History

Back in the depths of time, a foreign national wanted to become a U.S. Citizen. He married a young woman who was a U.S. Citizen, living in the U.S.

He received his visa to come to America.

When enough time had passed, he asked his wife to sponsor him to become a U.S. citizen. She did not want to. He offered her $5000 to do so. She refused, they divorced and he left the country.

This happens more often than you might think. It happened to a friend of mine.

She wasn’t a beautiful woman, she was very plain. A man from the Middle East in the US on a student visa “fell in love” with her. He wined and dined her. Treated her in ways nobody else had.

They got married. He got his green card. They had a beautiful girl together. She sponsored him for citizenship. He became a U.S. Citizen.

He then divorced her, took their kid back to his home country. Married the girl who had been promised to him before he came to the US.

In the case of Miss Bouarfa:

Miss Bouarfa appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which agreed with the state, his visa stayed revoked. She then appealed to the Federal District Court, claiming the state lacked sufficient evidence to support their determination.

The state got the case dismissed. 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) has this to say:

They appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court, which affirmed the inferior court’s ruling. His visa was still revoked.

The question the Supreme Court chose to resolve:

Conclusion

Once the back and forth with the inferior courts is completed, Khalil will lose.

The Supreme Court found, 9-0, that the Secretary has the choice to revoke any visa or green card for anything he feels is sufficient. Judicial review is not allowed under U.S. Law.

The ONLY challenge they would have is a Constitutional challenge, which they have not really made.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in this case.

It is difficult to actually conceive of how long the battle for our Second Amendment rights has been going on. It started in 1792 and has continued through tomorrow.

In the founding era, there were a number of racist and religious exceptions. These were designed to keep arms out of the hands of Negros, mixed race people, Indians, certain religions, and other deplorable. By the 1870s, all of these exceptions were found to be unconstitutional, leaving very few infringements that would survive constitutional muster.

At this time, temporarily denying the right to people that have been adjudicated violent in a court of law is the only one I know of. See: —Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 2024 604 U.S. 6

In the early 1900s, New York City decided to ignore the Constitution and passed the Sullivan Act. The Sullivan Act was designed to disarm those that would stand up to the corrupt bosses who controlled the city. They used a permitting system.

They claimed that this was constitutional because some people did get permits and everybody could beg for permission from the government for that permission slip. This continued until 2022, with the Bruen decision, the corrupt NYC permitting scheme was shutdown. For all of 10 seconds.

The Bruen response bill attempted to create a statewide “sensitive” places replacement.

After the Sullivan Act, the infringers decided to ban handguns, machine guns, and short shotguns. They did this by placing a tax on these guns that was so outrageous that The People could no longer afford them.

They did not accomplish this. What they got instead was a functional ban on Short Barreled Rifles, Short Barreled Shotguns, Machine guns, and Silencers. By 1936, this was the accepted law of the land.

Using a saying that had not yet been published, in the late 1960s the infringers took advantage of a crisis to stop mail order gun sales. The GCA of 1968 created FFLs and required in person sales of firearms.

The claim was that those FFLs wouldn’t sell to bad people.

When bad things kept happening, they tried more gun control. Mostly permitting schemes that made it nearly impossible for The People to get permission.

Using another crisis, they got the Brady Act passed. Thank goodness, the NRA was fighting for some level of a win. The original intention was to create a system where buyers would have to get permission from the government for any gun purchase.

This was in the form of a “background check” with no limit on how long it took or how intrusive it might be. The NRA got the NICS system for us. Along with a “not denied is proceed”. It put the onus on the government to complete the check rapidly.

In 1986, we got a win with a poison pill. This was the Firearms Owner Protection Act. This was designed to protect firearm owners from being persecuted by the ATF.

There was a time when describing the internal workings of a machine gun was being construed by the ATF as manufacturing a machine gun. Selling a gun or two could get you sent to prison for not having an FFL. It was bad. There are stories of ATF agents hanging around gun shows seeking people to arrest or FFLs to bust for trivial things.

