Category: Bureaucraps

Yes, this will work out well………..

Senate Confirms Obama’s Harvard Law School Classmate to Lead ATF

The Senate voted Tuesday to confirm Barack Obama’s Harvard Law School classmate Steve Dettelbach to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).

The Hill reports that the vote was 48-46 with two Republicans siding with the Democrats in support of Dettelbach.

Those two Republicans were Sens. Susan Collins (ME) and Rob Portman (OH).

On April 11 Breitbart News pointed to a Hill report which indicated that Dettelbach was Obama’s Harvard Law School classmate.

The Daily Mail observed that Dettelbach voiced support for various gun controls during an “unsuccessful” bid to become attorney general of Ohio in 2018.

The Mail noted that Dettelbach “has called for an assault weapons ban and universal background checks.”

During Dettelbach’s unsuccessful bid for attorney general of Ohio, WOSU reported that he also opposed allowing teachers and staff to be armed for classroom defense, even in situations when those teachers and/or staff were “former military or law enforcement.”

Dettelbach was President Biden’s second choice for ATF director. His first choice, David Chipman, was nominated only to have the nomination withdrawn amid public backlash and the nominee’s failure to gain enough Senate support to be confirmed.

Breitbart News noted that Chipman was a Gabby Giffords gun control associate, that he confirmed his support for an AR-15 ban, that he allegedly made disparaging comments about black ATF agents, and that he boasted he was not a “typical” white man (because he is progressive).

Is West Virginia v. EPA The SCOTUS Win We Didn’t Realize?

While Second Amendment supporters celebrate the 6-3 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, they may also have been given a huge win by none other than Chief Justice John Roberts in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency.

The gist of the opinion Roberts wrote in West Virginia v. EPA is that government agencies like the EPA – or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives – cannot exceed the powers granted by Congress. This opens up a whole new front in defending our Second Amendment rights in court.

Anti-Second Amendment extremists have long like to use administrative law to target our rights. For instance, in the Clinton administration, ATF cracked down on FFLs who had a low volume of sales – the so-called “kitchen table” dealers. As the NRA noted, that crackdown greatly reduced the number of FFLs. That can be dealt with by appropriate litigation now.

Congress hasn’t required FFLs to have a storefront, per 18 USC 923, so any criteria ATF uses outside what is in the laws passed by Congress could be open to a challenge in federal court. This could be a chance to really rein in this agency that many Second Amendment supporters would love to dissolve if they got the chance. It doesn’t just stop at FFLs.

Put it this way, the ban on “bump stocks” is now much more easy pickings in court, if only because it does raise questions as to whether they can be regulated administratively under 18 USC 921 and 26 USC 5845. This is just one hot button issue – there are others, like ATF records retention.

The ATF has been creative in trying to hold on to NICS information after the check says a dealer can proceed with the sale – a fight going on since NICS started in the late 1990s. Under the precedent established here, the clear Congressional prohibitions on maintaining those records – indeed, mandating “immediate destruction” – could be an avenue for litigation by pro-Second Amendment organizations.

Then there are administrative import bans of firearms. The list goes on and on, and is a target rich environment for litigation – provided that Second Amendment supporters have access to good attorneys who can see said litigation through.

Still, though, Second Amendment supporters will need to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists via the ballot box at the federal, state, and local levels in order to ensure that ATF never does get that clear authority to go after our rights.

Even the author – as close as he gets to it – can’t make that philosophical leap that goobermint is supposed to secure rights, not restrict the citizens that it’s supposed to serve, not lord over.

BLUF
There is much that needs changing in federal law, from firearms regulation to environmental protections. [like maybe following the dictate of the 2nd amendment’s ‘shall not be infringed‘ perhaps?]
But these reforms require legislation written and passed by legislators, not regulatory misadventures undertaken by unelected political appointees in the executive branch. On those grounds alone, the Gun Owners of America deserves to win its lawsuit against the ATF.

That would be a good start

The ATF Can’t Write New Gun Laws

A lawsuit filed by the Gun Owners of America against the ATF seeking to stop a new rule from taking effect asks many pertinent questions — some technical, some legal — but the question at the heart of it is one that is relatively easy to answer: Is the ATF actually Congress?

No, it isn’t.

