"Structuring" has to be one of the most asinine concepts in law. Law is ideally supposed to have clear and defined limits, so when you can't actually prosecute someone for violating it, you charge them with violating the *spirit*, not the letter
Leaving legality to paperpushers
— RSTYShcklfrd (@RShcklfrd) March 21, 2023
Category: Bureaucraps
The U.S. Government Is Building A Vast Surveillance And Speech Suppression Web Around Every American
Our government is preparing to monitor every word Americans say on the internet and censor citizens who don’t toe the party line.
While the “Twitter Files” offer a glimpse into the government’s efforts to censor disfavored viewpoints, what we have seen is nothing compared to what is planned, as the details of hundreds of federal awards lay bare. Research by The Federalist reveals our tax dollars are funding the development of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine-learning (ML) technology that will allow the government to easily discover “problematic” speech and track Americans reading or partaking in such conversations.
Then, in partnership with Big Tech, Big Business, and media outlets, the government will ensure the speech is censored, under the guise of combatting “misinformation” and “disinformation.”
AI and ML Technology Will Monitor Everything We Say and Read
The federal government has awarded more than 500-plus contracts or grants related to “misinformation” or “disinformation” since 2020. One predominant area of research pushed by the Department of Defense involves the use of AI and ML technology to monitor or listen to internet “conversations.”
Originally used as a marketing tool for businesses to track discussions about their brands and products and to track competitors, the DOD and other federal agencies are now paying for-profit public relations and communications firms to convert their technology into tools for the government to monitor speech on the internet.
The areas of the internet the companies monitor differ somewhat, and each business offers its own unique AI and ML proprietary technology, but the underlying approach and goals remain identical: The technology under development will “mine” large portions of the internet and identify conversations deemed indicative of an emerging harmful narrative, to allow the government to track those “threats” and adopt countermeasures before the messages go viral.
Giving up biometrics at US airports soon won’t be optional, transport security chief says
The chief of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) David Pekoske said that the agency is considering biometric technology to reduce traveler processing times and reduce the number of screening officers. He made the comments at the South by Southwest conference, which focused on aviation security.
Pekoske noted that the TSA’s role is maintaining security and the transportation system and staying ahead of threats. For those reasons, it is “critically important that this system has as little friction as it possibly can, while we provide for safety and security.”
The TSA has been relying on biometric technology in the identification verification process. According to the agency, the newest technology it has been using is over 99% effective and does not have problems identifying darker-skinned people like the old technology.
“We’re upgrading our camera systems all the time, upgrading our lighting systems,” Pekoske said. “[We’re] upgrading our algorithms, so that we are using the very most advanced algorithms and technology we possibly can.”
Pekoske said that the agency will ensure it remains transparent with the public about the data that is taken, what it is used for, and for how long it will be stored. For now, he said that travelers can opt out of processes they are not comfortable with.
According to The Dallas Morning News, giving up biometric data for travel will eventually not be optional.
“He said passengers can also choose to opt out of certain screening processes if they are uncomfortable, for now. Eventually, biometrics won’t be optional,” the report states.
This is a delightful read.
"ATF’s new definition of “frame or receiver” in 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c) is facially
unlawful. "— Lawrence Fermi (@LawrenceFermi) March 20, 2023
‘On DOD property’ purchases? That means the PX, and just to make a point, PX prices aren’t all that much, if any, lower than what’s outside the front gate, where there also will be no waiting periods either, unless there’s a state law. This is Kabuki Theater.
SecDef wants to study waiting periods, age restrictions on guns and ammo for active duty military
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is calling on the Pentagon to hire more mental health workers and directing military-run health care clinics to screen for alcohol abuse in order to reduce veteran suicides, but he’s holding off on implementing several anti-gun proposals recommended by the Suicide Prevention and Response Independent Review Committee, at least for a few more months.
That committee is recommending the Defense Department institute a seven-day waiting period for all gun sales on DoD property, along with a four-day waiting period for ammunition purchases. In addition, the committee says the Pentagon should raise the age to purchase a firearm on base to 25-years-old. On Thursday Austin called for the creation of a suicide prevention working group that will look at how feasible it would be to implement the committee’s recommendations, with a deadline of June 2nd for the working group to submit its findings.
His orders reflect increasing concerns about suicides in the military, despite more than a decade of programs and other efforts to prevent them and spur greater intervention by commanders, friends and family members. But his omission of any gun safety and control measures underscores the likelihood that they would face staunch resistance, particularly in Congress, where such legislation has struggled in recent years.
Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder, the Pentagon press secretary, told reporters in a briefing Thursday that Austin’s orders involved areas where the department already has the authority to take immediate steps.
