And fake “pandemics?” None for me, please.

I’m certainly not predicting that this big, beautiful fake virus is going to become a worldwide, or even just American psyop. I’m not suggesting that they will sell it like they sold COVID. They’ve made doomsters believe that SARS, and the monkey virus, and so many others, were going to shutdown society, just like COVID. They always pulled back, and the potential “pandemics” came and went without anyone noticing. But they really upped the ante during the COVID Psyop, and there was zero pushback from the world’s population. And the same front man- Trumpenstein- is in the Oval Office. Ready to send out conflicting signals, as always. I do think there would be less compliance with their ridiculous “mandates,” which are not laws and definitely not based on “science.” But it’s clear we’re still outnumbered. Actress Jean Smart has spoken out, claiming that her husband died from the Hantavirus in 2021. No disrespect intended, but it was unheard of then, at the peak of COVID. Did he come into questionable contact with rodents? Who was he having sex with? Gene Hackman’s 65 year old wife, we are now told, died from the Hantavirus. Recall how they both were strangely found dead at home in 2025. Who was she having sex with?

As if all this wasn’t enough to worry a befuddled public, Iran is now being accused of using mine-carrying “Kamikaze Dolphins” to attack US warships in the Strait of Hormuz. The poor Suicide Dolphins probably aren’t being promised any virgins in the afterlife, either. The whole Strait of Hormuz confuses me. I don’t know if the Suicide Dolphins are being used to blow it open, because the United States is blocking it, or if they’re assigned to blow up the US ships that try to pass through the Strait that Iran has opened to everyone but America. And Israel, I guess. But it doesn’t look like Israel is doing much fighting. Just bombing civilians, as usual. They’ve already told Trumpenstein that there will be no non-Irish boots on the ground. Psycho Pete Hegseth cryptically told the press, “I can’t confirm or deny whether we have kamikaze dolphins, but I can confirm they don’t.” Well, I’m sure that our Suicide Dolphins would be better than anyone else’s. Where are all the animal rights protesters?

Really, shouldn’t this absurd story about kamikaze dolphins make us all question the whole “suicide bomber” claims? I’ve never found such stories credible. But it plays into the whole “terrorist” mythos. What is the source for the promise of 72 virgins after death (the number seems to vary) which seemingly motivates suicide bombers? Such outlandishness isn’t found anywhere in the Quran, leading reasonable people to suspect it originated from the Mossad or the CIA. By dehumanizing Muslims, they have managed to convince too many good people that they are willing to kill others, with the belief that Allah will reward them for doing so. Primarily through gratuitous sex with a whole lot of different females. That sounds more like the fantasy of a nonbelieving incel than a religious “fanatic.” What is the difference between “devout” and “fanatic?” If there were Muslims whose goal was to be a suicide bomber, wouldn’t they be offended by being replaced by Dolphins, doing the work fanatics won’t?

Remember when the beloved Hillary Clinton claimed that Qadafi/Kadafy/Gaddafi had loaded his troops with Viagra, so that they could become literal raping machines? Talk about projection! If you’ve read my aforementioned Crimes and Coverups book, and/or my latest, American Memory Hole, you know just how much raping our young men in uniform have been guilty of, going back at least to Sherman’s genocidal march through Georgia. And they didn’t need any Viagra. They didn’t discriminate, either. The Union boys loved violating the Black females. During the “good war,” the “greatest generation” raped lots of Germans, and so many Japanese that they had to build a special brothel to accommodate them. During our forever war in Iraq, we all saw the photos of the naked male Iraqi prisoners, with fluorescent bulbs and the like shoved up their anuses. With a pretty, smiling female U.S. soldier beside them. And if Seymour Hersh can be believed, they raped a bunch of boys in front of their mothers.