The United States has a serious problem with violent crime. As I have argued at some length, this is not a problem that is likely to be much improved by means of firearms regulation — but, to the non-negligible extent that there is room for constitutionally sound reform of U.S. firearms law, it is a job for Congress, not for the ATF. The ATF has strayed from the implementation of regulations to the creation and implementation of new policies, which is properly the job of the people’s elected representatives in the national legislature.
The ATF’s current administrative pickle is this: It is more difficult than you might think to say just what a “firearm” is. The 1938 Federal Firearms Act defined a “firearm” in the familiar way, as “any weapon, by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosive” — but also added “or any part or parts of such weapon.”
To muddy the waters even more, a “firearm muffler or firearm silencer” was defined as a “firearm,” too, under the 1938 law.
There was a good reason for defining gun parts as guns, one that remains relevant today: If you want to control the sale of firearms, then you can’t allow Bob to sell Sam 99 percent of a gun as “gun parts” on Monday and the other 1 percent on Tuesday and pretend like a firearm hasn’t been sold.
But the problem there should have been obvious and soon became obvious: Firearms have dozens and dozens of parts, and the “any part or parts” language made every screw, nut, bolt, etc. a “firearm” under the law. That created obvious absurdities (selling someone a pair of fancy mother-of-pearl grips to replace the standard walnut ones on his six-shooter would be selling him a “firearm”) and unworkable ambiguities (Is a scope a part of a firearm? If so, at what point does it become a part of a firearm? Is a scope that is used for a non-firearm such as an air gun but could be used for a firearm legally a part of a firearm and hence a firearm?). Firearms are commonly modified and customized (for instance, by installing new sights or a different trigger), and some parts wear out and need replacing; that 1938 law notionally made any part acquired for such a customization or repair a firearm for legal purposes.
The unworkability of this status quo was addressed in 1968 — or, at least, Congress tried to address it, replacing the words “part or parts” with “frame or receiver.” What is a frame or receiver? According to the law, it is “that part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.” The problem with that definition is that even in 1968, there were many firearms designs that had no single part that met the legal criterion of housing all three specified parts — hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism — and most firearms made today have no single part that satisfies the criterion. The ATF has been careering around administratively for decades trying to do something with that poorly written law.
But the ATF’s regulatory walk is not random.

Continue reading “”

Dear Democrats, demoncraps THIS Is What Your Oppressive Global Initiatives Lead To

After suffering from weeks of brutal food and fuel shortages, as well as crippling inflation, Sri Lankans have had enough.

Riots have broken out throughout the impoverished country. Police have used tear gas and water cannons but to little effect.

Shortly after thousands of angry citizens stormed the presidential palace, even going so far as to swim in his pool, Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa declared that he will step down. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe agreed to resign as well after his home was torched.

FAST FACTS – Sri Lanka Went Woke:

  • In an attempt to improve Sri Lanka’s Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) score (which is totally communist), President Rajapaksa forced farmers to grow food organically and banned the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, thus causing the nation’s rice crop to fall by 20% in the first six months. Crop productions dropped 40-50%.
  • Food shortages were next. (Hey Netherlands, are you watching?)
  • Inflation rose to 54.6% as of June.
  • Sri Lanka incurred outrageous expenses importing food and “organic” fertilizer.
  • Tea production, Sri Lanka’s largest export, was decimated.
  • Inflation exploded and half a million Sri Lankans slid into poverty.

Continue reading “”

See Also Sri Lanka

A Popular Uprising Against the Elites Has Gone Global

A popular uprising of working-class people against the elites and their values is underway—and it’s crossing the globe. There is a growing resistance by the middle and lower classes against what Rob Henderson has coined the “luxury beliefs” of the elites, as everyday folks realize the harm it causes them and their communities.

There were early glimmerings last February, when the Canadian Trucker Convoy pitched working class truck drivers against a “laptop class” demanding ever more restrictive COVID-19 policies. You saw it as well in the victory of Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, who ran on parents’ rights in education and went on to win both suburbs and rural areas. You can see it in the growing support of Hispanic voters for a Republican Party, which increasingly identifies as anti-woke, and pro-working class. And now we’re seeing the latest iteration in the Netherlands in the form of a farmer’s protest against new environmental rulings that will ruin them.

Over 30,000 Dutch farmers have risen in protest against the government in the wake of new nitrogen limits that require farmers to radically curb their nitrogen emissions by up to 70 percent in the next eight years. It would require farmers to use less fertilizer and even to reduce the number of their livestock. While large farming companies have the means to hypothetically meet these goals and can switch to non-nitrogen-based fertilizers, it is impossible for smaller, often family-owned farms. The new environmental regulations are so extreme that they would force many to shutter, including people whose families have been farming for three or four generations. In protest, farmers have been blockading streets and refusing to deliver their products to supermarket chains. It’s been leading to serious shortages of eggs and milk, among other food items.

But the effects will be global. The Netherlands is the world’s second largest agricultural exporter after the United States, making the country of barely 17 million inhabitants a food superpower. Given global food shortages and rising prices, the role of Dutch farmers in the global food chain has never been more important. But if you thought the Dutch government was going to take that into account and ensure that people can put food on the table, you would be wrong; when offered the choice between food security and acting against “climate change,” the Dutch government decided to pursue the latter.

What is particularly frustrating is that the government is fully aware that what it is asking farmers to do will drive many of them out of existence. In fact, the government originally planned to move at a slower pace—until a lawsuit brought by environmental groups in 2019 forced an acceleration of the timetable.