“While we recognize that suicide has no single cause, and that no single preventative action, treatment or cure will eliminate suicide altogether, we will exhaust every effort to promote the wellness, health and morale of our total force,” Ryder said.
The initial study committee recommended that the department require anyone living in military housing to register all privately owned firearms. In addition, the panel said the department should restrict the possession and storage of privately owned firearms in military barracks and dorms.
Reducing veteran and active duty suicides is an incredibly important goal, but the draconian gun control policies recommended by the committee are liable to create a backlash; not only on Capitol Hill but among many military members and potential recruits, at least if Austin moves forward with implementing them. The military is already struggling to meet its recruiting goals, and imposing a host of anti-gun restrictions on active-duty and reserve members would likely make those problems a lot worse.
That helps to explain why Austin didn’t immediately move to implement those proposals, but choosing to kick this can down the road for a couple of months rather than reject the gun control components of the suicide prevention recommendations means that these bad ideas could still become a nightmare for members of the military before long. Instead of trying to restrict the Second Amendment rights of our men and women in uniform, I hope that Austin’s working group takes a look at some of the efforts to prevent veteran suicide taking place within the 2A community, starting with the Sentinel app that was recently awarded a $1-million dollar grant from the VA. The app was developed by D.C. Project member Kathleen Gilligan, who lost her own son to suicide a decade ago, and aims to help veterans look out for each other.
Democratic Senators Want Treasury, DOJ to Push for Gun Store Credit Card Code
Democratic boosters of the effort to attach a unique credit card code to gun stores are seeking new help from the federal government.
On Wednesday, a coalition of fourteen U.S. Senators sent a letter to federal regulators urging them to issue guidance for credit card companies to implement a new merchant category code (MCC) for gun stores. The letter, spearheaded by Senators Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), specifically asked the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to establish procedures for using the MCC to “identify and report potentially illegal gun sales to law enforcement.”
“Financial firms are already obligated to report suspicious transactions connected with a range of illegal activities,” the letter reads. “Implementation of the new MCC code could provide banks with key insight to identify suspicious patterns of firearm and ammunition purchases, which could potentially help law enforcement preempt mass shootings.”
The letter signals that the political fight over gun store MCC codes is far from over. It arrives on the heels of the decision last week by several of the country’s largest credit card processors to “pause” plans to implement a new MCC for gun and ammunition stores. The companies said they were concerned over backlash to the plan, including pending legislation in various states that would discourage or outright ban the use of MCC codes for gun stores.
In a press release unveiling the letter, the senators acknowledged the course reversal of the major credit card companies. They blamed “Republican-led states” for the shift. They said, “credit card companies have a responsibility to push forward, and Treasury and DOJ should provide them, and other financial institutions, with the proper tools for implementation in a timely manner.”
In support of their ongoing efforts, the Senators cited a 2018 New York Times article that found the majority of mass shooters between 2007 and 2018 used credit or debit cards to purchase the guns and ammunition used in their attacks. That article is widely credited with popularizing the theory behind using MCC codes to flag “suspicious” gun purchases for law enforcement.
Critics of the code, including gun-rights advocates and many top Republican lawmakers, have charged that a special gun store MCC would unfairly target gun owners and could raise consumer privacy risks.
Meanwhile, the major credit card companies have poured cold water on the idea of gleaning data from MCC codes that could be used to flag “suspicious” gun purchases. Despite initially agreeing to implement the gun store MCC code, Visa noted that it could not be used to identify the types of products actually purchased in a particular store.
“MCCs do not give Visa or any other payment network visibility into product-level data, also known as ‘SKU-level’ data,” the company said. “When we process a transaction, we have no visibility into what items a consumer is purchasing — this is true irrespective of which MCC applies to a merchant.”
Visa also attempted to distance itself from the idea of keeping tabs on its customers’ shopping habits.
“We do not believe private companies should serve as moral arbiters,” the company added. “Asking private companies to decide what legal products or services can or cannot be bought and from what store sets a dangerous precedent. Further, it would be an invasion of consumers’ privacy for banks and payment networks to know each of our most personal purchasing habits.”
Other senators who signed the letter include Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.).
I don’t use marijuana or even CBD products. I advise people not to indulge. But keeping mj as a schedule 1 narcotic is one of the more authoritarian ways the goobermint uses to ban ‘legal’ gun possession
The DOJ Says Marijuana Use, Which Biden Thinks Should Not Be a Crime, Nullifies the Second Amendment
Even as the president bemoans the injustice of pot prohibition, his administration insists that cannabis consumers have no right to arms.
