Category: Goobermint

Survey Says: Majority Think Government Corrupt, Disagree Who Can Fix It

A new Rasmussen survey released Tuesday reveals that four out of five likely voters believe corruption is a problem in Washington,. D.C. but they disagree on who can fix the problem.

Of the 80 percent who say government is corrupt, 44 percent think it is “very corrupt.”

And Republicans need to be careful, because Rasmussen says 43 percent of survey respondents think Democrats can handle the issues of government better, while 41 percent think the Republicans can do a better job. Sixteen percent aren’t sure one way or the other.

The survey of 1,155 U.S. Likely Voters was conducted on Nov. 13 and 16-17 by Rasmussen Reports with a margin of sampling error at +/- 3 percentage points and a 95% level of confidence.

“Not surprisingly,” said Rasmussen, “78 percent of Democrats trust their own party more to handle issues of government corruption and government reform, and 77 percent of Republican voters trust the GOP more. Unaffiliated voters are about evenly divided, with 37 percent trusting Republicans more and 36 percent trusting Democrats more to handle corruption and reform issues, while 27 percent are not sure.”

The survey results probably should not surprise anyone, considering all that has been said about certain members of Congress getting wealthy from insider trading and not being held accountable. On the other hand, some people on Capitol Hill have been criminally prosecuted over the years, with individuals such as New Jersey’s Bob Menendez and New York’s Anthony Weiner going to prison.

According to Rasmussen, “76 percent of voters agree that federal agencies such as the FBI and CIA need major reform, including 45 percent who Strongly Agree. Only 17 percent disagree.”

Breaking things down along party lines, Rasmussen said “Eighty percent (80%) of Republicans at least somewhat agree that federal agencies such as the FBI and CIA need major reform, as do 71% of Democrats and 75% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

“Forty-nine percent (49%) of Democrats, 39% of Republicans and 45% of unaffiliated voters believe the federal government is Very Corrupt,” Rasmussen added.

FLASHBACK:(Deceit O’ The Day)

What is Operation Allies Welcome? The refugee scheme that allowed DC shooting suspect into the US

The man accused of shooting two National Guard members near the White House Wednesday night entered the country through Operation Allies Welcome, a resettlement program to assist Afghan nationals.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the suspect – an Afghan man identified as Rahmanullah Lakanwal – arrived in the U.S. in 2021. He later applied for asylum in 2024, which was approved this year under the Trump administration.

The U.S. has now suspended all Afghan immigration requests in response to the shooting outside a metro station in downtown Washington D.C., which officials described as a targeted ambush. The two guard members are still in critical condition.

In a televised address from Mar-a-Lago, Trump condemned the attack – the day before Thanksgiving celebrations get underway – as a “crime against humanity”.

On Wednesday, Trump lashed out at former president Joe Biden’s administration for letting in “20 million unknown and unvetted foreigners” to the US through the Operation Allies Welcome program. However, this figure appears to be an enormous exaggeration.

The scheme was launched in August 2021 during Biden’s presidency, following the chaos of the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Taliban’s return to power.

Continue reading “”

New York’s Assault on the NRA — and Free Speech — Gets a Court Bailout

In 2017, under the direction of then-Governor Andrew Cuomo, the state of New York launched a coordinated campaign to cripple the National Rifle Association (NRA) because of its defense of the Second Amendment and protected speech. New York’s Department of Financial Services contacted banks and insurance companies that did business with the NRA and delivered an unmistakable message: Continue associating with the NRA, and the state would investigate, cite, and regulate your business into oblivion. Coming from the state’s top financial regulator, the warning carried real weight – exactly as intended.

The strategy worked. Financial institutions and insurers quickly distanced themselves from the NRA, leaving the organization unable to secure even basic corporate services in the state. If that sounds like an obvious First Amendment violation, that’s because it is. More than 60 years ago, the Supreme Court made clear in Bantam Books v. Sullivan that government “threat[s] of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion” against third parties to suppress disfavored speech are flatly unconstitutional.

Because that rule remains as clear today as it was in 1963, the Supreme Court agreed with the ACLJ’s amicus brief and ruled unanimously for the NRA last term. Justice Sotomayor, writing for the Court, put it plainly: “A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.” When regulators use the power of their office to pressure private actors into isolating or punishing a speaker, they violate the First Amendment just as surely as if they had censored the speech directly.