My friend Tony Arterburn tells me that during WWII, the Allies tried using bats, with little explosive devices strapped on their tiny backs. So I don’t doubt for a second that our government would, if they could, utilize kamikaze dolphins. Or sharks. Or whales. Or shrimp. How far removed was the MKULTRA mind control research, in particular the idea of Manchurian Candidates, from a suicide bomber? It wasn’t “terrorists” who developed those programs. And the “terrorists” didn’t invent “COVID-19” either, and falsify all those statistics to make it appear that it was a new Black Plague. Maybe they can figure out a way to strap vials containing the Hantavirus to the backs of these patriotic dolphins. Unleash the Hantavirus on the Iranians. If they don’t like that, we can send some pretty female soldiers, or even better some transitioned soldiers, to deliver fluorescent light bulbs to lonely Iranian males. Think of how humiliated they’ll be, with transwomen violating them like that. Wage war on us for 47 years, will you?

COVID demonstrated that nothing motivates a society, indeed a world, to become obedient more than fear. The fear of an invisible virus which could kill them. Feeling okay? You’re just asymptomatic. You could still have it! Get the PCR test right away. You know, the one with the 90 percent false positive rate. The one repudiated by the man who developed it, who had the proper sense of drama to die right on the eve of “COVID-19” commanding the attention of the entire world. And call your doctor. Always call your doctor. Don’t decide for yourself. Be responsible and think of others. Did I mention that you should call your doctor? The PCR test isn’t the only discredited one you can take, you know. You may think you’re healthy, but we’ll determine that. If this new Hantavirus whipper snapper requires a vaccine, get it. Get every booster. There may be variants. Endless variants. For years. You’ll have more things stuck in you than Madonna did at the height of her incomprehensible fame.

We are hearing the same codewords that we heard repeatedly during the Greatest Psyop in the History of the World. America, especially under the rudderless leadership of the stupid, orange, micro-penis Trumpenstein, is “unequipped” to deal with the next pandemic. Or unprepared- that works just as well, and isn’t a juvenile pun. The honorable Bill Gates, renowned for catching a venereal disease from Russian babes on Epstein’s Lolita Island, is being lauded now, for his warning about the “next pandemic” in an interview last year. And his website named the Hantavirus as the next pandemic. In 2021. Insider information? Gates is forever warning about future pandemics. It excites him even more than anything Jeffrey Epstein could offer. As a lifelong eugenicist, Gates is obsessed with millions, even billions of human beings dying. He pretends that he would be horrified by this; that he is, in fact, opposed to such a culling of the herd. But his perpetually inappropriate smile suggests otherwise. And his answer to everything is more fear, more vaccinations, and more boosters.

It’s funny. I rarely recall hearing the word “pandemic” throughout the course of my life. I knew about the Black Plague in the Middle Ages. I knew that there had been an exceptionally bad flu during the WWI era. But there was never a sense that we should be “preparing” for some devastating national, or international health crisis. Since “pandemics” appear to be pretty common now, where were they from 1920-2020? Sure, you had Bill Gates and the WHO and the CDC staging a series of “simulations” which prophesized “COVID-19” with eerie accuracy. But the idea that people could be conditioned to wear ludicrous looking masks everywhere, and stay six feet apart, was unthinkable. To be fair, if a real scourge like cancer can be pretty much unknown before 1900, and no one question where it came from, why can’t “pandemics” just pop up every few years, to fulfill one of Bill Gates’s numerous predictions of them? Most people now think “COVID” is a permanent thing.

I wrote the only book that exposes the entire “COVID” fraud from the very beginning, Masking the Truth: How COVID-19 Destroyed Civil Liberties and Shut Down the World. They’ve done everything they can to stop people from reading it. It’s the most shadow banned book in the world. I don’t want to write one about a Hantavirus psyop. I really hope this turns out to be just another monkey virus. No one with a huge platform has ever told the whole truth about “COVID.” It wasn’t created in a Wuhan lab by the dastardly Chinese. It was the flu. Period. Just like Hantavirus will be, if they decide to stage another worldwide production. And I don’t believe “suicide bombers” are any more real than “COVID.” They lie to us all the time. To distract us from the misery so many of us are enduring. To distract us from their continuous crimes and corruption. To distract us from the potholes in the streets and our inadequate wages. To distract us from skyrocketing autism rates and plummeting life expectancy.