President Joe Biden thinks it is unfair that people convicted of simple marijuana possession face lingering consequences for doing something that he says should not be treated as a crime. Biden cited those burdens last October, when he announced a mass pardon of low-level federal marijuana offenders, which he said would help “thousands of people who were previously convicted of simple possession” and “who may be denied employment, housing, or educational opportunities as a result.” Yet the Biden administration, which recently began accepting applications for pardon certificates aimed at ameliorating those consequences after dragging its feet for five months, is actively defending another blatantly unjust disability associated with cannabis consumption: the loss of Second Amendment rights.
Under federal law, it is a felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, for an “unlawful user” of a “controlled substance” to possess firearms. The ban applies to all cannabis consumers, even if they live in one of the 37 states that have legalized medical or recreational use. That disability, a federal judge in Oklahoma ruled last month, is not “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”—the constitutional test established by the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The Justice Department recently filed a notice indicating that it intends to appeal the decision against the gun ban for marijuana users.
The Biden administration’s defense of the ban relies on empirically and historically dubious assertions about the sort of people who deserve to exercise the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Among other things, the Justice Department argues that “the people” covered by the Second Amendment do not include Americans who break the law, no matter how trivial the offense. It also argues that marijuana users are ipso facto untrustworthy and unvirtuous, which it says makes them ineligible for gun rights.
Well, we have the text of the Ex order. It reads just as I thought; a lot of hot air. Federal law – FOPA ’86 has ‘clarified’ what engaging in the business means
Executive Order on Reducing Gun Violence and Making Our Communities Safer
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby order as follows:
Section 1. Policy. Every few days in the United States, we mourn a new mass shooting. Daily acts of gun violence — including community violence, domestic violence, suicide, and accidental shootings — may not always make the evening news, but they too cut lives short and leave survivors and their communities with long-lasting physical and mental wounds. We cannot accept these facts as the enduring reality of life in America. Instead, we must together insist that we have had enough, and that we will no longer allow the interests of the gun manufacturers to win out over the safety of our children and Nation.
It is the policy of my Administration that executive departments and agencies (agencies) will pursue every legally available and appropriate action to reduce gun violence. Through this whole-of-government approach, my Administration has made historic progress to save lives. My Administration has taken action to keep guns out of dangerous hands and especially dangerous weapons off of our streets; hold gun traffickers and rogue gun dealers accountable; fund accountable, effective community policing; and invest in community violence interventions and prevention strategies.
Last year, I signed into law the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (the “Act”), the most significant bipartisan gun safety legislation in nearly 30 years. The Act provides communities with new tools to combat gun violence, including enhanced gun background checks for individuals under age 21, funding for extreme risk protection orders and other crisis interventions, and increased mental health resources to help children impacted by gun violence heal from the resulting grief and trauma.
I continue to call on the Congress to take additional action to reduce gun violence, including by banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, requiring background checks for all gun sales, requiring safe storage of firearms, funding my comprehensive Safer America Plan, and expanding community violence intervention and prevention strategies. In the meantime, my Administration will continue to do all that we can, within existing authority, to make our communities safer.
Sec. 2. Implementation of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. The Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Education, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall each submit a report to the President within 60 days of the date of this order describing what actions their respective agencies have taken to implement the Act, data and analysis regarding the use and early effects of the Act, and additional steps their respective agencies will take to maximize the benefits of the Act. These reports shall include a plan for increasing public awareness and use of resources made available by the Act.
Sec. 3. Additional Agency Actions to Reduce Gun Violence. (a) The Attorney General shall develop and implement a plan to:
(i) clarify the definition of who is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms, and thus required to become Federal firearms licensees (FFLs), in order to increase compliance with the Federal background check requirement for firearm sales, including by considering a rulemaking, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law;
(ii) prevent former FFLs whose licenses have been revoked or surrendered from continuing to engage in the business of dealing in firearms;
(iii) publicly release, to the fullest extent permissible by law, inspection reports of FFL dealers cited for violations of the law; and
(iv) support efforts to modernize and make permanent the Undetectable Firearms Act (18 U.S.C. 922(p)).
(b) The Secretary of Defense; the Attorney General; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Secretary of Health and Human Services, including through the Surgeon General of the United States; the Secretary of Education; and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall expand existing Federal campaigns and other efforts to promote safe storage of firearms.
(c) The Secretary of Defense; the Attorney General; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Secretary of Health and Human Services, including through the Surgeon General of the United States; and the Secretary of Education shall undertake efforts to encourage effective use of extreme risk protection orders (“red flag” laws), partnering with law enforcement, health care providers, educators, and other community leaders.