The bad part of the Firearms Owner’s Protection Act was the Hughes Amendment. The infringers had realized that the NFA had outlived its usefulness.

In 1934, the $200 surcharge for transferring a machinegun was unreachable for most of The People. When a M3 machinegun was selling for under 30 dollars, $200 was nearly impossible. An ad for a Colt M16 shows a price of $236.00 plus $5.00 for shipping. By the mid-1980s, the price was around $1800.

At $1800, a $200 surcharge wasn’t as bad.

One of the problems that started happening after 1986, when the NFA was closed to new machineguns, was a price boost of $200 every time a NFA item changed hands.

Consider buying a silencer today. The can costs $500 + $200. If you want to sell the can, you would like to get $700, to recover your costs. Now, this doesn’t work. Given the choice of a used can for $700 + $200 tax or a new can for $500 + $200 tax, you buy new. Thus keeping the costs of silencer’s down.

After 1986, there were no new machineguns. This means that every transfer increases the cost of that gun by at least $200.

At this point, the infringers moved to stop the sale of all firearms. The method they decided on was to sue firearm retailers and manufacturers out of business.

What they did was they found a bloody victim and then sued the FFL that sold the gun. They knew they would not win the case, but the cost of litigation was punishment enough.

In 2005, bipartisan legislation was passed to stop this lawfare. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was designed to protect entities in the lawful commerce in arms from frivolous lawsuits.

And it worked.

Until Sandy Hook.

They sued Remington Arms because they owned Bushmaster who manufactured the rifle that the asshole used to murder children and teachers.

What they claimed was that Bushmaster produced ads that caused the asshole to decide to murder his mother. Steal her keys to the safe. Open the safe. Steal the AR-15 within. To drive the car he stole from his mother to the school. And there murder children and teachers.

It was all the fault of the manly man ads that Bushmaster used to sell guns.

The lower state court dismissed the case based on the PLCAA. It was appealed up to the Connecticut Supreme Court. They decided the case could move forward. That was appealed to the Supreme Court, who denied cert.

Remington was bleeding money, and this case didn’t help. They went bankrupt. The hull of the company had no assets and no people. The insurance companies were on the hook for the money involved in the suit.

They settled. No gun people were involved in that disaster. It was a purely money motivated decision.

Which brings us to this case. Sorry for this long history.

Mexico was approached by the usual suspects. They filed in Massachusetts claiming that all the gun manufacturers were causing horrible things in Mexico.

The argument goes something like this:

The Cartels get guns from an illegal gun dealer. That illegal gun dealer purchased that gun from an illegal gun smuggler. The illegal gun smuggler purchased the gun from a straw purchaser. The straw committed felonies when they filled out the 4473 and when they sold the gun. The FFL knows that some of the guns he sells are being sold to straw purchasers. The distributor knows that the retailer knows that he is selling some guns to straw purchasers. The manufacturer knows that they are selling to distributors that know that the FFL is selling some guns to straw purchasers.

Therefore, the gun manufacture is guilty of adding and abetting murder in Mexico.

Yeah, it is that bad.

The lawyer for the petitioners (good guys) gave his opening statement explaining this. He then stated that the path between crime and manufacture had too many intermediate steps to make them responsible. This is known as “proximate cause analysis”.

He didn’t say anything about PLCAA.

Thomas started the questioning. The conservatives asked the right types of questions.

Then Sotomayor stepped up to the plate. And asked good questions. Not great, but good.

After Gorsuch and Barrette, Kagan asked questions. Again, not great, but good.

Then the surprise of the day.

Jackson started asking questions. And her leading question was, “Why wasn’t this stopped by PLCAA?”

It was a Good question.

I’m looking forward to reading the court’s opinion. At this point, I am finding myself thinking that this maybe a 9-0 opinion.

Transcript of oral arguments in 23-1141

Out with the old!  In with the MUCH bettere.

One of the most difficult tasks economists have is to judge the cost of things. If I’m paying $3/dozen for eggs and you are paying $1/dozen, do your eggs or mine cost more?

This gets even more complex when you start to consider currency differences.