The people have to bear some blame here. I don’t care how many indoctrination classes you sat through in public school and college. How many films and TV shows with obvious messaging you watched. I sat through them, too. So did the millions of people who, against all odds, have awakened to the corruption and tyranny. They didn’t perform frontal lobotomies on you. You have the capacity to critically think. To ignore the cultural programming. How stupid would you have to be to fall for another “pandemic?” Or to believe in suicide dolphins? We should all tremble at the prospect of having our fate in the hands of a jury of our peers. Maybe they’ll go too far, with something like a fake alien invasion. But after “COVID,” can they go too far? They shut down the entire world! Don’t let it happen again, even if they back off with the Hantavirus.

Be prepared, as Bill Gates says. But not for a “pandemic.” Be prepared for authoritarian overreach. Remember, opposition to tyranny is obedience to God.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 05/18/2026 – 18:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/X0z8Hop Tyler Durden

We’ve Optimized Fragility, Failure, Denial, And… Rage

We’ve Optimized Fragility, Failure, Denial, And… Rage

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

What happens when optimization is itself the point of failure?

In today’s zeitgeist, everything must be optimized or we’ll fail: our time, productivity, fitness, diet, supplements, career, income, wealth–everything must be constantly optimized lest we fall behind or fail.

The grand irony is optimization generates fragility which generates failure which generates denial which eventually generates rage. We’ve optimized global supply chains for efficiency and cost, rendering them exquisitely vulnerable to disruption and collapse. We’ve optimized the global economy for “growth” based on expanding consumption of energy and everything that depends on energy, which is everything.

To fund this endless expansion of consumption, everyone must borrow more money to buy more than their income allows. To enable this endless expansion of debt, money must be nearly free to borrow after adjusting for inflation.

The irony here is when money has no cost, it’s squandered on excess consumption or speculation. The incentive to borrow and spend / invest wisely is that borrowing money has a high cost. Reduce the cost to boost borrowing / consumption / speculation and you create credit-asset bubbles and households, enterprises and governments one mis-step from insolvency.

Optimization raises expectations to lofty heights. The promise of optimization is endless–there’s no limit to optimization, and so there’s no limit to technology, profits, health, wealth and prosperity. If we keep optimizing, everything becomes possible. By tweaking technology and finance, we can endlessly expand consumption and wealth.

The mindset this generates is: follow the rules of optimization and you’ll enjoy all the benefits of success. Optimize your career by borrowing a small fortune to obtain a university diploma, chase the Next Big Thing, optimize your engagement, visibility, and the buzzword du jour, and all the good things in life will be within reach.

The expectations are as fragile as the system they rely on. We’ve been taught that “our vote counts,” that democracy means we have a say in collective decisions via representatives we elect. We’ve been taught we have agency–control of our destiny: work hard, work smart, optimize work flows and innovation, and anyone can be a startup founder who cashes out with millions of dollars–and the high agency that comes from high visibility.

Except all of this that’s presented as stable, trustworthy, predictable and real is fragile, unstable and artificial–simulations of stability, trust and predictability. The belief that this vast system of mythologies, beliefs and “the real world” is as it’s presented is civilizational psychosis, a self-reinforcing state of denial in which some new innovation / optimization will “solve” whatever problems arise.

So what’s the optimized solution when optimization itself is the problem? What if a new product or profitable technology is not a solution but an extension of optimized fragility?

What’s been optimized is centralization of power and control in the hands of the few because distributed capital, agency, power and control are inefficient. So we inhabit a world of overlapping monopolies and cartels, the marriage of state and private sector monopolies. In terms of optimizing profits, the optimized structure is monopoly. Nothing else comes close. So an economy of overlapping monopolies and shared-monopoly (i.e. cartels) is the perfection of a system optimized to maximize profits for the owners of the monopolies.

