• In the best of all worlds, the states would look at the Constitution, look at their laws, and gut their regulations until every last regulation aligned with our Constitution.

    This is not the best of all worlds. There are too many politicians who are agenda-driven. There are too many courts that are agenda-driven. The agenda is more important than the Constitution or The People.

    This means that judges who have an agenda will look for ways to manipulate case law or the lack of case law.

    Does the Second Amendment apply to the states? We don’t think so. The Supreme Court never said that it does, so our opinion is the correct opinion.

    Because our legal system is built on common law, the law must apply to everyone equally. Once a decision has been made based on a particular line of reasoning, other, similar decisions should have the same result.

    In rogue courts, this will ratchet in only one direction. If the case law favors The People but at odds with the court’s agenda, the case law won’t apply. If the case law favors the court’s agenda, then it will apply.

    One of the lawyers I follow or use to follow puts it as, “Congress writes the bill, the President makes it law, the Courts decide what it means.”

    It doesn’t matter what the intentions of Congress and the Executive branch might be when drafting and creating law, it only matters how the Courts interpret the law.

    There are 600+ Federal District Court Judges. Each of them has an opinion about what the law means. Some of them attempt to respect, to adhere to the Constitution, some of them do not. Regardless, because there are so many, there will be differences in opinion.

    To bring the inferior courts into agreement, each district court reports to a circuit court. The circuit courts will accept cases for review and publish opinions, which the inferior district courts must follow.

    This brings the district courts into alignment within a circuit. Unfortunately, the inferior circuit courts are often agenda-driven. This means that the circuits will split on agenda differences. The Fifth Circuit court is more likely to find for The People, for The Constitution. The Ninth Circuit is more likely to find for the state, against The People.

    When the circuits split, or if the matter is of importance to the Supreme Court, they might agree to hear a case. When the Supreme Court issues their Opinion, the inferior courts should follow instructions the Supreme Court issues.

    The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
    — U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1

    The Process

    A court case starts by a person filing a suit. In a criminal case, this is the state, as represented by the prosecutor. The case is filed against someone. Remember that corporations are legally people. I’m going to ignore the criminal side, as I’m just not interested in that side, at this time.

    The person opening the suit is the plaintiff. The other party is the defendant. The plaintiff will state a harm and request relief from the harm. The court must be able to grant that relief.

    Let’s consider a common situation, a divorced man has been ordered to pay child support. He works to better himself and finds himself promoted or working in a better paying job. His ex-wife can file suit to have the child support increased.

    She will allege that he is making more money, part of which should be going to his children.

    There is alleged harm, he is shorting his children. The court can remedy the situation by ordering him to pay more in child support. The court grants her the relief she was seeking

    Turn it around, a divorced man goes to pick up his children. His ex-wife refuses to hand them over for visitation. It is a Friday, the courts are closed, he goes home without his children.

    On Monday, he attempts to file a suit. He alleges that his ex-wife denied him his visitation rights. He asks that he get the weekend with his children.

    There is no way for the court to give that weekend back. It is gone. It is not a case for the courts. There is no relief the court can grant to fix the harm that was done.

    There must be standing and an active conflict for the courts to act.

    The suit makes allegations. If the allegations are about the law, the plaintiffs can request summary judgment. This means that the case can be decided by the courts without requiring facts/evidence be provided.

    If there is a need for evidence to be collected, that requires fact finding.

    Consider these two suits, 1) The plaintiffs file suit asking for a summary judgment finding that requiring permits to carry a firearm is unconstitutional. 2) The plaintiffs file suite asking for an injunction forcing the sheriff’s department to issue permits to carry in a timely fashion.

    In the first case, there is no evidence or facts to be found. It is a matter of law. Per case law, when a constitutional challenge is made, the plaintiff needs to show that the proposed conduct implicates the plain text of The Constitution. Once the plaintiffs have shown that implication, the burden shifts to the state to prove the modern regulation is inline with this Nation’s historical tradition of regulation.