This case sits squarely at the intersection of the First and Second Amendments. The NRA’s policy views related to the Second Amendment, its speech, its advocacy, and its expression are all protected by the First Amendment. A government that can strangle a gun-rights group through financial coercion can use the same tools to silence pro-life organizations, religious ministries, parental-rights groups, or anyone else who falls out of political favor. That is why the ACLJ fights not just for the substance of constitutional rights, but also against government efforts to punish those who speak about them.

That unanimous ruling should have ended the matter. It should have allowed the NRA’s lawsuit to proceed so a jury could determine the full extent of the constitutional violations. But the Second Circuit had other ideas. In defiance of both the Supreme Court’s clear command and the First Amendment itself, the court held that New York’s officials were entitled to qualified immunity – meaning the case had to be dismissed.

Qualified Immunity Was Never Meant to Shield Deliberate Speech Suppression

Continue reading “”

DOJ Official Says Congress, Not Courts, Should Address NFA Taxes, Registration

Despite ongoing objections from Second Amendment groups and a letter from Rep. Andrew Clyde and more than two dozen other members of Congress urging Attorney General Pam Bondi to recognize congressional intent and stop defending the National Firearms Act’s taxes and registration requirements for National Firearms Act items, the DOJ’s latest brief in an NFA case offers a full-throated defense of those measures.

The  brief, filed in Silencer Shop, et al v. BATFE, not only argues that the Constitution empowers Congress to adopt the challenged NFA requirements and that the $200 tax and registry of who has paid it remain a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power, but that the tax and registration mandates “comport with the Second Amendment” as well.

… the NFA’s regulation of short-barreled shotguns and rifles, suppressors, and AOWs is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” As the Supreme Court has consistently observed, American legislatures have long “prohibited the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” Laws dating back to theFounding Era targeted, through outright bans or lesser regulation, particularly dangerous weapons that were uniquely susceptible to criminal misuse. Similarly, many states have long regulated the size of firearms. The NFA fits within that historical tradition by targeting particularly dangerous weapons that “could be used readily and efficiently by criminals,” though its requirements are much more modest than the categorical bans of the past. That alone demonstrates that the NFA comports with the Second Amendment.

Gun Owners of America, among others, has objected to the DOJ’s continued defense of the NFA, which led to a rebuke of the 2A organization from a DOJ official.

McGavick’s argument is an odd one, given that the Supreme Court does have the power to declare laws unconstitutional. And in the case of the NFA’s taxation and registration schemes, it’s clear that the intent of Congress was to repeal those provisions. The $200 tax has been zeroed out as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but though the Senate also removed the accompanying requirement that those who pay the tax have to register that payment with the federal government, the Senate parliamentarian objected to that provision, so the registry remains.
The DOJ could have taken the position that, since the registration is actually a registry of all those who’ve paid the tax, and the tax has no been zeroed out, the registration requirement is moot. It could also, of course, have taken the position that the NFA does violate the Second Amendment, despite what the Court has said in cases like Miller and Heller.

Part of the DOJ’s problem is that it has previously admitted in the Peterson case that challenges the NFA’s restrictions on suppressors that those items are, in fact, protected by the Second Amendment. Still, the DOJ took the position that the $200 tax and registration requirements are only “modest burdens” on the right to keep and bear arms, at least as they apply to those items.

The Supreme Court has never suggested that there are various levels of protection for arms that fall under the Second Amendment’s umbrella, so the DOJ’s position arguably leaves the door open for similar requirements on all arms protected by the Second Amendment. If the DOJ is going to to defend the National Firearms Act, it might have been better for the agency to argue that NFA items aren’t protected at all instead of coming up with a convoluted theory about tiers of protection and what kind of restrictions might be allowed for some arms. That still wouldn’t satisfy groups like GOA, FPC, and NRA, but it also wouldn’t allow gun control groups and anti-gun polticians to adopt the DOJ’s language and apply it to handguns or semi-automatic long guns in the future.