When I’m discussing past prices, I like to convert the cost at that time to hours of labor. How many hours of labor does it take to purchase this item.

In 1976-77 A brand new Apple II would run you around $900. Today, I can put together a similar class of computer for around $1000. CPU, Memory, Disk, Motherboard, and case. In 1976, that $900 was somewhere around 150 hours of my labor, call it 4 weeks of full-time labor.

Except that I was only working part-time. This means that my actual cost, saving everything, was going to be around 10 weeks.

Today, that $1000 computer is going to cost me less than a week of labor, ignoring taxes.

The problem with using hours of labor to compare costs is that the value of your labor varies greatly. At the time, I was working in a computer store, the first in the state. My friends were flipping burgers. I was making twice as much per hour as they were, sitting in front of a monitor typing.

Whose labor value do we use? When comparing my grandfathers’ salary, I used historical records for machinists, which he was. As a skilled laborer, he was paid much more than the average.

In 1986, to try to give people a more innate sense of how much the cost of living varied from location to location, and from time to time, The Economist published the “Big Mac Index.”

Why would an index based on a fast food restaurants’ menu item be of any use?

The answer is one of consistency and inclusion. If you were to compare a generic “hamburger” from location to location, you would get wildly changing values. That could be because of the cost of the burger to the restaurant, or the hamburgers could be different. Does one have a slice of American cheese on it and the other premium Swiss? Is one made from grass fed organic ground beef and the other from Sysco’s finest? Is one burger 4oz pre cook weight and the other 2oz?

It makes a difference.

A Big Mac is standardized everywhere. That stupid jingle is correct for every Big Mac ever made. McDonalds even standardizes the amount of sauce that goes on each sandwich.

This means we are comparing apples to apples. Or, in this case, burger to burger.

The second part is inclusion. We know what goes into each sandwich. Those base ingredients are source relatively locally.

While the restaurant might be buying their meat from McDonalds, they are buying it from a location nearby. This means that the transportation expenses are in the price of the burger. This means that the cost of meat is in the price of the burger.

The cost of each item that goes into the burger is included in the price it sells for.

There is a cost of doing business, insurance, property tax, rental costs, undocumented payments to government organizations and NGOs (bribes), heating, cooling, building maintenance. These costs are all rolled into the final price of the sandwich.

The final cost is that of labor. If the labor market is strong, workers will be making more, if it is weak, labor will be paid less.

This also accounts for the cost of living in a particular area. In a location where it costs more to live, the workers will want more money per hour. While people in lower cost of living areas might want the extra pay, they are not going to get it.

I interviewed for a job in California once. As part of the interview process, they flew me to San Diego for a week. I spent the week house shopping and interviewing. I finally found a home that I was willing to live in.

Even though they were going to almost double my current salary, I would not have been able to afford a house in San Diego. I turned the job down.

Using a Big Mac equivalent, we can get a better idea of what the true cost is for different locations.

In Hawaii, the price of a Big Mac is $5.31 while in Mississippi, it is $3.91. This implies that it costs more to live in Hawaii than it does in Mississippi.

As a final thought on the Big Mac index, I remember McDonalds advertising that you could buy dinner for a family of four for $5.00 and have change.

That isn’t the case, anymore.

As I contemplate another deep dive into a legal case, I realize how thankful I am to Justice Thomas.

Our Second Amendment protected rights had been eviscerated. Most of the country was under the suffocating opinions of gun hating inferior courts.

If a stated wanted a gun control law, they passed it. Challenges were always dismissed. To listen to the gun grabbers, everything that was done was constitutional because everybody knew that the Second only protected the rights of the militia.

In 2008, the Supreme Court issued the Heller opinion. In a five to four decision, the court found that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear arms. Even Justice Stevens’ dissent says it is an individual right.

Of course, this didn’t stop Justice Stevens from joining Justice Breyer’s dissent

This case was much closer than we hoped for.

There is a good reason the court did not take up another Second Amendment case (outside McDonald, which was an easy, “Yes, the Bill of Rights applies to the states, morons”) for 14 years. We would have lost. And if we had not lost outright, the opinion would not be strong enough to protect our rights.