(d) The Attorney General; the Secretary of Health and Human Services, including through the Surgeon General of the United States; the Secretary of Education; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; and the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, shall develop a proposal for the President, and submit it no later than September 15, 2023, on how the Federal Government can better support the recovery, mental health, and other needs of survivors of gun violence, families of victims and survivors of gun violence, first responders to incidents of gun violence, and communities affected by gun violence. The proposal should draw on existing evidence, where available, and take into account how to address needs in both the immediate aftermath of mass shootings and in the years following such events. The proposal should recommend any additional executive branch coordination and additional resources or authorities from the Congress needed to implement the proposal, as well as how agencies will assess the outcomes for the activities implemented.
(e) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall develop and implement principles to further firearm and public safety practices through the Department of Defense’s acquisition of firearms, consistent with applicable law.
(f) The heads of Federal law enforcement agencies shall, as soon as practicable, but no later than 180 days from the date of this order, ensure that their respective law enforcement components issue National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN) submission and utilization policies with requirements that are equivalent to, or exceed, the requirements of the policy issued by the Department of Justice on December 12, 2022, to ensure the prompt entry of ballistics data recovered in connection with criminal investigations into NIBIN. In consultation with the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense policies may be tailored to address specific operational considerations.
(g) The Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Department of Justice, shall work to reduce the loss or theft of firearms during shipment between FFLs and to improve reporting of such losses or thefts, including by engaging with carriers and shippers.
(h) The Federal Trade Commission is encouraged to issue a public report analyzing how gun manufacturers market firearms to minors and how such manufacturers market firearms to civilians, including through the use of military imagery.
Sec. 4. Definitions. For purposes of this order, the term “Federal law enforcement agency” means an organizational unit or subunit of the executive branch that employs officers who are authorized to make arrests and carry firearms, and that is responsible for the prevention, detection, and investigation of crime or the apprehension of alleged offenders. The term “heads of Federal law enforcement agencies” means the heads of those units or subunits.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 14, 2023.
IMO, most regulations never make any sense, other than goobermint bureaucraps just exercising their power
Observation O’ The Day
Sarah Hoyt believes the real purpose [of these idiotic regulations] is to condition people to things that are worse than they used to be, to lower our expectations. I’ve never seen anything to contradict her. – Professor Reynolds
BLUF
“They keep tightening the standards, and I’m not sure their reasoning makes sense anymore,” Fisher told the Washington Free Beacon.
How Biden’s New Washing Machine Regulations Could Ruin Laundry Day.
Manufacturers say government climate change initiative would make your washing cycles longer, clothes dirtier
When Cincinnati firefighter Ed Wallace bought a high efficiency Whirlpool washing machine, he came to regret the decision almost immediately. The machine used less water—not enough to clean Wallace’s work clothes—and his colleagues at the firehouse quickly took notice. “I walked past my guys and they say, ‘Dude, you stink!'” Wallace said. “I smelled myself, and yeah, that’s me stinking.”
Now, President Joe Biden is pushing regulations that could force Wallace’s stinky situation upon millions of Americans.
Biden’s Energy Department last month proposed new efficiency standards for washing machines that would require new appliances to use considerably less water, all in an effort to “confront the global climate crisis.” Those mandates would force manufacturers to reduce cleaning performance to ensure their machines comply, leading industry giants such as Whirlpool said in public comments on the rule. They’ll also make the appliances more expensive and laundry day a headache—each cycle will take longer, the detergent will cost more, and in the end, the clothes will be less clean, the manufacturers say.
The United States of America is more than a little weird.
Our system of government was created with the understanding that governments are a lot like fire. They might be useful, but they must be controlled or else things get bad very quickly.
I’m of the belief that our Founding Fathers would want to know why we haven’t started a new revolution if they saw what our federal government has become. Yet, for the most part, we still have the ability to act in a way that our rulers might not like.
Yet based on a couple of reports, one has to ask for how long?
Let’s start with this report from Politico, where it seems DHS has been running a domestic intelligence-gathering operation for some time.
For years, the Department of Homeland Security has run a virtually unknown program gathering domestic intelligence, one of many revelations in a wide-ranging tranche of internal documents reviewed by POLITICO.
Those documents also reveal that a significant number of employees in DHS’s intelligence office have raised concerns that the work they are doing could be illegal.
Well, that’s an amazing start.
So what were they doing that was so shady? Well…
Under the domestic-intelligence program, officials are allowed to seek interviews with just about anyone in the United States. That includes people held in immigrant detention centers, local jails, and federal prison. DHS’s intelligence professionals have to say they’re conducting intelligence interviews, and they have to tell the people they seek to interview that their participation is voluntary. But the fact that they’re allowed to go directly to incarcerated people — circumventing their lawyers — raises important civil liberties concerns, according to legal experts.
That specific element of the program, which has been in place for years, was paused last year because of internal concerns. DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis, which runs the program, uses it to gather information about threats to the U.S., including transnational drug trafficking and organized crime. But the fact that this low-profile office is collecting intelligence by questioning people in the U.S. is virtually unknown.
