You’re a little person. The rules always apply to you.
If you’re politically connected and believe in disarming the public, the rules don’t apply to you.
🚨Here is the summary regarding Miranda Viscolli from @NMPGVnow purchasing firearms for gift cards and not properly destroying the firearms per the @NewMexicoDOJ and the @ATFHQ:
– If an individual surrenders (gift or donation) to a non-profit entity without consideration and…
The only reason his opponent advocates handing hard-earned money over to the Chamber of Commerce and doing their bidding is that he wants to fleece middle class taxpayers to fund his own constituency.
The representative is right. It’s called socialism, and it has never worked anywhere. By another name it’s theft.
South Carolina Rep finally SNAPS in chamber, PERFECTLY lifts veil of political corruption in middle of lion's den in two minutes🔥
“I will ALWAYS fall back on the common sense of my constituents FAR MORE than I will EVER listen to you unelected bureaucrats and other… pic.twitter.com/4ir7g7psfK
This is a mildly interesting video, but I neither have heroes nor get involved in drama. The most interesting part to me was this comment.
Hop is spot on about where the RD’s come from. I do have one caveat about the claim about the PCBs however. I’ve worked in the industry as a consultant and the number one question I was getting from CEOs and CMOs was how to make sure they stay legal with “Made in USA” and “Assembled in USA” regulations and how much in fines they can expect to pay when they violate them. And almost everyone violates them.In many countries, including the United States, there are strict regulations governing these labels. To be labeled as “Made in USA,” a product generally must be “all or virtually all” made in the United States. This means that a significant portion of the product’s total manufacturing costs must be incurred in the US, and the final assembly or processing of the product must also occur in the U.S. This is regulated by the Federal Trade Commission.The supply chain for everything is global and massive. You’d be shocked if I told you how few things are “honest to God” made here (that actually satisfy FTC compliance). The number of US-located CNC machines, the cornerstone of modern manufacturing, is such a tiny percentage of World’s CNC fleet that I immediately distrust the “Made in USA” certification of origin of some small part (and large parts too). I’m also highly skeptical when manufacturers claim that their PCBs are made here. We’d need to have 20-25x more PCB manufacturing plants for the amount of PCBs that are claimed to be “Made in the USA”. Don’t believe me? Just call up some of the PCB manufactures and try to get some quotes and lead time. You’ll quickly realize that your product will be ready in 2 years time and it will cost 2-3x what your C-suite is asking for.Even the F-35 contractors got into hot water when it was found that most of the PCBs that were “Made in the US” were actually Made in China. Even today, most of the multi-layer, high-speed/high-frequency, PCBs for F-35 are Made in China. A fact that everyone sweeps under the rug now.
This is honestly a very sad thing. America lost its ability to do large steel construction long ago with the demise of that work in Pennsylvania, the ports in Virginia and a couple of places in Alabama. Thus, today we can no longer fabricate large sea-going vessels such as battleships or carriers. Even the reactor vessels for Catawba Nuclear Station were made in the Rotterdam shipyard.
Optical quality glass is obviously made now only in Germany and Japan.
I guess it’s the same for printed circuit boards. What a shame and a sham that we cannot make our own electronics. You can blame our rulers for that as they whored themselves after globalism. The whole thing is ridiculous and it’s not only a sad commentary on our competitiveness, but national security as well.
I thought after the Covid scam Ford intended to start up manufacturing of PCBs in America? I don’t know how that’s going.
This week, as North America’s wildlife professionals gather in Louisville, Kentucky, for the annual meetings of The Wildlife Society, the question of who calls the shots in wildlife management will be a hot topic.
Last year’s Wildlife Society annual meeting, in Spokane, was defined by what some in the wildlife-management profession characterized as a takeover by animal-rights activists who generally feel left out of traditional wildlife management.
They’re not entirely wrong. Most state wildlife agencies are funded mainly by hunters, either through license sales or pass-through revenue from taxes on guns, bows, and ammunition. And while state fish and game departments have wide authority to manage butterflies, minnows, and songbirds, most manage primarily for catchable fish and huntable game.
The wildlife activists, who want state agencies to de-emphasize hunting and fishing in favor of more tolerance for carnivores and non-game species, are not politely asking to be included, as last year’s Wildlife Society meeting indicated. In many states, they’re using the political process to win gubernatorial appointments to fish and game commissions. Washington, where these animal-rights advocates now hold a majority of commission seats, has become the leading indicator of a transition away from agencies that cater mainly to hunters and anglers.
Colorado is quickly moving toward a similar model, with the recent appointment of three commissioners who represent constituents who may have never bought a hunting or fishing license.
I know someone from Colorado. I can vouch for what he’s saying about Colorado hunting.
This is just great. Now they’re coming for hunting!
All of you “We’re not voting our way out of this” guys may want to reconsider your position. I have long said that politics is warfare, plain and simple, just done in another way. If you don’t want to put in the effort to engage in the front lines of the warfare, when will you?
So, you may want to think about who your state is electing to the governor’s mansion. It matters. It matters to hunters and shooters.
After you are the one who orchestrated the nationwide shutdown, kept kids home from school, and marched that communist Fauci in front of the TV cameras for a year and failed to reign in the NIH and CDC.