This is why it doesn’t matter who you vote for, as the decisions are made to suit the interests of those at the top of the optimized concentrations of power pyramid. The masses are fed distractions, us-vs-them divisions, fake virtue-signaling policy-tweak “solutions,” and a circus of entertainment.

As for optimizing security and a place in the sun–oops, you didn’t optimize enough. You didn’t optimize innovation enough, and let’s face it, you didn’t optimize optimization enough, so you failed. Maybe your AI chatbot can console you.

High expectations lead to dreams dashed which leads to denial crumbling on contact with the real world. And when denial crumbles and the scales fall from our eyes, and we see everything that was presented as authentic is actually artificial, a synthetic simulation designed to obscure the gearing of an increasingly fragile system, our sense of betrayal, the shattering of trust, the awareness that we’ve been lied to, conned, to benefit those doing the bamboozling, then we become angry.

We become angry because we’re social beings who depend on trust and truth to function as a group that benefits its members and not just its leaders. When trust and truth have been replaced by artifices to serve the interests of leaders touting how the system benefits everyone, the group dynamics transition from positive to destructive. Nobody likes being conned, and there is a selective advantage to this trait.

Part of the con is to claim that we can collectively transit smoothly from denial to acceptance, skipping the messy, difficult stages of anger, bargaining and depression. (Kubler-Ross’s progression of the five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance.) But this isn’t how we’re wired, and this progression cannot be optimized away.

So never mind you’re selling your blood to make ends meet while a handful of others are about to reap fortunes in IPOs. Just accept this is your lot in life. Not all outcomes are equal, creative destruction, blah blah blah.

But what if optimization is the techno-speak cover story for a rigged casino? What if all the buzzwords –innovation, growth, super-abundance, and so on–are all techno-speak cover stories for the substitution of economic metrics for a life that’s actually worth living?

We’ve been herded into a Mouse Utopia of metrics–financial metrics, systems, data, models–that leaves out the reality that we exist in a moral universe in which trust and truth matter more than GDP, stock markets, and the hollow, surreal realm of consumerist transactions.

In this universe, anger leads to redress or retribution. The current system is optimized to avoid redress by optimizing the substitution of artifice for authenticity. This optimization has reached such perfection that the status quo leaders, public and private, believe their mastery of this substitution will continue protecting them from public anger come what may. Just pull the levers, and the public will continue believing.

Our leaders have effectively optimized their belief in their own PR. There is no need for redress because the public will accept more of the same: distractions, us-vs-them divisions, fake virtue-signaling policy-tweak “solutions,” and a circus of entertainment.

But this isn’t how the transition from denial to anger works. Applying more of the same will only push anger into rage, where it becomes an emergent force with non-linear dynamics: unpredictable, uncontrollable.

In terms of optimized metrics and systems, rage is irrational. In the moral universe, it’s perfectly rational. What happens when an unexpected asteroid shatters all the interconnected fragilities of hyper-optimized supply chains and finance?

We can rephrase this to: what happens when optimization is itself the point of failure? What happens when the optimization of substituting artifice for authenticity to mask the decay of trust and truth fails?

All this boils down to: what happens when redress is set aside as needless? That leaves retribution as the only outlet for all the energy being converted from denial to anger.

What seemed preposterous before the asteroid is later recognized as destiny.

*  *  *

My book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.comSubscribe to my Substack for free

Tyler Durden
Mon, 05/18/2026 – 17:40

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

Trump’s Federal Gas Tax Holiday Would Save Drivers Less Than $9 Per Month


Trump-Hawley-5-18 | Eric Lee - Pool via CNP/Newscom/Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom/Yuliia Koniaieva/Dreamstime

The week before the United States launched its war with Iran, the average gas price in America was less than $3 per gallon.

The war was supposed to last about a month. Twelve weeks later, it is ongoing with no end in sight. The Strait of Hormuz is still closed. Global oil prices have spiked and, as a result, drivers are now paying an average of more than $4.50 per gallon of gas. In all, the higher gas prices have drained an estimated $42 billion out of Americans’ wallets.