In 2022, we had a strong majority on the Supreme Court. Not a majority of Republicans, but a majority of Constitutionalist.

The Court issued a powerful opinion in Bruen. It slapped down the inferior courts. It set clear guidance for how to adjudicate Second Amendment challenges.

The inferior courts had a meltdown. We have judges who have sworn to uphold the Constitution, claiming they are too stupid to understand the Constitution. Judges who have decades of training and practice in reading old laws and interpreting them, correctly, claim that the plain text is unclear.

This is not the fault of the Supreme Court. This is the fault of those rogue inferior courts.

I worked for an incompetent lead analyst for a couple of years. One evening, I found him still at his desk, programming. He was trying to do something in FORTRAN. I explained that what he wanted to do wasn’t possible to do in FORTRAN. He insisted it could.

I wrote a short C function that did the task that FORTRAN could not. Gave it to him to use. This would have allowed him to complete his program without any architectural changes.

When I checked in with him the next day, I asked how the function worked for him. He reported that it had worked, but he had done a redesign, so he didn’t need that function.

To this day, I believe he made that change to exclude me from having participated in the project. He was a rogue, inferior programmer/analyst.

Rogue inferior courts will twist and squirm to avoid the clear guidance of the Supreme Court, when they don’t like the outcome.

The remarkable strength of Justice Ginsburg, was her ability to find law to support her positions.

From President Obama, we got Sotomayor. She has grown into her position, but she has never been a strong justice.

We also got Elena Kagan, a Justice so corrupt that she felt that there was no conflict of interest in sitting on a case that she had worked on as a member of the Obama staff.

Those two “powerhouses” don’t come close to the idiocy of Ketanji Brown Jackson. This is a person that can’t find case law, regulation, or original meaning in anything that goes against her agenda. She writes as if the Supreme Court should be writing law, not following the law.

The Three!

Neil Gorsuch was our first win. He has done a good job for the Second.

Kavanaugh was our second win. He is doing an ok job for the Second. I’m not sure of him, but so far, so good.

Amy Coney Barrett is our third win. I believe she could become the next Clarence Thomas.

Conclusion

Next Tuesday is the day our Constitution set as the date to vote for our President. A week from today, we should know who our next president will be.

Please, PLEASE, vote.

The most lasting wins from the first Trump presidency were the amount of reform that was done to the courts. We do not want to have Kamala replace Thomas. Imagine another Ketaji Brown Jackson replacing Thomas. It would be years before we could recover.

VOTE!

The history of the race to the moon is amazing. There is so much that happened behind the scenes, out of sight of the public because it was that dangerous.

My parents kept me awake for the moon landing. I remember watching Neil Armstrong step foot on the moon.

I am currently following Elon Musk’s personal goal of putting men on Mars. In 5 or so years, I hope to be watching man set food on Mars, to stay.

The short of it, watch the movie. It does a good job of telling the story of Neil Armstrong.

Then visit https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/apollo-11-what-we-saw to listen to the story of Apollo 11 or watch it:

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/WGmyPedxhacbTcmu

Well worth the time to watch all four parts and the movie.

Enjoy!

Allyson had picked up a wooden box a few years ago to take to events. It was a plain wooden box with just a bit of decoration and a porcelain knob attached to the sliding top.

The knob and screw holding it are not period. The rest was pretty period. Or more precisely, it was period-20.

It looked period at 20 feet.

Over the years, it has taken a beating. This knocked the back off, pulling out the brads.

She asked me if it could be repaired. TiteBond III to the rescue. I pried the back out enough to get glue where it was needed. Clamped the entire thing closed and called it a day.

Until I decided that it could be better.

Today, we use petrochemicals to create high-quality, strong, enduring coatings for our cabinetry and furniture.

Modern finishes are long chain polymers that have all the right characteristics for a long-lasting, shiny surface.

I’ve used polyurethane finishes. They can be polished to a near mirror like finish.

But that is the modern world? What were they doing 100 years ago? 200? 300? They were using some of the same finishing methods we use today.