The inner workings of the program — called the “Overt Human Intelligence Collection Program” — are described in the large tranche of internal documents POLITICO reviewed from the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. Those documents and additional interviews revealed widespread internal concerns about legally questionable tactics and political pressure. The documents also show that people working there fear punishment if they speak out about mismanagement and abuses.
Basically, the way I see it is that if DHS officials come and say they want to talk, you’re going to talk to them. They can say it’s voluntary, but we’ve been conditioned as a nation to see a refusal to comply as evidence you have something to hide. Many will simply talk in hopes of the whole thing disappearing.
Then we have the fact that you pretty much have to tell them the truth. Lying to a federal agent is illegal.
While you can decline to answer questions, many will feel that might invite further scrutiny.
So anyone who gets a visit feels obligated to answer every question DHS officials want to ask and failure to do so will land them in jail.
All for a domestic intelligence agenda that isn’t really in the purview of the department in question. Not really. After all, they’re an intelligence operation, not a law enforcement one, and much of this should fall on law enforcement.
Sure, if we’re talking about international arms shipments to terrorist groups, that’s one thing. We’re not.
And if that were all, it would be enough.
The problem is, it’s not.
You see, under current law, the FBI needs a warrant to get location data based on your cell phone. This is, of course, to protect your privacy.
If there’s probable cause to suspect you of a crime, or at least probable cause that a crime was committed, that’s one thing. They don’t need it otherwise.
And yet, the got it.
How? They just bought it.
THE UNITED STATES Federal Bureau of Investigation has acknowledged for the first time that it purchased US location data rather than obtaining a warrant. While the practice of buying people’s location data has grown increasingly common since the US Supreme Court reined in the government’s ability to warrantlessly track Americans’ phones nearly five years ago, the FBI had not previously revealed ever making such purchases.
The disclosure came today during a US Senate hearing on global threats attended by five of the nation’s intelligence chiefs. Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, put the question of the bureau’s use of commercial data to its director, Christopher Wray: “Does the FBI purchase US phone-geolocation information?” Wray said his agency was not currently doing so, but he acknowledged that it had in the past. He also limited his response to data companies gathered specifically for advertising purposes.
“To my knowledge, we do not currently purchase commercial database information that includes location data derived from internet advertising,” Wray said. “I understand that we previously—as in the past—purchased some such information for a specific national security pilot project. But that’s not been active for some time.” He added that the bureau now relies on a “court-authorized process” to obtain location data from companies.
Now, I’m not going to get into why this is a problem because I think it’s kind of obvious.
What I do want to get into, though, is why they’re doing all of this.
You see, in theory, these agencies are supposed to keep our nation safe. The problem is that they’ve gone beyond their mandate and are basically treating any and all Americans as potential threats. They’ve tossed the Constitution in the crapper and are doing whatever they want.
Why? Because you and I are the enemy.
The Bill of Rights is meant to protect us from things like this, as are numerous other laws regulating government action. They see us all as threats because we may not bow down and kiss the feet of our betters.
They’re spying on Americans, gathering intelligence on us, as if we’re the problem.
Yet anyone with half a brain can look at the last century or two and see where the real threat comes from.
They don’t need location data for cell phones without probable cause. They don’t need to just randomly ask to speak to people unless part of an investigation. And yet, here we are.
Even this could, in theory, be taken as innocent.
However, we also know that the government has worked to censor us. As Michael Schellenberg put it earlier today before Congress, “U.S. government intelligence and security agencies to wage[d] “information warfare” against the American people.”
We are the enemy, folks.
Keep that in mind.
BLUF
It was a cover-up from the beginning, and the media colluded in it every step of the way. The only question now is what kind of accountability can be applied, and whether we have stopped playing with GOF entirely at this point.
No kidding. However, don’t consider Robert Redfield a johnny-come-lately to the lab-leak explanation for COVID-19’s origin. Almost exactly two years ago, just after the former CDC director took his leave of the Biden administration, Redfield stunned CNN host Sanjay Gupta by declaring his conclusion that the pandemic started as a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and resulted from gain-of-function (GOF) research funded in part by the US despite warnings against it.
Two years later, Redfield declared himself even more convinced today of his conclusions. Redfield testified today at a hearing of the House select subcommittee on the pandemic, and he didn’t hold back:
Former CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield: "Based on my initial analysis of the data, I came to believe and I still believe today that it indicates that COVID-19 more likely was the result of an accidental lab leak than a result of a natural spillover event." pic.twitter.com/qz5Qdf8Zrc
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 8, 2023
Redfield also argues that GOF created the virus, and the global pandemic, just as scientists warned would happen in 2014:
.@RepBradWenstrup: “Has gain-of-function stopped a pandemic in your opinion?”