Continue reading “”

FDA Finally Admits It Caused the Baby Formula Shortage.
The agency is now taking small steps to allow foreign formula manufacturers to import their goods into the US

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has finally determined what’s to blame for America’s recent shortage of baby formula.

The FDA.

More specifically, it’s the FDA’s unnecessary and protectionist rules that effectively ban foreign-made baby formula from being imported into the United States. On Wednesday, the agency announced plans to tweak those rules so foreign formula manufacturers can permanently import their goods into the U.S., giving American consumers greater choice in the marketplace and ensuring more robust supply chains.

“The need to diversify and strengthen the U.S. infant formula supply is more important than ever,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf said in a statement. “Ensuring that the youngest and most vulnerable individuals have access to safe and nutritious formula products is a top priority for the FDA.”

That might be true now, but it clearly hasn’t been the case in the past. As Reason has detailed throughout the recent crisis, the FDA’s priorities have been protecting the domestic formula industry (and the dairy industry, which provides key inputs for baby formula) from foreign competition. As a result, it’s nearly impossible to find foreign-made baby formula in the U.S., even though formula manufacturers based in England, the Netherlands, and Germany are some of the biggest suppliers of baby formula to the rest of the world.

Continue reading “”

SCOTUS ruling on right to carry invoked in challenge to machine gun ban

A Wisconsin firearms retailer and popular YouTube influencer is asking a federal court to throw out charges that he was illegally selling devices to convert semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic firearms, arguing that the National Firearms Act of 1934, which tightly regulated the sale of machine guns, is unconstitutional based on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in  NYSRPA v. Bruen.

Matthew Hoover was indicted back in January alongside Kristopher Ervin of Florida for selling auto sears under the name Auto Key Card, which was marketed as a bottle opener. The feds contend, however, that the marketing of the card was simply intended to mask its real purpose; c

The cards came laser engraved showing the parts of an AR-15 automatic connector, commonly known as a “lightning link.”

The lightning link, when assembled from its separate components and installed in an AR-15, could convert it to full-auto without any additional modifications to the firearm.

Because of this, the ATF decided the cards were close enough to auto sears to fall under the machine gun restrictions under the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act amendment of the National Firearms Act.

Under the original NFA, machine guns could still be purchased, although additional paperwork and the payment of a $200 tax was required. When the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act was signed into law in 1986, however, all new machine guns were banned for purchase by civilians, and building your own is a federal no-no as well.

Now attorneys for Hoover are arguing that, based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen, the indictment should be thrown out because the constitutionality of the machine gun restrictions have been called into question

What makes Bruen particularly germane to the instant matter is the announcement of a clear legal standard for the evaluation of acts regulating the peaceable keeping and bearing of arms. Bruen identified the Court of Appeals “coalesce[ing] around a ‘two-step’ framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-ends scrutiny”, the Court correctly identified this as “one step too many[.]

Those previous decisions at the various Courts of Appeal manifested deference to the Government in a manner unlike any other fundamental right, and the inexplicable consideration of regulations clearly contemplating the keeping and bearing of arms as beyond the scope of the Second Amendment.
… Finally, though, we have a standard which clearly articulates the burdens in a case involving restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. It is, as artfully penned by the Court, “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The Government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’”

The Department of Justice will undoubtably argue that fully-automatic firearms are not in common use, and are therefore both unusual and dangerous and fall outside of the scope of the Second Amendment. They can even point to Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller, when he implied that “M-16 rifles and the like” because they are not and were not in common use by civilians at any point in time during our nation’s history. Hoover’s attorneys anticipate that argument and reject it in their new filing, arguing that “the court’s invocation of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons in Heller and subsequently Bruen was for the purpose of discussion of what might be a constitutionally acceptable law, rather than the endorsement of any particular extant policy.”

Rather, the only way a court may conclude Defendant’s conduct falls outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s unqualified command remains clear: the Government must prove the particular regime in question is consistent with the history and tradition of the United States.

Furthermore, the question of whether a weapon is “in common use at the time,” necessarily pins the analysis to the time before the prohibition. To consider otherwise would incentivize the Government to legislate wantonly and aggressively, seizing arms, then later evade constitutional scrutiny by suggesting that the arms cannot be in common use, because the Government prohibited them. Such circular logic would be inconsistent with any fundamental rights jurisprudence.

The request for dismissal goes on to argue that Hoover and his co-defendant aren’t accused of selling actual machine guns. Rather the ATF decided that the thin, credit card-sized piece of metal can become a machine gun if purchasers use a little elbow grease.