    Note that this language is similar to what we saw in Bruen. That is because Bruen didn’t invent anything new. This has been the standard for at least a hundred years.

    In the second case, the plaintiffs will need to prove that the sheriff’s department is not issuing permits in a timely fashion.

    The steps of the case:

    1. File suit
    2. Request Temporary Restraining Order
    3. Request Preliminary Injunction
    4. Request Summary Judgment
    5. TRO granted or denied.
    6. Pleadings filed regarding the Preliminary Injunction
    7. Hearing on the Preliminary Injunction
    8. Preliminary Injunction granted or denied
    9. Pleadings filed regarding Summary Judgment
    10. Hearing on the Summary Judgment
    11. Summary Judgment granted or denied

    Until the case has reached step 11, Summary Judgment granted or denied, the case is in an interlocutory state.

    Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

    When a case is filed, “bad things” could be happening, which needs to be stopped immediately.

    A person gets notice they are to be evicted the following day. They request a TRO to stop the eviction.

    An alien is detained and will be deported. Their lawyer files a suit to stop the deportation and requests a TRO to stop the alien from being removed from the local jurisdiction.

    A TRO lasts until a preliminary injunction is issued or denied. They are supposed to only a short period of time. If it is an urgent matter, then the preliminary injunction should be briefed and heard in a short period of time. A week, maybe two should be the limit of a TRO.

    IN DECIDING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONunder Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, courts in the Ninth Circuit look to the following factors:

    • The movant has shown a likelihood of success on the merits
    • There is a likelihood that the movant will suffer irreparable harm in absence of a preliminary injunction.
    • The balance of equities tips in the movant ’s favor.
    • The injunction is in the public interest.

    Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009)

    To determine whether to issue a TRO, the courts in the Ninth Circuit apply the same analysis used to evaluate a motion for preliminary injunction. McCarthy v. Servis One, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32622, at *9 –10 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2017).

    A party seeking a preliminary injunction in the Ninth Circuit must meet one of two variants of the same standard. First, a party can show that he or she is likely to succeed on the merits, that he or she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his or her favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Alliance For The Wild Rockies v. Pena, 865 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2017). Alternatively, under the sliding scale variant of the standard, if a plaintiff can only show that there are serious questions going to the merits —a lesser showing than likelihood of success on the merits —then a preliminary injunction may still issue if the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff ’s favor, and the other two factors are satisfied. Alliance For The Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011).

    These two alternatives represent extremes of a single continuum rather than two separate tests. Immigrant Assistant Project Los Angeles County Fed ’n of Labor v. INS, 306 F.3d 842, 873 (9th Cir. 2002).

    We see one of the issues with rogue courts, such as the Ninth. The Supreme Court has stated that TROs, Preliminary Injunctions, and stays are extraordinary actions which require the Winter Factors be used. Here, the Ninth has said that an inferior, district court, can use the Winter Factors, or use a sliding scale.

    When using a sliding scale, the inferior court is supposed to use the “balance of hardships”. Balance of hardships is not part of the Winter Factors. This gives courts in the Ninth Circuit to decide that anything is a hardship, which allows them to grant TROs, Preliminary Injunctions, and Stays when the party requesting them hasn’t shown a likelihood of success on the merits.

    Preliminary Injunction

    For a preliminary injunction, the court needs the plaintiffs and defendants to file briefs to demonstrate why the preliminary injunction should be granted or denied. The plaintiff files their motion for a preliminary injunction. The defendant files their response. The plaintiff then files a reply to the response.

    If the court requires more, they will request more. If defendants feel they need to reply to the reply, they ask permission of the court to do so.

    The court then schedules a hearing. The parties can meet independently of the hearing. They can file a joint motion on what they think the preliminary injunction should be. The plaintiffs can file a motion suggesting what the wording of the preliminary injunction should be. The defendants might file a “we don’t think it should be granted, but if it is, this is what the wording should be.”

    After the hearing, the court will issue their order granting, denying or granting in part and denying in part the requested preliminary injunction.