Dr. Robert Redfield: “No, in the contrary, I think it probably caused the greatest pandemic our world has seen.” pic.twitter.com/EBixJt0qCO
— Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic (@COVIDSelect) March 8, 2023
This brings us back to the reasons why the lab-leak theory got so enthusiastically suppressed by both the government and the media. In 2014, a group of scientists formed the Cambridge Working Group to urge governments to stop funding GOF, as both too dangerous and not valuable enough to pursue. When Francis Collins lifted a moratorium on GOF in December 2017, CWG founder Marc Lipitsch offered a prescient warning about what would happen, as I wrote earlier:
An FBI whistleblower told congressional investigators that the D.C. field office pushed local offices to open criminal investigations into Americans based solely on financial transactions Bank of America tracked and voluntarily provided to the bureau, according to testimony reviewed by The Federalist.
“Bank of America, with no directive from the FBI, datamined its customer base,” whistleblower and recently retired FBI supervisory intelligence analyst George Hill told investigators for the House Judiciary Committee, according to Hill’s testimony.
Hill had identified himself last month as one of the whistleblowers cooperating with congressional investigators when speaking with Just the News’ John Solomon about the disclosures he made to the House Judiciary Committee during a transcribed deposition. A review of Hill’s testimony confirms the details the military veteran and former longtime FBI and NSA analyst told Solomon. It also reveals more troubling details.
According to the material reviewed, Hill testified that on either Jan. 7 or 8, 2021, Bank of America provided the FBI’s D.C. field office a “huge list” of individuals who used Bank of America credit or debit cards in D.C., or the surrounding Maryland and Virginia areas, on Jan. 5, 6, or 7, 2021. Bank of America then elevated to the top of the list anyone who had ever (through Jan. 6, 2021) used a Bank of America product to purchase a firearm.
There was no geographic or date-range limit to the search for firearm purchases, Hill stressed, meaning the individual would be flagged at the top of the list had he “purchased a shotgun in 1999” in Iowa, and used a Bank of America credit card to check out of a hotel on Jan. 5, 2021, in the Northern Virginia area, following a trip that could be completely unrelated to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6.
The D.C. field office, which oversaw the Jan. 6 investigation, distributed the Bank of America list internally to field offices throughout the country, Hill testified in his deposition. Hill further explained that his supervisor at the Boston field office refused to open an investigation on the individuals flagged on the list because there was “no predication.” “There’s no crime that was committed by using a [Bank of America] product in the District or around the District,” Hill testified, explaining his supervisor’s reasoning for why no “further action” was required.
But the D.C. field office pushed back, according to Hill. The D.C. field office told Boston’s supervisory special agent, or SSA, he needed to open up the cases. When the local office’s SSA refused, the D.C. field office threatened to call the assistant special agent in charge, or ASAC, of the local office, Hill told the congressional committee. The SSA stood firm in his refusal, as did the local ASAC, Hill said, even though the D.C. field office then threatened the ASAC that it would escalate the matter to the office’s special agent in charge, or SAC.
The D.C. field office then pushed the office’s SAC to open investigations into the targeted Americans. But to the SAC’s credit, he refused, Hill noted, saying the Boston SAC countered, “No, we’re not going to open up cases based on credit card or debit card activity that took place.”
While Boston’s FBI office refused to open the requested cases, Hill stressed that “what I don’t know and could not give accurate testimony to,” was whether the D.C. field office “took it upon themselves to open cases.”
Hill’s deposition testimony raises another troubling possibility: that one or more of the other 54 local FBI field offices either complied with the D.C. field office’s initial request to open investigations into innocent Americans, or later capitulated when the D.C. office escalated the request up the chain of command to the ASAC and then the SAC.
The only reason the Boston FBI office did not launch investigations into the Bank of America customers flagged by the D.C. field office is that the Boston office’s leadership stood firm against the pressure. And the only reason we know about the D.C. field office’s attempt to target innocent Americans based on Bank of America’s data mining gun owners who happened to be in the greater D.C. area on Jan. 5, 6, or 7, 2021, is that a whistleblower came forward.
What the FBI’s other 54 field offices did in response to the D.C. field office’s pressure is unknown. According to a person familiar with Hill’s testimony, Hill had no information on that question either. Also unknown is whether any other private businesses mined the financial information of their customers, as Bank of America had, and then handed that private information over to the feds.
Congressional investigations and more whistleblowers will be needed to uncover the extent of the FBI’s political targeting of innocent Americans.
Bank of America did not respond to The Federalist’s request for comment.
Byron York: The Peter (Buttigieg) Principle.
The Peter Principle suggests that Peter Buttigieg, at just 41 years of age, has already risen to his level of incompetence.