When Rep. Clyde joined me on Bearing Arms Cam & Company to discuss the letter to Bondi, he indicated that if the DOJ didn’t fall in line behind Congress’s intent he might re-open the letter to gather more signatures before submitting its rebuke into the official congressional record. Clyde says he’s also working on an appropriations bill that would remove the registration requirements, which would be fantastic if it comes to pass, but that action in the legislative branch still doesn’t mean that the executive branch’s hands are tied when it comes to the NFA and its infringements on our right to keep and bear arms.

New York City residents should keep Bernie Goetz’s travails in mind if they’re going to go armed in public.

Senior citizen who saved himself from would-be mugger is heading to prison because of NYC’s ‘draconian’ laws

A Queens senior citizen who shot dead a man who tried to rob him will spend four years in prison after admitting to toting an unlicensed revolver — as his lawyer ripped the city’s “draconian” gun laws.

Charles Foehner, 67, pleaded guilty to one count of criminal weapons possession Thursday in a deal to end his case more than two years after he fatally shot would-be thief Cody Gonzalez, who charged at him near his Kew Gardens home.

The Queens District Attorney’s Office chose not to prosecute Foehner, a retired doorman, for Gonzalez’s killing after he told cops that he’d defended himself from a mugger who lunged at him late at night holding what looked like a knife — but which turned out to be a pen.

Foehner was not charged with manslaughter after claiming self-defense, but pleaded guilty to a lesser gun charge.Brigitte Stelzer

But prosecutors slapped Foehner with a slew of weapons raps for the unlicensed handgun and for an arsenal of illicit handguns, revolvers and rifles inside his home in the quiet neighborhood.

Foehner took the plea deal to avoid a trial, where he faced 25 years in prison on gun charges that are not hard to prove, said his attorney Thomas Kenniff after Thursday’s hearing in Queens Supreme Court.

Continue reading “”

Gun Owners of America Learns Gag Orders Makes Strange Bedfellows

Gun Owners of America has been challenging the Department of Justice over a troubling program where American gun buyers are seeing their purchases monitored by the ATF. There’s no due process involved at all, either. All it takes is for a law enforcement officer to say he suspects someone of not being an ideal citizen, and suddenly, they’ll get a notification whenever that person has a NICS check performed.

Just how bad are things? We don’t know.

It seems GOA knows, but they’re not talking. It’s not because they don’t want to. They’re not allowed to. They’re under a gag order that prevents them from telling what they know.

Unsurprisingly, others have an issue with that.

However, as this video from GOA tells us, what’s surprising is who is standing with them on this.

The fact that we’re being monitored for exercising our Second Amendment rights is far from new information. That doesn’t make it a good thing, only that it’s nothing new.

But for groups like Reuters, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Vox, NPR, and Politico, among others, to stand with gun owners and have a problem with the gag order is very, very new.

As noted in the video, many of these organizations are generally very hostile toward the Second Amendment and Second Amendment organizations like Gun Owners of America.

Yet this isn’t a gun issue. Not really.

Sure, the underlying surveillance is very much a relevant issue for gun rights supporters, but the fact that Gun Owners of America isn’t allowed to speak about information that was given to them, inadvertently, by the Biden Department of Justice, is troubling for anyone in the media. After all, we get information from a variety of sources. Not all of that information was intended for public consumption, which is often the point. It betrays troubling behavior by the government that’s hidden under various laws pertaining to classified material.

And the courts have traditionally understood that and sided with the free press on such things most of the time.

If GOA is unable to speak with material handed to them directly by the DOJ, even if it wasn’t intentional, then what about a reporter who finds out that the government is funding an illegal arms trafficking network via drug sales in our inner cities? Just to name one completely random and not at all historical example.

Will Reuters get slammed with a gag order because a source gives them information on how the CIA is arming cartels so they can fight a different cartel? Again, a hypothetical, though this one is actually one I pulled out of my fourth point of contact.

That’s what this stand is truly about, of course, and I get that. It’s even fair that they’d side with GOA over their personal interests above and beyond any potential intrinsic desire to stand for rights as a whole. They’re not suddenly going to be pro-gun. This is about them and only them. In fact, I doubt they give a damn about the monitoring effort at all.