Read More

Come one, come all! The Fort at No. 4 is hosting a Colonial Show and Tell over the Labor Day weekend!

If you are an 18th century reenactor and would like to show off your skills, please contact me at m.allyson.szabo@gmail.com or reach out directly to the Fort at info@fortat4.com and we’ll get all the information to you.

If you’re interested in learning about the 18th century, and would like to see what lights up the hearts and minds of reenactors and historical interpreters, please come to the Fort over the long weekend. Everyone presenting is there because they are excited to bring you their passion and joy, and there will be smiles and skills from one end of the Fort to the other! Read More

There is this trope in story telling of the vagrant, hobo, bum, or cartoon character steeling a pie from a windowsill.

It is good story telling. But, in my opinion, we forget what is actually happening.

We can go to the supermarket and buy a decent, almost edible, pie for 5 dollars or so. We are going to put that price at 15 umms.

Let’s take a step back in time. It is the late 1800s in the rural outback. It is a 20-mile trek to town to get supplies. But you have your homestead, there is food in the larder, there is food in the pantry, and there is food in the root cellar.

While you are out working the fields, your wife is baking an apple pie for the family.

The basics going into that pie are flour, lard, water, apples, sugar, some cider, butter, salt, and spices.

She starts with pairing the apples. The apples are from last fall when she and the children spent a couple of days picking apples in the orchard, all three apple trees. Those apples were preserved and stored, they look ugly, but they will taste wonderful.

The cost of those apples is the cost of picking, cleaning, storing, and preparing them. Call it 45 umms.

The lard came from the pig they harvested last fall. There were many hours of tending the pig, feeding it, caring for it, then the slaughter, processing the pig, and rendering the lard. She’s only using a palm full of lard, so about 30 umms.

The flour came from the store. They grew their wheat. While the total labor that went into growing that wheat was in the 1000s of umms, again, she is only using a couple of cups worth of flour. 30 umms.

Sugar was purchased, the cost was 5 umms.

The spices were expensive, but because she is only using a small amount, 5 umms.

The pie is going to bake in the oven. That oven is heated with wood that was chopped from a tree they harvested. Total of 15 umms for the wood to heat the oven.

In total, excluding the preparing of the apples, she has 30 umms invested in this pie.

The total cost of that pie? 45 + 30 + 5 + 5 + 30 = 115 umms.

An umm is a Unit of Man Minutes. So that 115 is 2 hours of labor. At $20/hour, that is a $40 pie. When that vagrant steals a pie, they are stealing at least 2 hours of labor from that family.

This doesn’t even touch the cost of not having the pie for themselves. That might have been the last of their apples.

It could have been a meat pie instead of an apple pie. If it was a meat pie, it would represent meals for the family for a couple of days, at least.

As an aside, why did they put pies on the windowsills to cool?

Because it was hot in the kitchen!

You want the pie to cool, it isn’t going to do that as fast in the kitchen, plus, all that heat from the pie goes into making the kitchen that much hotter.

Of course you want to cool that pie outside.

From Miguel’s substack, with permission.

At least from the regular Venezuelans.

At this writing, the 2024 presidential elections in Venezuela are in the can and Maduro seems to have “secured” his re-election. Protest about the fraud committed did happen, and the government was swift arresting over 1,500 so far who are slotted to go to prison ipso facto without pretty much legal niceties, plus also announced that other thousands of so members of the “Opposition” and protesters are pre-approved to be also arrested and given free “vacations.”

So, what happened to what used to be Latin America’s most vibrant and stable Democracy? What led to Venezuela becoming just another Communist dictatorship? I am going to try to give you a short explanation and for that, let’s begin to kill misconceptions.

Number one: In the 203 years of existence, Venezuela was a democracy (of sorts) for only 3 decades, from the 1960s to the 1990s. Before that and thereafter, the country was run by Caudillos (Strong Men) who fought, bullshitted or bullied themselves into the Presidency. Democracy was a short-lived experiment that was eventually was used by the Left to vote itself into the power they could not obtain by the traditional revolutionary methods of the 50s. Were there elections during those old times? Yes, but again, they were either vaudeville show elections except in one case where the elected President was kicked out by a revolutionary Leninist coalition who were themselves promptly removed by the Military which took over the control of the nation and kept it.