It’s fair to say many national Democrats did not expect a rising star to peak so soon, and Buttigieg himself certainly did not.
But moving up has its risks, and unfortunately for himself and for the nation, Buttigieg has found a job he cannot do.
New Bill Seeks Automatic Transfer of NFA Items After 90 Days
Idaho Republican Senator James Risch introduced the ATF Transparency Act on Thursday to combat long delays and mistakes in processing National Firearms Act (NFA) items by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
The bill would take the ATF’s stated goal of 90 days to issue tax stamps and change it to a hard deadline. The ATF recently introduced eForms to help cut down on delays, and for a while, the wait times dropped, but according to the latest data from NFA wait time trackers, like the one provided by Silencer Shop, the average wait time is back to nine months.
Proponents of the bill cited the increase in NFA applications expected after the new ATF rule designating most braced pistols as short-barreled rifles (SBRs). Owners of SBRs are required to seek a tax stamp from the ATF. The ATF will issue a tax forbearance on the $200 for the stamp for braced pistols.
Since the Federal Register published the ATF’s final rule to restrict stabilizing pistol braces on January 31, dozens of states as well as many private organizations have launched legal battles against the ATF, claiming that the new rule is unconstitutional. Luckily, the recent overturn of the “bump stock ban” sets a strong legal precedent to quickly overturn the new stabilizing brace restriction.
A pistol brace is an accessory that was originally designed to facilitate for disabled veterans the ability to effectively operate a pistol with one hand. According to the ATF’s final rule, the additional surface area provided by a stabilizing pistol brace now classifies these firearms as a short-barreled rifle (SBR), which requires them to be registered and for new purchases to face a long waiting period and additional tax under the National Firearms Act (NFA). This arbitrary policy shift infringes upon the rights of law-abiding citizens by reclassifying an accessory that had been previously legal and unrestricted.
With the creation of the new rule, the ATF essentially usurped the power to create a new law that deviates from existing law and precedent. If left unchecked, this regulation sets a dangerous precedent that could develop into many or all federal agencies ruling through bureaucratic mandates with little regard for the Constitution, congressional authority, and legal due process.
A similar executive ruling — the “bump stock ban” — was overturned in January 2023 by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which concluded that the administrative fiat used by the ATF under the Trump administration circumvented Congress and did not follow the legal procedures to become a law. The same style of administrative fiat was used to tighten regulations on stabilizing pistol braces. The overturn of the bump stock ban may open the door for legal precedent to shoot down the new pistol brace rule.
A group of disabled veterans represented by the Wisconsin Institute For Law & Liberty (WILL) filed a lawsuit against the ATF on the grounds that the new rule violates the Second Amendment and the separation of powers, which prohibit agencies from creating laws through bureaucratic fiat in a process lacking congressional authorization and oversight. The lawsuit also claims that each plaintiff utilizes stabilizing braces as a necessity to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights due to his disability.
The National Rifle Association-Institute for Legislative Action, in conjunction with a coalition of 25 states and many other organizations, launched its lawsuit on February 9, against the Biden Administration’s ATF, arguing that the ATF’s “pistol brace ban” is an egregious overstep of its authority and a gross misuse of executive fiat. According to the ATF website, the ATF’s role in firearms is to “enforce the federal firearms laws,” but this does not give the agency authority to rewrite them. This is a clear abuse of power by the ATF.
While these lawsuits are pending, Republicans in Washington are doing everything they can to reverse not only this ruling, but past overreach by the ATF as well. Senators Marshall (R-Kan.) and Kennedy (R-La.) have formally introduced the “Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today” Act, or SHORT Act for short. This bill aims to remove some short-barreled rifles, shotguns, and other weapons from the daunting grasp of the NFA. Notably, this bill would also require the ATF to destroy any records related to registration, transfer, or manufacture of firearms removed from the NFA by the bill.
The SHORT Act adds supplementary pressure to the arguments surrounding the new rule on pistol braces. For advocates of freedom, the ideal outcome would be the overturn of the pistol brace rule and the SHORT Act becoming law. This would remove immediate threats to Second Amendment rights, and the destruction of registration records would put many at ease over fear of future confiscation and outlawing of NFA firearms.
The ATF’s pistol brace ban illegally redefined federal firearms law through a usurpation of congressional authority, and subsequently infringes upon the rights of disabled individuals as well as the millions of firearms owners who legally purchased their firearms and pistol brace accessories. The ban should be immediately overturned.
Remember the affirmative action hire Biden nominated for a judge and she couldn’t answer basic, and I mean basic questions about the Constitution?
Well………………….
Joe Biden’s nominee to run the FAA couldn’t answer a single question this morning from Senator Ted Budd on aviation policy.