And with the midterms looming, it is understandable why President Donald Trump and his allies in Congress would want to provide drivers with some relief.

The president has floated the idea of suspending the federal excise tax on gasoline, which adds 18.4 cents per gallon to the price at the pump (and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel fuel).

Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) quickly responded by introducing a bill to suspend the federal gas tax for 90 days. “American workers and families deserve immediate relief and this legislation will do just that,” Hawley said in a statement as he introduced the bill.

But how much relief will the gas tax holiday actually provide? Very little, it turns out.

The average driver would save less than $9 per month if the federal gas tax was suspended, according to an analysis published Monday by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which advocates for sound fiscal policies. Every dollar counts, of course, but those savings would not provide meaningful relief from higher gas prices.

Meanwhile, suspending the gas tax for three months, as Hawley is proposing, would create an $10.5 billion shortfall in the federal Highway Trust Fund, which is fueled by revenue from the excise taxes on gasoline. That includes about $3 billion in additional interest costs on the borrowing that would be necessary to close the shortfall, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).

The trust fund is already facing insolvency as soon as 2028, and a temporary gas tax holiday would accelerate that crisis. The CRFB estimates that a three-month gas tax holiday would cause the trust fund to run dry seven weeks earlier than currently expected.

It’s good to see politicians instinctively turn to tax cuts as a way to lower the cost of living—but, like with all tax cuts, that is a policy that only works if you cut spending too. Unfortunately, road construction and repairs are still necessary even when gas is expensive.

Could we find better ways to finance highways and other transportation infrastructure that don’t require a federal gas tax? Sure! But Trump and Hawley are not proposing to do that. They are proposing to blow another hole in the federal budget in an attempt to escape the political consequences of poor decision making.

This is another situation where Trump’s second term is mirroring the failures of Joe Biden’s presidency. When inflation was surging during 2022, the Biden administration also floated the idea of suspending the gasoline excise tax for three months.

Then, like now, serious analyses of the proposal showed that it would save the average driver very little money. The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimated that per capita savings would total between $4.79 and $14.31 over three months. Meanwhile, the tax holiday would have blown an estimated $6 billion hole in the federal highway budget.

It was a bad trade-off then, and it is a bad trade-off now.

Thankfully, some prominent Republicans seem uninterested in going along with it.

“The best way to get gas prices to normalize in my view is to get the [Strait of Hormuz] open,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R–S.D.) said last week. “We do have a Highway Trust Fund and it does perform an important service in making sure that we’ve got highways and roadways across our country that are serviceable.”

Exactly.

If Trump wants to relieve Americans from the pain of higher gas prices, he could swiftly end the war in Iran (and avoid stumbling into more conflicts like it). Until that happens, global oil prices will remain high—and a gimmicky tax holiday won’t fix it.

The post Trump's Federal Gas Tax Holiday Would Save Drivers Less Than $9 Per Month appeared first on Reason.com.

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

BofA’s Blanch Joins Goldman In Calling For $90 Brent This Year Amid “Pretty Large Deficit” Fears

BofA’s Blanch Joins Goldman In Calling For $90 Brent This Year Amid “Pretty Large Deficit” Fears

Add Bank of America’s commodities and derivatives research chief to the growing list of Wall Street strategists who see Brent crude sticking around $90 a barrel this year, as any near-term resolution to the Hormuz chokepoint crisis appears increasingly distant. The call follows Goldman’s move several weeks ago to raise its year-end oil outlook to around $90.

BofA analyst Francisco Blanch joined Bloomberg Television’s Surveillance earlier and warned, “We have a pretty large deficit that is running 14 million to 15 million barrels a day short, or 14% to 15% short of what we need to see for prices to stabilize and go down to $60 or $70 a barrel.”