But politics is said to make strange bedfellows. It seems so do gag orders.

 

Just another long serving bureaucrap. Will he ever learn?

Trump Has Found His Pick for ATF Director

Since Donald Trump began his second term as president and Biden’s ATF Director Steve Dettelbach resigned ahead of being fired, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has been run by a couple of different interim directors, starting with FBI Director Kash Patel. Patel was replaced after reports surfaced that he was essentially a non-entity at the agency, and Army Secretary Dan Driscoll has been doing double duty interim director alongside his work with the Department of Defense in April.

Shortly after Driscoll was named as the interim head of the agency, the ATF’s Deputy Director Marvin Richardson stepped down (or was pushed out), and was replaced by Robert Cekada, who was previously Executive Assistant Director and oversaw the agency’s Office of Regulatory Operations, Office of Field Operations, and the Office of Intelligence Operations.

Now President Trump has nominated Cekada to become the agency’s permanent director; not exactly a surprising move, but not completely expected either. Trump has shown a desire to install outsiders at the helm of many agencies and cabinet positions, but Cekada has worked for the ATF for 20 years. He started as a field agent Hyattsville, Maryland and worked on the Regional Area Gang Enforcement Task Force from 2005 to 2011 before transferring to the Tampa field office for two years. He’s been at ATF headquarters since 2013, moving up the ranks from his position as project officer in the Firearms Operations Division’s Frontline Branch.

Before joining ATF, Cekada was a part of the NYPD and a member of the Plantation, Florida police. He held a variety of roles in those departments, including serving in the NYPD’s Anti-Gang Enforcement Unit and the Street Crime Unit and the SWAT unit in Plantation.

When Cekada was named the agency’s second-in-command back in April, the news was received positively by the National Shooting Sports Foundation. As we reported at the time:

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents the firearms industry, was quick to praise Cekada as Trump’s choice as the ATF’s Number Two, pointing to his extensive history going after violent criminals and his respect for the right to keep and bear arms.

“Deputy Director Cekada has the experience, wisdom and respect of his colleagues to effectively lead the men and women of the ATF,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “Deputy Director Cekada respects the Second Amendment and understands that the firearm industry is not the ‘enemy’ but valuable partner that assists ATF in its core mission of combatting violent crime. Firearm retailers are on the front lines helping to prevent the criminal acquisition of firearms. They are a vital source of information to ATF special agents on illegal straw purchasing of firearms.”

As a Special Agent-in-Charge, Deputy Director Cekada has been on the ground with the firearm industry to promote public awareness to stop these crimes from occurring and has the career history of working with the firearm industry to ensure law-abiding citizens can exercise their Second Amendment rights.

The fact that Cekada has already established a good working relationship with the firearms industry is a good sign, and I’ve heard from sources who have knowledge of the ATF’s day-to-day operations that he was instrumental in getting rid of the “zero tolerance” policy on gun dealers that Richardson continued to enforce even after Steve Dettelbach resigned as ATF Director when Trump assumed office for his second term.

Since his appointment as Deputy Director, Cekada has been working alongside the agency’s new Assistant Director and lead attorney Robert Leider, a former professor at George Mason’s Antonin Scalia School of Law specializing in Second Amendment issues. The pair have been overhauling many of the ATF’s rules and regulations, and though the shutdown sidelined much of their work for the past month, the agency has already announced it’s rolled back the Biden administration’s “zero tolerance” policy that treated minor paperwork errors cause to revoke federal firearms licenses.

Biden’s pistol brace ban has been undone as well, with the DOJ deciding not to appeal a court decision that found the rule was a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, and it’s expected that Biden’s “engaged in the business” rule treating almost every gun owner who sells a firearm from their personal collection as an “unlicensed gun dealer” will also soon be axed.

That doesn’t mean that Cekada’s nomination will be smooth sailing, however. Senate Democrats are likely to challenge Cekada’s reforms, while Republicans may bring up issues like the agency’s railroading of Patrick “Tate” Adamiak, who’s currently sitting in a federal prison after being convicted of selling restricted firearms that weren’t really functional or illegal to possess, purchase, or sell.

Cekada should have the support of NSSF, which could also hurt his chances among Senate Democrats, but that could prove valuable among the Senate Republicans who will decide if he should take the helm of the agency.