Budd tweeted: “I asked Biden’s nominee for FAA Administrator 7 basic questions about aviation policy. He went 0 for 7. We can’t have an FAA Administrator who needs on the job training.”
I watched it and I don’t have the expertise to know if these questions were appropriate or not for Mr. Phil Washington. So I called a friend of mine with military experience who would know and he said these are definitely questions Washington should know. He said they are pretty basic.
But what makes this even more embarrassing for Washington is that he’s had 8 months to bone up on aviation policy and he clearly hasn’t.
I looked him up and it turns out Washington is currently the CEO of Denver International Airport, a position he’s held since 2021. After this line of questioning I wonder if the airport board might want to find someone else to be CEO.
Upholding her reputation as the dumbest SCOTUS judge.
That’s why she’s the worst justice. She decides who “should” win, who is most “deserving”, instead of what the law says.
There Is No ‘Expert’ Clause in the U.S. Constitution
CNN’s Joan Biskupic writes up yesterday’s oral arguments from the two student loan cases that are currently before the Supreme Court:
Prelogar’s arguments were bolstered by the three liberals among the nine. Sonia Sotomayor, the senior justice on the left, warned that judges would seize greater power if agency authority to carry out acts of Congress were diminished.
Addressing Nebraska state Solicitor General James Campbell, who argued against the Biden administration, Sotomayor said, “What you’re saying is now we’re going to give judges the right to decide how much aid to give them. Instead of the person with the expertise and the experience, the secretary of education, who’s been dealing with educational issues and the problems surrounding student loans, we’re going to take it upon ourselves, instead of leaving that decision in the hands of the person who has experience with these questions.”
This is a nonsense argument from Sotomayor. First off, the question before the Court is not “how much aid” to give to students. The question before the Court is whether the statute it is examining — the 2003 HEROES Act — confers upon the executive branch the power to do what it’s trying to do. If it does, it does. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t. The amount of aid doesn’t enter into that calculation. Neither does the level of “expertise and experience” exhibited by the incumbent Secretary of Education. That Secretary could have the most sparkling mind in American history, or he could be a total moron, and, in both cases, the issue before the Court would be same: “Does he have the power to do it?” There is no provision within the United States Constitution that accords unlimited power to bureaucrats simply because some people consider them to be well-credentialed.
The Attorney General had until the 27th to submit a response. He didn’t. Why? who knows, but that led to the 5th Circuit issuing this mandate for their ruling to take effect.
Breaking News!!! 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issues mandate in Cargill v Garland, Bump Stocks are now legal in TEXAS, LOUISIANA & MISSISSIPPI. @ATFHQ did not request a stay. #2a #texas #txlege #pewpew #guncontrol #guns pic.twitter.com/076gGw5uCC
— Michael Cargill (@michaeldcargill) February 28, 2023
In January the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ATF’s Trump-mandated bump stock ban was unconstitutional. Today, in a 13-3 ruling, the Court of Appeals finalized its ruling, mandating that the case — Cargill v. Garland — be remanded to the lower court to reverse its decision [that upheld the ban] and enter a judgement in favor of the plaintiff, Michael Cargill.
As the court majority wrote . . .
Many commentators argue that non-mechanical bump stocks contribute to firearm deaths and that the Final Rule is good public policy. We express no opinion on those arguments because it is not our job to determine our nation’s public policy. That solemn responsibility lies with the Congress, and our task is confined to deciding cases and controversies, which requires us to apply the law as Congress has written it.In defining the term machinegun, Congress referred to the mechanism by which the gun’s trigger causes bullets to be fired. Policy judgments aside, we are bound to apply that mechanical definition. And applying that definition to a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a non-mechanical bump stock, we conclude that such a weapon is not a machinegun for purposes of the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act.Chevron deference likely has no role here either because the Government waived it or because it does not apply to the Government’s interpretation of a statute imposing criminal penalties. Finally, even if the statute were ambiguous—which it is not—the rule of lenity would require that we interpret the statute in Cargill’s favor. As Justice Holmes framed it years ago, “it is reasonable that a fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed.” McBoyle, 283 U.S. at 27. We cannot say that the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act give that fair warning that possession of a non-mechanical bump stock is a crime.The Final Rule promulgated by the ATF violates the APA. We therefore REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND with instructions to enter judgment for Cargill.
And with that, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has now legalized bump stocks in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. You can read the ruling here.
Three other circuits have upheld the ATF’s ban. The Fifth Circuit’s order officially creates a Circuit Court split, setting up an almost certain review by the Supreme Court which could go much farther than just bump stocks, possibly limiting the extent to which regulatory agencies and the administrative state are free to “interpret,” alter, and create laws. That, of course, is actually Congress’s job, if you believe what the Constitution says.