In addition to the previously raised Constitutional questions, nothing in the applicable history and tradition of the United States supports the categorical ban of machineguns, much less the item here at issue—a tchotchke the Government alleges might possibly, with transformative labor, one day become a machinegun. Further, the ATF’s decision that the tchotchke at issue—a stainless steel card with some lines lightly thereupon engraved—was a machinegun came completely by administrative fiat, absent even notice and comment. Our Nation’s history and tradition does not, and cannot, support a finding that an alleged drawing of a part is that part merely because an unelected bureaucrat unilaterally willed it to be. To hold otherwise would be to grant the Bureau more power than Congress could have ever granted it, and make innumerable items potentially illegal.

The attorneys for Hoover then cite testimony given by then-Attorney General Homer Cummings in 1934 during debate over the NFA.

MR. LEWIS: I hope the courts will find no doubt on a subject like this, General; but I was curious to know how we escaped that provision in the Constitution.

ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS: Oh, we do not attempt to escape it. We are dealing with another power, namely, the power of taxation, and of regulation under the interstate commerce clause. You see, 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.

MR. LEWIS: In other words, it does not amount to prohibition, but allows of regulation.

ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS: That is the idea. We have studied that very carefully.

In other words, the NFA was intentionally never designed to be an outright ban on the possession of machine guns, but the Hughes Amendment to FOPA changed all that by banning the possession or purchase of any automatic firearm manufactured after FOPA became law.

It’s a good argument, but whether or not the judge goes for it is a different story. My gut tells me that we’re going to get the same reliance on Scalia’s aside in Heller to keep the charges against Hoover in place for now, but I’m very interested to see what happens if and when this case goes to trial. It’s hard to argue that the NFA is “longstanding” when the Court just threw out a New York law that’s twenty years older, and I’m not aware of any historical analogues to the Hughes Amendment that could come into play, which makes this case one to watch going forward.

Is this really a question?

Attorney General Garland playing favorites with civil liberties?

When discussing the Second Amendment, one of the conditioning exercises I’ve personally had to go through has to do with language. Many people did and or do have to be conditioned to look at so-called “gun rights” through the correct lens. Friend, fellow contributor at AmmoLand News, and author of the Good Gun Bad Guy book series Dan Wos, often talks about optics and language. One big takeaway I received from him many years ago, is that so-called “gun rights” are civil liberties/rights. So-called “gun control” laws are in fact anti-civil liberty laws. This is an important concept to understand because when the talking heads bring up “civil rights”, they often outright ignore the Second Amendment. It seems this includes Attorney General Garland, the Supreme Court reject and Biden-Harris flunkey.

Recently Garland delivered remarks about the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) new strategic plan going forward.

“The Justice Department was founded exactly 152 years ago, on July 1, 1870. Today, the Department’s urgent mission continues: to uphold the rule of law; to keep our country safe from all threats, foreign and domestic; and to protect civil rights.

“The Strategic Plan we are issuing today reflects that charge. It organizes the Justice Department’s important responsibilities into five areas of focus that will guide our work in the years to come.”

Garland and his ilk loves to bring up that the DOJ was founded to protect civil rights. Let’s take a look at what areas of focus are being zeroed in on to bring equality or make stuff equitable, whatever it is we’re dealing with in 2022 to say “level playing field” (even though equitable is not, and equality is considered a pejorative).

“Our first area of focus is upholding the rule of law, which is the foundation of our democracy. To that end, we will continue to work to uphold the norms and principles that are essential to the fair application of our laws and to the Justice Department’s independence and integrity.

“Our second area of focus is keeping our country safe. The Justice Department will continue to counter both foreign-based and domestic-based threats that endanger our safety and our democracy. These include the threats posed by nation-states, terrorist groups, cyber criminals, and others who seek to undermine our democratic and economic institutions, as well as the threats posed by violent crime, drug-trafficking organizations, and those who target vulnerable populations.

“Our third area of focus is protecting civil rights. We will continue to use every resource at our disposal to reinvigorate civil rights enforcement, including by defending voting rights, deterring and prosecuting hate crimes, advancing environmental justice, and expanding access to justice.

“Our fourth area of focus is ensuring economic opportunity and fairness for all. The Department will continue to strengthen its antitrust and consumer protection efforts; combat fraud, waste, and abuse; and investigate and prosecute corporate crime and the individuals responsible.

“Our final area of focus is administering just court and correctional systems. The Justice Department will continue to work to ensure that our nation’s immigration court system is fairly administered, and that our federal prisons and detention centers are safe, transparent, and effectively managed.”

Those civil rights that Garland mentioned “defending voting rights, deterring and prosecuting hate crimes, advancing environmental justice, and expanding access to justice.” are ripe to be explored. Okay, voting rights and hate crimes are real issues. Giving more access to so-called justice, also a real issue, but I’m sure Garland has a different view on what that means than we do. “Advancing environmental justice” is just another progressive mind game to push environmental terrorism upon the population, and thus control everyone through “green” initiatives and mandates. Digression, thank God the EPA got a spanking from SCOTUS. That may save the Republic in more than one way going forward. I’m talking about you ATF, as well as others.