As of late Monday afternoon, Brent crude futures were trading above $112 as the reality of the weeks-long stalemate returned, indicating that the Trump team is not open to any concessions to Tehran.

Blanch’s new outlook hinges on continued Hormuz disruption into next month. He noted that restoring tanker flows through the critical waterway is the optimal outcome but warned that the double blockade would lead to a gradual grind higher in prices, to $120 or $130 a barrel by the end of June or early July.

In the final days of April, Goldman analysts raised their fourth-quarter oil price outlook to $90 for Brent and $83 for West Texas Intermediate.

The chart below summarizes why their crude outlook for the fourth quarter is nearly $30 higher than it was before the Hormuz shock:

Frederic Lasserre, head of research at Gunvor, one of the world’s largest oil traders, warned last week that “the tipping point is clearly June. This is the point at which something has to give.”

JPMorgan analysts recently warned that the world is spiraling toward a catastrophic cliff-edge shortage of crude oil if the maritime chokepoint remains blocked for another 4 weeks.

Furthermore, Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc warned that a prolonged Hormuz closure is a “new wake-up call” that could seriously dent global trade.

For more context, former CIA operative and RBC commodities head Helima Croft told clients just days ago that she is “very skeptical of a June grand reopening or even that maritime traffic will return to February 27 levels for the foreseeable future.”

All of this suggests that, with the latest AAA data showing the U.S. national average for unleaded 87 gasoline at $4.55 per gallon, higher prices could certainly arrive ahead of Memorial Day’s driving season and may soon push prices toward the demand-destruction line of $5, unless a resolution to the U.S.-Iran conflict comes very soon.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 05/18/2026 – 17:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/J4myueP Tyler Durden

Trump’s Federal Gas Tax Holiday Would Save Drivers Less Than $9 Per Month


Trump-Hawley-5-18 | Eric Lee - Pool via CNP/Newscom/Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom/Yuliia Koniaieva/Dreamstime

The week before the United States launched its war with Iran, the average gas price in America was less than $3 per gallon.

The war was supposed to last about a month. Twelve weeks later, it is ongoing with no end in sight. The Strait of Hormuz is still closed. Global oil prices have spiked and, as a result, drivers are now paying an average of more than $4.50 per gallon of gas. In all, the higher gas prices have drained an estimated $42 billion out of Americans’ wallets.

And with the midterms looming, it is understandable why President Donald Trump and his allies in Congress would want to provide drivers with some relief.

The president has floated the idea of suspending the federal excise tax on gasoline, which adds 18.4 cents per gallon to the price at the pump (and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel fuel).

Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) quickly responded by introducing a bill to suspend the federal gas tax for 90 days. “American workers and families deserve immediate relief and this legislation will do just that,” Hawley said in a statement as he introduced the bill.

But how much relief will the gas tax holiday actually provide? Very little, it turns out.

The average driver would save less than $9 per month if the federal gas tax was suspended, according to an analysis published Monday by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which advocates for sound fiscal policies. Every dollar counts, of course, but those savings would not provide meaningful relief from higher gas prices.

Meanwhile, suspending the gas tax for three months, as Hawley is proposing, would create an $10.5 billion shortfall in the federal Highway Trust Fund, which is fueled by revenue from the excise taxes on gasoline. That includes about $3 billion in additional interest costs on the borrowing that would be necessary to close the shortfall, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).

The trust fund is already facing insolvency as soon as 2028, and a temporary gas tax holiday would accelerate that crisis. The CRFB estimates that a three-month gas tax holiday would cause the trust fund to run dry seven weeks earlier than currently expected.

It’s good to see politicians instinctively turn to tax cuts as a way to lower the cost of living—but, like with all tax cuts, that is a policy that only works if you cut spending too. Unfortunately, road construction and repairs are still necessary even when gas is expensive.

Could we find better ways to finance highways and other transportation infrastructure that don’t require a federal gas tax? Sure! But Trump and Hawley are not proposing to do that. They are proposing to blow another hole in the federal budget in an attempt to escape the political consequences of poor decision making.