    The process of getting a preliminary injunction is adversarial. The process of getting a TRO is not.

    If a preliminary injunction is granted, that injunction will be in place until final judgment is issued.

    Final Judgment

    After the preliminary injunction is granted (or not), the parties start filing their arguments, briefs, motions. Amicus Curiae can file briefs as well.

    During this process, the parties will meet, discuss what can and cannot be agreed to between them. Anytime an agreement is reached between the parties, a motion if filed with the court to get the court’s approval.

    There will be status reports and hearings to make sure everybody is on track to have everything filed on time.

    Finally, there will be arguments made in court.

    After the arguments have been made, the court will make their decision and issue their final judgment.

    When the final judgment is given, the case is no longer in an interlocutory state, at the district level.

    Appeals

    Normally, a TRO cannot be appealed. The thinking is that since it lasts such a short time, by the time the superior court has heard the arguments, the TRO should have expired.

    Since a TRO is supposed to maintain the status quo, there should be nothing in a TRO that cannot be undone, with a proper application of money.

    If a party appeals a TRO or the denial of a TRO, the superior court should apply the Winter Factors and there must be an extraordinary reason for the intervention.

    To have the Supreme Court hear an appeal regarding a TRO is almost unheard of. To have them action a TRO is even rarer.

    The normal method that is used to stop a TRO with a deadline is to grant an administrative stay long enough for the deadline to pass. This gives the defendant time to respond without facing contempt charges.

    Again, TROs normal cannot be appealed.

    A Preliminary Injunction can be appealed. Since a Preliminary Injunction lasts for the duration of the case, a “bad” Preliminary Injunction can cause immense damage.

    It is also the case that a Preliminary Injunction should not normally grant the relief sought in final judgment. If what you are asking for in final judgment is for the homeowner to stop hoarding rainwater and the preliminary injunction requires the rainwater to be distributed to all their neighbors, there is no way to make the homeowner whole when the dry season hits.

    The Preliminary Injunction might require the homeowner to retain that rainwater, not using it nor releasing it.

    The Preliminary Injunction can be appealed. From the District Court it is appealed to the Circuit Court. From there it could be appealed to the Supreme Court.

    After the final judgment is issued, the case at the District Level is done. The case is no longer in an interlocutory state.

    Findings of fact cannot be appealed. Thus, if the District Court finds that the sheriff is taking 18 months on average to issue a permit to carry, the sheriff can appeal that finding of fact.

    They can appeal the procedure and rules used to make the determination. For example, the sheriff submitted documentation showing that 10,000 permits were granted within 30 days, but the district court refused to accept the documentation because the staples were in the wrong place.

    Relief From Appeals

    There must be an active controversy for a court to intervene. If there is no active controversy, the case is moot.

    A criminal on death row is appealing his sentence. He dies of a heart attack. There is no longer a controversy, the case is moot.

    There are exceptions for this. The most common was abortion cases. Since a pregnancy lasts 9 months and most court cases take years, there is no possibility for an abortion case to be heard at the appeals level before the woman is no longer pregnant.

    The rogue inferior courts have been throwing out Second Amendment challenges from 18 year-olds because they age out. To resolve this, their needs to be an organization involved representing all members under 21. As the individual plaintiffs age out, the organization adds new 18-year-old plaintiffs.

    The superior court can grant stays and injunctions. These are temporary in nature. They are designed to change the state of preliminary injunctions or final judgments.

    If the superior court finds that the inferior court got it wrong, they can vacate the lower court’s judgment. Normally, the case is then remanded (returned) to the inferior court for them to correct whatever it was they did wrong.

    In our example, the inferior district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the homeowner from using the collected rainwater or from wasting it. The appeals court can stay that injunction, allowing the homeowner to use the rainwater while waiting for the final judgment.

    In the same way, if the inferior district court did not issue an injunction, the plaintiffs (not the homeowner) could appeal and the appeals court could issue an injunction, stopping the homeowner from using or destroying the rainwater.