Looking at the plan for focus 3 on civil rights specifically, we find somewhat parroted sentiments to Garland’s remarks.

STRATEGIC GOAL 3: PROTECT CIVIL RIGHTS

The Justice Department was founded during Reconstruction to protect the civil rights promised by the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments.  This work required confronting the racist conduct of the Ku Klux Klan and others who used terror and violence to keep Black Americans from exercising their rights.

Today, more than 150 years after the Department’s founding, far too many Americans still face discrimination.  Among other things, discrimination persists in voting, housing, and the criminal justice system, and historically underserved communities have disproportionately borne the brunt of the harm caused by pandemic, pollution, and climate change.

We honor the Department’s history by committing to a whole-of-Department approach to protecting civil rights and reducing barriers to equal justice and equal enjoyment of the rights, privileges, and immunities established by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

What other rights did Black Americans have infringements placed on? The right to keep and bear arms. And like today, Black Americans, and or those in underserved communities, still have their Second Amendment rights kept out of reach in many instances due to permitting laws, other regulations, and exorbitant fees.

Garland and the DOJ can’t sit back and brag about how great they are to minorities and protecting civil liberties if they refuse to respect all the fundamental rights. Beyond respecting the fundamental rights, the DOJ should be encouraging citizens to exercise said rights.

Nowhere ever have I seen the DOJ or Garland proclaim that any person, marginalized or not, take up arms should they ever need them in the event of a self-defense situation. If Garland, the DOJ, the Biden-Harris Administration, et.al. really cared about the protection of these communities and said persons’ civil rights, don’t you think they’d also encourage them to pick up the slack where our police and justice system cannot provide the same?

It was just back in May that I pointed out the same hypocrisy coming from Garland:

Pulling a page out of history, let’s look at that Department of Justice and what they were up to from the time of its founding. Two years after the official formation of the DOJ, an April 19, 1872 letter addressed to the House of Representatives noted within Messages and Papers of the Presidents Ulysses S. Grant, Grant addressed some issues that his then Attorney General and others communicated to him:

EXECUTIVE MANSION , April 19 , 1872. To the House of Representatives : …

Most, if not all, of this information, except what I derived from the Attorney – General, came to me orally, and was to the effect that said counties were under the sway of powerful combinations, properly known as “Kuklux Klans,” the objects of which were by force and terror to prevent all political action not in accord with the views of the members; to deprive colored citizens of the right to bear arms and of the right to a free ballot; to suppress schools in which colored children were taught, and to reduce the colored people to a condition closely akin to that of slavery; that these combinations were organized and armed, and had rendered the local laws ineffectual to protect the classes whom they desired to oppress; that they had perpetrated many murders and hundreds of crimes of minor degree, all of which were unpunished; and that witnesses could not safely testify against them unless the more active members were placed under restraint.

Garland, Biden-Harris, the DOJ, and the rest of the anti-freedom caucus members are silent on the deprivation of the right to bear arms. Garland’s July 1st release comes a week and a day after the Supreme Court had to lay down, yet again, the law of the land and make clear that the Second Amendment…

…is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.”

But why should we split hairs over this fact that’s been stated more than once for the digestion of governmental officials? Well, maybe because they talk a big game but really do fail to deliver on their word salad. Garland can get back to us about civil rights when his DOJ looks into all the gross infringements of the Second Amendment in this country, including the topic of executive overreach. This especially needs to be brought up in light of recent events. That EPA ruling is looking better and better by the day! Until then it’s best that Garland stays in his swamp as the Biden-Harris flunkey he is, where he’s thankfully not a Supreme Court Justice.

Christina Pushaw & Mollie Hemingway shred ‘disgusting and evil propaganda’ from WaPo editorial board

There are many people who have been waiting for a reckoning for public officials, politicians and others who destroyed lives, harmed students and wrecked the economy all in the name of “safety” during the pandemic. If MSM outlets such as the Washington Post have their way, the truth of what really happened, why it happened, and who was horribly wrong and misguided will never be told. Christina Pushaw spotted the WaPo still going out of its way to flog those they consider Covid heretics:

The corporate media will have the backs of Fauci and Dems (mostly) no matter what facts come to light in the wake of the pandemic and the disastrous responses:

Continue reading “”

Chemical Shortages Affecting U.S. Farms Described as ‘Off the Charts”.

A disturbing report by Reuters, featuring interviews with more than a dozen chemical dealers, manufacturers, farmers, and weed specialists, indicates chemical shortages have disrupted U.S. growers’ production strategies and points to reduced harvests this season.

The level of shortages of farm-essential chemicals (e.g., fertilizer, weed-killer) is being described as “off the charts.”

Shawn Inman, owner of distributor Spinner Ag Incorporated in Zionsville, Indiana, said supplies are the tightest in his 24-year career.