Cekada is no David Chipman, the former ATF agent turned gun control advocate who was Biden’s first choice to head up the agency. Cekada has already demonstrated a willingness to be a change agent at the ATF, and I’m looking forward to seeing what he has to say about the need for more fundamental reforms within the agency and how he plans to accomplish those goals as the confirmation process gets underway.

This Gun Case Harks Back to Constitutional Concerns About the Limits of Federal Power That Now Seem Quaint
Congress justified that National Firearms Act of 1934 as a revenue measure—a rationale undermined by the repeal of taxes on suppressors and short-barreled rifles.

Testifying in favor of the National Firearms Act (NFA) in 1934, Attorney General Homer S. Cummings noted that the federal government “of course” had “no inherent police powers to go into certain localities and deal with local crime.” Rather, “it is only when we can reach those things under the interstate commerce provision, or under the use of the mails, or by the power of taxation, that we can act.”

Cummings explained how “the power of taxation” worked in this context: “If we made a statute absolutely forbidding any human being to have a machine gun, you might say there is some constitutional question involved. But when you say, ‘We will tax the machine gun,’ and when you say that the absence of a license showing payment of the tax has been made indicates that a crime has been perpetrated, you are easily within the law.”

Last July, Congress eliminated that legal pretext for several NFA provisions by repealing the federal taxes on sound suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns. That change, several gun rights groups argue in a memorandum they filed last Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, fatally undermines the constitutional rationale for the NFA’s requirement that dealers and owners register those products, which was supposed to facilitate the collection of the taxes.

The case, which Reason‘s Brian Doherty covered after the original complaint in Brown v. ATF was filed on August 1, might seem of little moment unless you own the covered products or would like to acquire them. But the lawsuit goes to the heart of congressional authority to intervene in matters that were long understood to be outside the federal government’s purview.

Continue reading “”

Gun Control Orgs Ready to Floor It in Virginia As Soon As Spanberger Takes Office.

On November 4, Virginia elected its first woman governor, Democrat Abigail Spanberger.

It also got something else: another chance to pass comprehensive gun reform, something the majority-Democrat General Assembly had tried to do for the past two years, but was stymied by Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin.

Youngkin has vetoed 42 gun reform bills since he took office in 2022, including an assault weapons ban, a prohibition on abusive dating partners owning guns, and a minimum age for rifle purchases, according to a Trace analysis. He vetoed 24 of those bills in 2024 alone. The following year, Democrats reintroduced 15 of the same bills — plus three new ones — knowing they had little chance of passage. Now, with Spanberger set to be sworn in on January 17, Democrats are mobilizing for another try.

“We’re not going to take our foot off the gas,” State Senator Adam Ebbin, who chairs the Legislature’s gun violence prevention caucus, told The Trace. Ebbin plans to reintroduce the bills he sponsored that were vetoed by Youngkin last year. “I know that we’ll have others as well who are strategizing on it currently,” he said of his fellow Democratic lawmakers. “So there’ll be a substantial gun safety package reintroduced. And I expect the bills to be signed.”

“We have consistently voted for gun safety reform, and our voters prioritize it,” Ebbin added. “Governor-elect Spanberger is on the right side of those issues.”

Spanberger, who represented the Fredericksburg area in Congress until this year, has been a gun reform advocate since before she embarked on a career in politics. A former CIA operations officer, Spanberger joined a local chapter of the gun reform group Moms Demand Action shortly after she left the agency in 2014, according to a Washington Post profile.

— Jennifer Mascia in Virginia’s Election of a Democratic Governor Primes the State for Gun Reform

The 12 gun bills passed by the Colorado legislature this year and signed into law.

Democrats in the Colorado legislature this year passed a dozen bills imposing new gun regulations, all of which were signed into law by Gov. Jared Polis.

They included measures limiting who can purchase most semiautomatic rifles on the market today, raising the minimum age to buy ammunition and aiming to improve Colorado’s response to mass shootings.

While some don’t go into effect until next year, and a few are sure to draw legal challenges from gun rights groups, they represent some of the most wide-reaching changes to Colorado’s firearms laws ever adopted.