And on top of that took the credit for rolling out an untested shot that causes blood clots and destroys the immune system. Yeah, you’ve got the nerve.
“Administration and character of Eutropius, A.D. 395-399:
The first events of the reign of Arcadius and Honorius are so intimately connected, that the rebellion of the Goths and the fall of Rufinus have already claimed a place in the history of the West. It has already been observed that Eutropius, one of the principal eunuchs of the palace of Constantinople, succeeded the haughty minister whose ruin he had accomplished and whose vices he soon imitated. Every order of the state bowed to the new favourite; and their tame and obsequious submission encouraged him to insult the laws, and, what is still more difficult and dangerous, the manners of his country. Under the weakest of the predecessors of Arcadius the reign of the eunuchs had been secret and almost invisible. They insinuated themselves into the confidence of the prince but their ostensible functions were confined to the menial service of the wardrobe and Imperial bedchamber. They might direct in a whisper the public counsels, and blast by their malicious suggestions the fame and fortunes of the most illustrious citizens; but they never presumed to stand forward in the front of empire, or to profane the public honours of the state. Eutropius was the first of his artificial sex who dared to assume the character of a Roman magistrate and general. Sometimes, in the presence of the blushing senate, he ascended the tribunal to pronounce judgment or to repeat elaborate harangues; and sometimes appeared on horseback, at the head of his troops, in the dress and armour of a hero. The disregard of custom and decency always betrays a weak and ill-regulated mind; nor does Eutropius seem to have compensated for the folly of the design by any superior merit or ability in the execution. His former habits of life had not introduced him to the study of the laws or the exercises of the field; his awkward and unsuccessful attempts provoked the secret contempt of the spectators; the Goths expressed their wish that such a general might always command the armies of Rome; and the name of the minister was branded with ridicule, more pernicious, perhaps, than hatred to a public character. The subjects of Arcadius were exasperated by the recollection that this deformed and decrepit eunuch, who so perversely mimicked the actions of a man, was born in the most abject conditions of servitude; that before he entered the Imperial palace he had been successively sold and purchased by an hundred masters, who had exhausted his youthful strength in every mean and infamous office, and at length dismissed him in his old age to freedom and poverty. While these disgraceful stories were circulated, and perhaps exaggerated, in private conversations, the vanity of the favourite was flattered with the most extraordinary honours. In the senate, in the capital, in the provinces, the statues of Eutropius were erected, in brass or marble, decorated with the symbols of his civil and military virtues, and inscribed with the pompous title of the third founder of Constantinople. He was promoted to the rank of patrician, which began to signify, in a popular and even legal acceptation, the father of the emperor: and the last year of the fourth century was polluted by the consulship of an eunuch and a slave. This strange and inexpiable prodigy awakened, however, the prejudices of the Romans. The effeminate consul was rejected by the West as an indelible stain to the annals of the republic; and without invoking the shades of Brutus and Camillus, the colleague of Eutropius, a learned and respectable magistrate, sufficiently represented the different maxims of the two administrations.” – Edward Gibbon, The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, Chapter 32
Effeminate Eunuchs. Does this sound as if it could be written about the current ruling caste of America today?
He poses some interesting questions, and I’d like to see this issue studied a bit by him or someone equally familiar with both constitutional and case law.
My own view is that simply putting a sign up at an entrance to so-called government property (like a park) isn’t reason enough to justify a search. That’s not a so-called “administrative search.” I assume and believe that for public places, the rules of “Terry Stop” still apply, i.e., there must be articulable reason for the search such as suspicion in the commission of a crime.
I’ve given this some thought too concerning stops and searches of hunters on public lands. Almost every hunter is aware of his training, i.e., when you are approached by a DNR officer, put your weapon in a safe condition, be polite, and be prepared to have your privacy invaded. He may and probably will demand to see your hunting license and examine your harvest.
But why? What gives that DNR agent the right to do that? The fact that they’re on “public land?” Do the citizens not own the public land? What’s the difference between public hunting land and a downtown sidewalk? Do we allow cops to come up to us and frisk us, demand to identify us, and demand to search our belongings because we’re walking on a sidewalk “owned” by the state? No, most states do not have stop and identify statutes, and besides, those are unconstitutional even if they exist.
Why does a DNR officer have the right to assume I don’t have a hunting license just because I’m hunting (that’s the assumption behind demanding to see my hunting license, right, that I don’t have a license)? Why does the DNR officer have the right to force me to open the tailgate of my truck and examine my harvest? Does he have evidence of a crime to make such invasive demands? Without such evidence, or at least suspicion, does that search violate the fourth amendment?
I would claim that it does. England had rules regulating hunting under the notion of the royal forest. As of the 12th century, nearly a third of England’s land was designated “royal forest,” and only the king’s men and other nobility were allowed to hunt game there.
We don’t live in England. We live in America. We fought a war over things just like this.
I think this is pregnant ground to be tilled, and I’d like to see lawyers take this up with some offended hunter – perhaps all the way to the supreme court.
The Supreme Court rolled back the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate under the Clean Water Act (CWA) in a unanimous decision Thursday.