“This is off the charts,” Inman said. “Everything was delayed, delayed, delayed.”

Shortages further reduce options for farmers battling weeds that developed resistance to glyphosate, the key ingredient in the commonly used Roundup herbicide, after decades of overuse in the United Sates.

Another farmer shares his experiences, demonstrating the level of science and forethought in planting fields. It also highlights another component of challenges to farms, which will end up contributing to inflation (and potential food scarcity): EPA over-regulation.

Tennessee farmer Jason Birdsong said he abandoned plans to plant soybeans on 100 acres after waiting months to receive Liberty he ordered from Nutrien Ag Solutions. He ultimately received less than half his order for 125 gallons and planted corn on the land instead. Birdsong said he is better able to control weeds in corn than soybeans.

Nutrien (NTR.TO) said numerous events stalled the supply chain during the pandemic and the company provided alternate solutions to customers.

Birdsong said he needed Liberty to fight weeds that are resistant to glyphosate in soy fields. He said he ruled out a third option, a dicamba-based herbicide from Bayer, because of extensive federal restrictions on when and where dicamba can be sprayed.

“With the dicamba technology being so strict, Liberty is the go-to,” Birdsong said.

The Environmental Protection Agency approved new restrictions on dicamba use this year in Iowa and Minnesota, two major farm states.

On the other hand, the US government has approved half a billion dollars for wheat farmers to help with grain shortages that have resulted from Russia’s attack on Ukraine. However, this expenditure may not mitigate all the challenges currently being faced.

Kansas wheat farmer Clay Schemm, who also serves as the President of the Wallace County Farm Bureau, joined “Morning in America” to discuss the obstacles farmers are working to overcome.

“Predominantly in our state, especially in the southwest areas, we’ve had extremely hot and dry temperatures. And with the wind just coming through and really increasing the loss of moisture, we’ve been seeing a lot of struggle to get the yield production that we would see on a typical year,” Schemm said.

A heat dome over the country has sent temperatures skyrocketing, drying out farmland and making it harder for farmers to produce crops.

“But trying to keep up with it when the yields aren’t there just makes for a struggle. I know farmers are doing their best to respond to this food shortage, but with the lifecycle of wheat, it’s hard for a lot of people to respond, and turnaround on a dime and change up those cropping practices,” Schemm said.

If American farmers are hurting, then the rest of the world will follow. The situation is so concerning that U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that the world faces a “catastrophe” because of the growing food shortage across the globe.

“There is a real risk that multiple famines will be declared in 2022,” he said in a video message to officials from dozens of rich and developing countries gathered in Berlin. “And 2023 could be even worse.”

Guterres noted that harvests across Asia, Africa and the Americas will take a hit as farmers around the world struggle to cope with rising fertilizer and energy prices.

“This year´s food access issues could become next year´s global food shortage,” he said. “No country will be immune to the social and economic repercussions of such a catastrophe.”

Hopefully, valuable lessons about shortening supply chains and strengthening domestic production will be learned and implemented before real food scarcity slams us.

Second Amendment Foundation’s Special Report Prompts Congressional Inquiry

Twenty-five Republican Congressmen – including every Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee – sent a letter Wednesday to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Acting Director Gary Restaino, demanding an explanation for “the Department’s broad and unprecedented effort to revoke Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs) from law-abiding business owners throughout the country.”

Led by Rep. Andy Biggs, (R-AZ), the Congressmen are seeking answers to issues first revealed in a Special Report by the Second Amendment Foundation, titled: “ATF Federal Firearm License revocations up a staggering 500%.”

The Special Report revealed that in the years before the Biden-Harris administration took over the White House, the ATF usually revoked an average of 40 Federal Firearm Licenses per year. But, in the 18 months since Joe Biden declared war on “rogue gun dealers,” the ATF has revoked 273 FFLs. Rather than targeting the true law breakers, Biden’s ATF is revoking FFLs for the most minor of paperwork errors, which were never a concern until Biden weaponized the agency.

“The Biden Administration’s radical anti-gun agenda is infiltrating the ATF and law-abiding business owners are having their businesses destroyed,” Congressman Biggs said in a press release. “Under this Administration, the number of FFL revocation proceedings initiated by ATF has skyrocketed and are often based on minor infractions.”

In the letter, Biggs and the other lawmakers said the ATF is launching revocation proceedings based solely on past ATF inspections, up to 18 months earlier, even after the agency decided the inspection did not merit revocation.

“This pattern is deeply troubling and makes it abundantly clear that this Administration seeks to advance its anti-firearm agenda at any cost,” Biggs said.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
At every turn, Garland has shown himself hostile to the Bill of Rights and to law-abiding Americans who exercise those rights, and beholden to Democrat partisans and left-wing advocacy groups. He has brazenly allowed political influence to direct the Justice Department’s considerable powers.