Here’s a breakdown of what gun measures the legislature passed this year and what they will do.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
They gaslit America for years, censored the truth, and rewrote intelligence reports to keep Trump from being proven right. Now the cover-up is unraveling, but half the country still believes the lie. PJ Media has been sounding the alarm on Deep State corruption from Day One, and we’re not backing down.

Kash Patel Drops Covid Origin Bombshell

FBI Director Kash Patel dropped a bombshell during a recent interview with Glenn Beck, and anyone who has watched the federal bureaucracy sabotage President Trump at every turn will recognize the pattern instantly. Patel walked through how the Trump administration evaluated intelligence about the virus in the early days and how that assessment collided with a coordinated effort inside the bureaucracy and the media to protect China, shield Anthony Fauci, and deny Trump credit for getting it right.

Patel reminded Beck that the team briefed Trump based on the intelligence they had. Trump listened, weighed the facts, and acted. Then the usual suspects stepped in: “Then enter Fauci and the media. ‘No, no, no. The Chinese would never do this. It’s not about… No, no, it didn’t come from that.’ Then the wet bat thing came out and some other goofy whatever.”

We all remember what went down. Fauci played the patronizing scientist. The legacy media enforced the talking points. Big Tech censored any dissent. The establishment insisted the virus emerged from some Wuhan wet market and treated anyone who questioned that tale like a threat to democracy.

Patel then pointed out the bombshell that dropped just weeks ago. According to him, former CIA Director Gina Haspel “authorized six case officers and intelligence analysts to be paid off so that they would change their assessment on COVID originations.”

“That’s a CIA institutional decision to spend taxpayer dollars to lie to the world where COVID came from because it fit the narrative that Fauci and the media wanted out there, along with Gina Haspel, because she didn’t want Donald Trump to get the credit for reading the intel right and making the hard right decision,” he said.


Continue reading “”

Attempt to halt Delaware’s new ‘permit to purchase’ gun law denied by federal judge

A federal judge rejected a motion asking for an injunction to halt Delaware’s new “purchase to permit” gun law, which is set to be implemented in two days.

“The motion for expedited injunction relief is denied,” U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika said in her order.

Seven plaintiffs concerned with the state’s “permit to purchase” law asked for a temporary restraining order in federal court on Nov. 3 seeking to stop the gun legislation before its implementation Nov. 16. The law mandates that people receive a permit and complete gun safety training before purchasing a handgun in Delaware.

Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings said she was grateful for her team, including attorneys with Freshfields, who argued this case.

“This is not just a win for the State – it’s a win for everyone who has been impacted by gun homicide, gun suicide, or gun trafficking,” Jennings said in a statement on Nov. 14. “Tonight in this country the leading cause of death for children and teens will be guns; permit to purchase is the gold standard for evidence-based policies to change that. It’s too soon to declare mission accomplished – but this is a good night for common sense gun safety policy.”

Jennings blasted the gun lobby Nov. 7 for misleading and inaccurate claims made in its filings and for attempting to circumvent a pending motion to dismiss and a court order in a substantively identical case.

The plaintiffs are expected to file an appeal.

During a nearly 75-minute-long hearing before Noreika on Nov. 13, plaintiffs argued the law would leave applicants with little recourse if the state does not respond to them within 30 days.

 

Farewell to the Penny

The last penny was minted today [yesterday] in Philadelphia:

The last penny ever to be made was finally struck at the US Mint in Philadelphia on Wednesday — after President Trump cancelled production of the costly copper coin after 232 years.
***
And just like that, the coin that’s been in production since 1793 will never again be made.

It is, I think, a sad occasion.

Penny production was cancelled by Trump for the 2026 year after the coin started to cost about four times more to make than the 1 cent it is actually worth in US currency.

Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean that pennies are a bad idea. A single penny may be used for hundreds or thousands or transactions. The nickel, for what it is worth, costs 14 cents to produce.

This, though, is more significant:

Trump and other critics have also argued that the penny has become an obsolete denomination with little use in modern markets – and that there are already billions in production to tide America over for the foreseeable future.

You could see that the penny was on the way out when gas stations and other retail establishments set up “take a penny, leave a penny” signs. The pennies were no longer worth worrying about.