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, brought by a couple prevented by the EPA from building a home on their own land near Priest Lake, Idaho because it contained wetlands, considered the scope of the agency’s “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule, which defines what “navigable waters” can be regulated under the CWA. Plaintiffs Chantell and Mike Sackett, who have spent 15 years fighting the agency’s rule in court, allege the EPA has overstepped the authority it was granted when Congress enacted the CWA in 1972—forcing them to stop construction on their land or face fines.
The Supreme Court sided with the Sacketts, determining their land is not covered under the text of the CWA, which gives the EPA authority to regulate “navigable waters.”
Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barett, that the EPA’s interpretation “provides little notice to landowners of their obligations under the CWA.” The Court held that the CWA applies to only wetlands that are “as a practical matter indistinguishable from waters of the United States,” maintaining a “continuous surface connection.”
EPA restrictions on wetlands is similar to civil asset forfeiture. It amounts to thievery. It’s wrong and everybody knows it.
The opinion was “unanimous,” but the picture isn’t so rosy as you might suspect.
Though justices were united in their judgement, they maintained disagreements on definitions. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in an opinion concurring in judgement that was joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, thought the majority went too far in its test for which wetlands are included.
“By narrowing the Act’s coverage of wetlands to only adjoining wetlands, the Court’s new test will leave some long-regulated adjacent wetlands no longer covered by the Clean Water Act, with significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States,” he wrote.
Kagan similarly said in an opinion joined by Sotomayor and Jackson that the majority has appointed itself as “the national decision-maker on environmental policy” by choosing a test that “prevents the EPA from keeping our country’s waters clean by regulating adjacent wetlands.”
“The eight administrations since 1977 have maintained dramatically different views of how to regulate the environment, including under the Clean Water Act,” she wrote, noting some “promulgated very broad interpretations of adjacent wetlands.”
“Yet all of those eight different administrations have recognized as a matter of law that the Clean Water Act’s coverage of adjacent wetlands means more than adjoining wetlands and also includes wetlands separated from covered waters by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes, or the like,” she wrote. “That consistency in interpretation is strong confirmation of the ordinary meaning of adjacent wetlands.”
So the other “justices” sided with the sensible ones, but they want all but the most obvious examples to be decided by the FedGov, with property owned by the same.
Thus, the Leviathan only got his hand slapped rather than smitten into ruin on the rocks like he should have been.
Interestingly, Mark Smith sees this as very important for gun owners. See how this decision applies to the ATF and why lawyers will be citing it in the coming months.
When local bureaucrats in Hennepin County, Minnesota, seized an elderly woman’s home over a small tax debt, sold it, and kept the profit, they likely had no idea they would set in motion a series of events that would cripple the practice known as “home equity theft” across the country.
Yet that’s what happened. The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that the government violated the Constitution when it took possession of Geraldine Tyler’s condo over an overdue property tax bill, auctioned the home, and pocketed the proceeds in excess of what she actually owed.
Tyler, who is now 94 years old, purchased the Minneapolis-area condo in 1999. But a series of events, including a neighborhood shooting, prompted her to relocate to a retirement community in 2010, at which point it became difficult for her to pay both her new rent and the property taxes on her former home. She accrued a $2,300 tax bill, which turned into an approximately $15,000 bill after the government added on $13,000 in penalties, interest, and fees. Local officials then sold the home for $40,000—and kept the remaining $25,000.
Tyler spent years arguing that such a taking was unconstitutional. But despite the case appearing fairly black and white from the outset, she had no such luck in the lower courts. When her case went before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, its ruling was also unanimous—in favor of the government. “Where state law recognizes no property interest in surplus proceeds from a tax foreclosure-sale conducted after adequate notice to the owner, there is no unconstitutional taking,” wroteJudge Steven Colloton.
The Supreme Court forcefully overturned that decision today. “A taxpayer who loses her $40,000 house to the State to fulfill a $15,000 tax debt has made a far greater contribution to the public fisc than she owed,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the Court. “The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more.”
At the heart of the case is the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which stipulates that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use without just compensation.” In explaining the justices’ decision, Roberts traced the spirit of the law back to the Magna Carta, then to English law, and ultimately to the States, buttressed by several Supreme Court precedents which, as Roberts wrote, “have also recognized the principle that a taxpayer is entitled to the surplus in excess of the debt owed.”
Tyler is far from the only victim of this practice. Home equity theft is legal in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, South Dakota, and the District of Columbia, although today’s ruling should hamstring those forfeiture schemes.
Civil asset forfeiture is thievery and therefore sinful. There is no other way to see it, and every individual, whether associated with the government or not, who has participated in or enabled such a scheme, should be ashamed, and will certainly face eternal punishment. It’s an abomination that the Eighth Circuit found in favor of the state, and equally absurd that the Supreme Court took so long to take this head on and smash it to the ground in pieces.
This is in West Virginia, where John H. Bryan (aka, The Civil Rights Lawyer), has been a one-man wrecking crew for the corruption. Here are the relevant documents.
But you know this sort of thing happens everywhere. It’s just that John is good and persistent enough to root it out.