If you think Garland’s DOJ isn’t a threat to the republic, then you need to start paying attention, because the weaponization of federal law enforcement under Biden and Garland is almost certainly going to get much worse.

Merrick Garland’s Department Of Justice Is A Threat To The Republic

Federal raids this week, along with an inappropriate statement about a SCOTUS ruling, underscore the weaponization of the DOJ under Garland.

It’s become painfully obvious over the past year that the Justice Department under Attorney General Merrick Garland has been weaponized and politicized to the point that it represents an active threat to the rule of law and the separation of powers. It’s not too much to say that Garland’s DOJ has become a threat to the republic.

Just take this past week. On Thursday, following an historic 6-3 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down a New York law for violating state residents’ Second Amendment rights, a DOJ spokeswoman released a statement saying “we respectfully disagree” with the ruling.

The ruling is of course a great victory for the Constitution and a long-overdue vindication of New Yorkers’ Second Amendment rights. The law in question had been on the books for more than a century, and made it nearly impossible for ordinary people to obtain a concealed-carry license, The unconstitutional law forced New Yorkers to prove to a municipal bureaucrat that they needed a gun for self-defense. In practice, this made it almost impossible for law-abiding citizens in New York to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms.

But neither the law in question nor the Supreme Court’s decision implicates federal gun laws in any way. There is no reason for the DOJ to weigh in on the matter or express any opinion whatsoever on the ruling. Only an utterly politicized Justice Department hoping to undermine the Supreme Court’s constitutional authority and sow the seeds of nullification would issue such a statement.

But that’s not nearly the worst thing Garland’s DOJ did this week. In the pre-dawn hours of Wednesday morning, more than a dozen federal investigators raided the home of Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official with the Trump administration. Why? Because Clark had the temerity to investigate claims of voter fraud during the 2020 election.

That made Clark a target for the House Democrats’ Jan. 6 committee, whose Soviet-style show trial spent a good deal of time Wednesday implying that Clark, who once oversaw 1,400 lawyers and two divisions at DOJ, is traitor who tried to overturn the results of the election.

Continue reading “”

See the source image

DoJ to SCOTUS on Bruen: We will just have to enforce federal law, then

So what’s stopping them? The big case that the Supreme Court decided today, New York State Rifle & Pistol v Bruen, had nothing to do with federal statutes. As far as can be seen in the Supreme Court’s filings, the Department of Justice didn’t bother with the case enough to enter any amici briefs in the case, either. The issue at hand — requiring otherwise qualified citizens to prove a need to bear arms in public — exists solely at the state level, since the federal government doesn’t issue permits on common firearms.

Regardless, someone at the DoJ thought this non-sequitur was a snappy comeback of sorts:

The Department of Justice today released the following statement from spokeswoman Dena Iverson following the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc., et al. v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.:

“We respectfully disagree with the Court’s conclusion that the Second Amendment forbids New York’s reasonable requirement that individuals seeking to carry a concealed handgun must show that they need to do so for self-defense. The Department of Justice remains committed to saving innocent lives by enforcing and defending federal firearms laws, partnering with state, local and tribal authorities and using all legally available tools to tackle the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our communities.”

Did they just hear about this case this morning? If the DoJ had some input to give, it should have submitted its own amicus brief. One has to assume that they took a pass precisely because this case has literally nothing to do with federal law enforcement of statues currently on the books. In fact, Justice Samuel Alito made the only passing reference to federal statutes in the controlling opinion or concurrences, and then only to note tangentially that this decision doesn’t impact federal law:

The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).

Even Justice Stephen Breyer doesn’t mention anything about federal law enforcement in his dissent. At all. The Bruen case has literally nothing to do with the DoJ, at least not in its legitimate law-enforcement capacity.

So why push out this non-sequitur statement? Either Merrick Garland wants to be seen as somehow responsive to progressive hair-pulling over this limited and straightforward decision, or the White House wants Garland to put himself and his DoJ out there for support. Either way, it’s sheer political pander, but it does raise one point (via Twitchy):

This is an embarrassing take for a man whom Democrats posit as aggrieved for not getting confirmed to the Supreme Court, even if it came from one of Garland’s aides.

But if the DoJ is suddenly fired up to start “enforcing and defending federal firearms laws,” they can start by prosecuting people who try to game the background-check system despite being knowingly barred from firearms ownership. The GAO took note in 2018 of a lack of prosecutions for people who submit false applications. In 2017, the ATF referred 12,700 denied purchases (out of a total 112,090) for criminal investigation, but the DoJ only prosecuted twelve of them. The Free Beacon reported on the same issue in 2016, which eventually prompted the GAO review. Has this improved under Garland? I sincerely doubt it, but now would be a good time for the DoJ to produce the data on that question.