So, the historical DNA of the country is firmly programmed to accept Caudillos and a central government directing every aspect of your life. And with that comes the sad fact that such government will implement and use whatever force and persuasion it requires to remain in power. Scaring and programming people into submission is standard operational procedure: “Violence doesn’t solve anything” and “If you defy the “law”, we will use violence upon you and yours” are not contradictory terms in Venezuela or the rest of Latin America, they are just facts of life we learned to live with.

Number two: I don’t recall when exactly, but in the very late 1980s or early 1990s, there was an article in a major newspaper in Venezuela proudly announcing that the biggest employer in the country was officially the government. More than half of working Venezuelans derived their income to feed their families from the people in power, and that meant voting against the government meant voting against your wallet, voting against keeping your kids fed and a roof above your family and medication for grandma. Politics no longer was about ethereal principles like “Freedom” but real issues like having a job and not going hungry. And even if you were not on the Country’s payroll, more than likely you would be providing goods and services to those who were or to the government companies themselves. And people not only will they not fight against the government, but they will also gladly denounce to the proper intelligence authorities if they suspect anybody wants to do something against their security. Yes, they will snitch you at Warp 5 and have zero remorse about it because you are messing with their lives.

Number three: Historically, Venezuela always had Caudillos that promised radical changes in our way of living, swearing they would improve them. People would throw support at them, but most ended up failures, and a very few were successful, only for the new man in the Presidential Chair to become just another version of the previous occupant. “Mismo musiu con diferente cachimbo” is an old Venezuelan saying roughly translated to: same guy with a different pipe AKA Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. People eventually get tired of broken promises, so when somebody comes along with visions of wealth and prosperity if you join him, the recently burned just ignore them. It takes time, usually almost a generation, to get a fresh crop of hopeful idiots to support a “change” that could end up in a successful transfer of power. The Left tried to get in the hard way in the early 1960s after the transition from a military regime to Democracy and failed because both people were sick of the instability, Castro had shown his colors, and true Democracy was the newest-coolest product in the market for Venezuela. But The Left knows how to play the long game and started to infiltrate universities and the Media with their “light version” of themselves (Me a Communist? Never! I believe in social change and equality like a good Christian!”) but never lost track of the country’s DNA and hence comes Comandante Hugo Chavez and his coup attempt.

The coup failed… and not. Long story short: by the mid-1990s, thanks to a combination of corrupt practices, economic downturns and a very successful long-term campaign to undermine the country’s morale, people were once again ready for a “change” in the hands of a Caudillo. What the failed coup gave Chavez was a constant mention in the Media that amazingly fast went from negative for the people who got killed, to “we understand why he did it” to “Maybe he is the change we need” and people simply agreed with what been planted all along in their minds for many decades.

And not only did they vote Chavez into power but voted to give him more power: He was able to dispose of the Supreme Court by popular vote. The same vote gave him the OK to change the constitution, control of the Election Council and grant himself re-elections for as long as he wanted. I laugh when I hear people now complain about how it was possible that Maduro rigged the elections, since Venezuela’s elections have been worse than a rigged reality-tv show before the Millennium kicked in.

The above is a very simplified summary, and I am going to condense it even more: If the government feeds me and can kill me without consequence, why should I try to depose it to install a new set of assholes that probably won’t do any better?

One last thing:

“You can vote your way into socialism, but you’re going to have to shoot your way out.”

We know this is true. They are willing to kill to remain in power, and killing is the only way to remove them. But then you read this:

Just a couple of reminders: Peaceful demonstrations only work if the targets of those demonstrations are moral and scrupulous people.
The Left mastered the “peaceful demonstrations” and knows its weaknesses.

Until I see the stacks of pro-government bodies piled high on the streets of Caracas, I won’t believe that change is actually happening. And I doubt this will happen in my lifetime.

— Miguel Gonzalez © 2024.