Why do I think the demise of the penny is sad? Because it is a tangible marker of the steady inflation that has eroded the value of our currency. In 1900, the dollar was worth $38.57 in today’s money. So a penny was worth more than 38 cents–well over the value of today’s quarter. Let’s hope the dollar is not on its way to becoming like the yen; a single yen is today worth $.0065, or 65/100 of one penny. Literally not worth printing.

And, while it is true that there will be pennies in circulation for years to come, there will not be any shiny new ones. A new copper penny’s shine is different from, and vastly superior to, that of the silver (or “silver”) coins. A shiny new penny heralds the beginning of a new year.

Quite a few years ago, when I was a kid, I got a shiny new 1957 penny. The older pennies were, by contrast, dull. It struck me as the symbol of a new age dawning: 1957 was modernity, everything before then was a somewhat misty past. I still feel that way. For me, 1957 was the beginning of the modern world.

The humble U.S. penny, RIP.

Don’t worry, unlike what was part of what caused the crash in 2008, I’m sure this time around it will work just fine.

Fannie Mae removes minimum credit score requirements from DU.

The current 620 minimum representative or average median credit score will be removed for new loan casefiles created on or after Nov. 16, 2025

Fannie Mae‘s November 2025 Selling Guide, released on Wednesday, detailed several updates, including expanding Fannie’s Day 1 Certainty offerings to include representation and warranty relief for undisclosed non-mortgage liabilities, expanding the eligibility for the age of credit document exception for single-closing construction loans and removing minimum credit score requirements from Desktop Underwriter (DU).
As a result of the latter update, Fannie Mae will remove minimum credit score requirements for loans submitted through its DU system starting Nov. 16. This means that the current 620 minimum representative or average median credit score will be removed for new loan case files created on or after that date.
Other related updates will apply to files submitted or resubmitted beginning the weekend of Nov. 15, 2025, an announcement from Fannie Mae said. Instead of applying a minimum score, DU will use its own analysis of borrower risk factors to determine loan eligibility.

Continue reading “”

Gun Owners of America Wins in Memphis; Judge Declares City’s Illegal Gun Control Ordinance “Dead as a Doornail”

Gun Owners of America Wins in Memphis—Judge Declares City’s Illegal Gun Control Ordinance “Dead as a Doornail”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 7, 2025

Memphis, TN — Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) are celebrating a major victory for Tennessee gun owners after the Shelby County Chancery Court rejected the City of Memphis’ unconstitutional and illegal gun-control ordinance.

In its ruling, the Court made clear that Memphis’ sweeping local gun restrictions were not just unlawful—but entirely void.

The following are two major points outlined in the order:

  1. The City CONCEDED its ordinance violates state law.
    Memphis admitted that every line of its handgun-carry ban, vehicle-storage rule, so-called “assault rifle” ban, and red-flag scheme is 100% illegal under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1314. (Order pp. 3, 9–11)
  2. The Judge called the ordinance “DEAD AS A DOORNAIL.”
    The Chancellor wrote that “The Ordinance and those who proposed it engaged in ‘virtue signaling,’” but “the Ordinance is as dead as a proverbial doornail as a matter of Tennessee law.” (Order p. 6)

Simply put, the Memphis ordinance is entirely unenforceable.

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement:

“Memphis may be known as ‘Bluff City,’ but this ridiculous ordinance is a textbook example of a city passing an illegal law just to make a political point. Of course, Memphis was bluffing—and waved the white flag the moment GOA walked into court. The judge simply read their surrender out loud. Litigation like this is critical to defending law-abiding gun owners from reckless and unconstitutional actions by local politicians. Memphis’s deceitful ‘virtue signaling’ endangered residents and visitors alike, exposing them to unlawful prosecution. Such abuses have no place in a constitutional republic.”

John Velleco, Executive Vice President of Gun Owners Foundation, issued the following statement:

“Memphis just got schooled in Gun Law 101: You can’t ‘virtue-signal’ your way around a state preemption statute. The City admitted its ordinance is illegal, the judge branded it ‘dead as a proverbial doornail,’ and the court stamped it ‘not enforceable—full stop.’”