Besides that, Garland can also focus on enforcing federal law by finally enforcing 18 USC 1507, which makes demonstrating at the residence of a federal judge a felony. It certainly looks pretty strange to see the DoJ lecturing Supreme Court justices on enforcing the law when Garland and his team have been completely derelict in their duty to stop the intimidation campaigns aimed at these same justices. Strange, and entirely partisan.

Appeals court revives challenge to bump stock ban

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A legal challenge to the Trump administration’s ban on bump stocks — devices attached to semiautomatic firearms so that a shooter can fire multiple rounds with a single trigger pull — was revived Thursday by a federal appeals court.

A panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans had upheld the ban in December, affirming a ruling by a Texas-based federal judge. But an order issued Thursday stated that a majority of the 17-member court had voted to rehear the case. The challenge was brought by a Texas gun owner and is backed by gun rights groups including the National Rifle Association.

The 5th Circuit covers Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Three other circuit appeals courts have so far rejected challenges to the ban. The Supreme Court has been asked to take up the issue but had not said whether it will do so as of Thursday.

The ban was instituted in 2019 after a sniper in Las Vegas used bump stock-equipped weapons in the massacre of dozens of concertgoers in 2017.

The 5th Circuit order came on the same day that the Supreme Court issued a ruling expanding gun rights, striking down a New York law and ruling that Americans have a Second Amendment right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.

At issue in the bump stock challenge was not the Second Amendment but whether bump stocks qualify as illegal “machine guns” under federal law. The rule banning the devices issued by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said that they are.

According to the ATF, bump stocks harness the recoil energy of a semiautomatic firearm so that a trigger “resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.”

Opponents of the ATF rule argue that the trigger itself functions multiple times when a bump stock is used and that, therefore, they do not qualify as automatic weapons.

BLUF
Are there any members of the Biden administration who aren’t hapless whiners and don’t think their agencies aren’t simply there to serve personal needs? I have yet to identify one.
Buttigieg is just more hapless and whinier than most.

Pete Buttigieg’s Plan to End Air Travel Armageddon: Force Airlines to Hire Workers
Perhaps it would have helped if the Biden administration didn’t force airlines to fire workers who didn’t follow its vaccine mandate.

I am so old that I remember the Biden administration vaccine mandates for companies with over 100 employees, potentially leading to travel disruptions for at least one airline late last year.

The disruptions continue, describing the situation as “travel Armageddon weekend.”

Travel issues continued piling up for fliers on Sunday as weekend flight delays and cancellations topped 10,000 — a tumultuous weekend for holiday travel blamed on staffing shortages, packed planes and the ripple effects from previous bad weather.

On Sunday alone, more than 4,200 U.S. flights were delayed and nearly 900 were canceled, as of 7 p.m. ET, according to FlightAware, which tracks flights in real time.

The Sunday flight problems continue a slew of weekend cancellations and delays throughout the country. Since Thursday, roughly over 19,000 flights have been canceled or delayed.

“This has been another travel Armageddon weekend,” James Ferrara, co-founder and president of global host travel agency InteleTravel, told USA TODAY. “But it’s not isolated, or really a surprise.”

To solve this problem, Department of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg took a break from paternity leave to propose a solution after being inconvenienced.

Instead of forcing companies to fire workers, the federal government may force airlines to hire workers.

The federal government could take action against U.S. airlines on behalf of customers, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said Saturday.

Many Americans have endured delays, cancelations, and other travel complications during the coronavirus pandemic, and in recent months, after many pandemic-related travel restrictions were lifted.

Following Buttigieg’s own flight being canceled, forcing him to drive from Washington to New York, he said his department has authority to enforce action against airlines that do not sufficiently maintain consumer-protection standards, potentially requiring them to hire more staff.

Continue reading “”

¿Protocolo “Z”? ¡Grupos de Autodefensas para tu y mi!

BLUF
Whether intended or not, the implicit message of Z protocol seems like a dangerous one: Deal with it on your own.

The police aren’t coming, but now in Seattle, they have a name for that

It’s well known that Seattle police are struggling to respond to 911 calls in a speedy manner. But the notion that “the cops aren’t coming” has become such a routine of city life that they’ve created a new way of tracking their nonresponsiveness.

It’s called the “Z protocol.”

I don’t know why they picked the letter “Z.” Maybe because it’s the last stop, the end of the road?

The new “Z-protocol criteria” for 911 calls were described at a recent Seattle City Council public safety meeting. Basically when you call 911, you are ranked as high priority for police response if there’s violence occurring, or if there’s an imminent threat of violence or property damage. Lower-priority calls are also dispatched, but if the police are too busy, these calls can be put into a triage queue for a supervisor to look at later.

A “supervisor will look at the notes on the call and make a decision whether the call will get a response,” a council analyst explained at the meeting. “Or whether the call will be cleared with what they call a ‘Z-disposition action.’

Z-disposition, the analyst summarized, refers to “all calls that are essentially not answered by SPD due to a lack of resources.”

Continue reading “”