This is another situation where Trump’s second term is mirroring the failures of Joe Biden’s presidency. When inflation was surging during 2022, the Biden administration also floated the idea of suspending the gasoline excise tax for three months.

Then, like now, serious analyses of the proposal showed that it would save the average driver very little money. The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimated that per capita savings would total between $4.79 and $14.31 over three months. Meanwhile, the tax holiday would have blown an estimated $6 billion hole in the federal highway budget.

It was a bad trade-off then, and it is a bad trade-off now.

Thankfully, some prominent Republicans seem uninterested in going along with it.

“The best way to get gas prices to normalize in my view is to get the [Strait of Hormuz] open,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R–S.D.) said last week. “We do have a Highway Trust Fund and it does perform an important service in making sure that we’ve got highways and roadways across our country that are serviceable.”

Exactly.

If Trump wants to relieve Americans from the pain of higher gas prices, he could swiftly end the war in Iran (and avoid stumbling into more conflicts like it). Until that happens, global oil prices will remain high—and a gimmicky tax holiday won’t fix it.

The post Trump's Federal Gas Tax Holiday Would Save Drivers Less Than $9 Per Month appeared first on Reason.com.

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

Graham Calls For ‘Short But Forceful’ New Strikes On Iran, Complains Waiting For ‘Status Quo’ Talks Looks Weak

Graham Calls For ‘Short But Forceful’ New Strikes On Iran, Complains Waiting For ‘Status Quo’ Talks Looks Weak

At a moment the US-Iran ceasefire is officially on life support, and with the world’s most critical energy chokepoint remaining blocked while the American consumer is paying the price at the pump, beltway hawks are calling for renewed major military action to ‘solve’ the standoff.

Foremost among them, Senator Lindsey Graham, hit the Sunday news circuit to urge President Trump to rip up the current playbook and resume US major military strikes on Tehran. According to Graham, the current diplomatic paralysis and the shuttered Strait of Hormuz are only fueling Iran’s strategic position while inflicting severe economic pain domestically.

He has perhaps picked up on the bad optics of Trump’s constant barrage of Truth Social posts which often seem written in an exasperated and impatience style.

“I think the status quo is hurting us all,” Graham told NBC News’ “Meet the Press” – as he made the case for using military pressure to get the Iranians to comply with Washington demands on their nuclear program and other issues.

The well-known hawk from South Carolina correctly observed: “The longer the [Strait of Hormuz] is closed, the more we try to pursue a deal that never happens, the stronger Iran gets.” However, this reflects one of those ‘one more escalation step and the problem will be fixed’ approaches among the NeoCons. The ‘just one more thing’ usually perpetuates the quagmire. 

He turned to urging the president to “weaken them further” given that “there’s more targets to be had” – which is pretty much also the Israeli line.

Graham further said there are no signs that after the prior 38-day bombing campaign that Iran’s leadership has abandoned what he called the Islamic Republic’s supposed goal “to terrorize the world, destroy Israel, come after us.”

“Gas prices will come down when you put Iran in a box,Graham added. 

Another interesting moment in the interview came when the GOP senator seemed in agreement with Trump on not caring about Americans’ finances in comparison with the Iran nuclear question:

Trump drew criticism last week for saying he was not weighing Americans’ finances in the talks, comments that stirred Republican anxiety ahead of the midterm elections. Graham dismissed that concern.

“It’s worth losing my job,” he told Welker. “If I had to give my job up to make sure Iran would never have a nuclear weapon, I would do it.”

Iran is meanwhile still not backing down, after last Friday Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi made clear that Tehran has “no trust” in Washington given its “contradictory messages”.

Graham calling for a “short but forceful” new military escalation against Iran…

He reiterated that Washington needs to get serious, while it is US officials saying Iran must show willingness to make compromise. At this point it seems Washington is the more desperate to get a deal done, but each side is waiting out the other.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 05/18/2026 – 15:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/ovHAkC8 Tyler Durden