    SCOTUS and Interlocutory State Cases

    The Supreme Court produces thousands of words per day per justice. They hear oral arguments. They read 10s of thousands of words in filings in cases.

    Unlike myself, they need to read everything. I normally skip the boring stuff or the state’s BS. It isn’t worth my time.

    This means they hear about 70 cases per term. This is in addition to making a few dozen to a few hundred orders per week.

    This last Monday, they issued orders in 78 cases.

    Anything the Supreme Court does or says becomes precedent. If they were to grant cert to cases in an interlocutory state, the number of requests for cert would skyrocket. They already get in excess of 7000 petitions for cert every term.

    It is a big deal, therefore, when the Supreme Court grants cert on a case that is in an interlocutory state.

    They don’t normally hear requests for stays or injunctions from cases in an interlocutory state.

    The fact that they have made statements in a few Second Amendment challenges that were at the TRO or Preliminary Injunction state is astonishing.

    Conclusion

    The Second Amendment community needs to fight to a final judgment as quickly as possible. If we ask for a TRO, and it isn’t granted, that was a waste of our resources. If it is granted, the state will appeal to the circuit courts, where it will be stayed. The circuit court can then delay the case for many months.

    The Supreme Court will not step in, while a case is just starting

    If we ask for a preliminary injunction, either we are denied, in which case it just cost us resources and time, or we are granted the injunction which will be appealed, and the entire case is again delayed.

    We want the case completed at the district level as quickly as possible. If we win, the state will appeal, but now we are on the way to the Supreme Court. If we lose, we appeal, we are still on our way to the Supreme Court.

            

  • The Fort is getting ready for the 2025 season. Allyson is up there for the woman’s weekend. She is incredibly excited.

    Why?

    Because this will be the first event she has gone to in years when she isn’t presenting/teaching. Her goal? To learn how to make a pie crust.

    Like many events, there is an unload time. You are allowed to drive on site to unload your gear, and then you are to get your vehicle off site as soon as you can.

    It felt like coming home. We stopped to talk to boss lady, then drove around to the Fort to unload. Bill saw us drive up and waved us inside.

    It felt good to be recognized, to be welcomed.

    There was “man bonding”, Bill was on his way to fix something, he had a crowbar in hand and made a pretend swing at the windshield. It felt welcoming. As I said, a coming home.

    Allyson and I got out of the truck. She started unloading for her stay, I went to help Bill.

    We worked as a team. I got to drive the idiot stick for a bit. We were able to move a large, heavy, ramp out of the way, clear up the damage a woodchuck had done, and get an aluminum ramp in place for the weekend.

    It was good. It made me happy. The Fort is a home away from home.

    The one thing that struck me as humorous was that we were going to use some 2x4s. They needed to be cut to size. Bill was in the jointery first. When I got there, I was expecting him to be using one of the handsaws.

    Nope, he had a circular saw, making quick work of the task.

    NPCs get new talking points

    In the past 20 years of watching congress critters make huge amounts of money with some of the luckiest stock moves, it is refreshing to have some of them talking about limiting insider trading.

    And all the normal NPCs are all yapping about wanting to pass a bill to stop themselves from trading individual stocks.

    The bill, as pitched by the NPCs, is unlikely to actually accomplish anything, still it makes me smile to see them doing this because they are virtue signaling.

            

  • There are two main types of plants in the world: annuals, which you plant from seed (or cutting or slips or whatever) each year, and perennials, which come back every year.

    Some examples of annuals are cucumbers, lettuce, potatoes, peppers, and zucchini. Each year, you need to plant new plants. Each year, they complete their life cycle entirely in the span of one season. You get seeds (or slips or cuttings or whatever) from them to plant again next year.

    Some examples of common perennials are asparagus, rhubarb, many kitchen herbs (sage, thyme, and chives in particular), horseradish, and strangely enough, tomatoes. With all but the tomatoes, you plant them once and then harvest each year after they’re established. Tomatoes are technically perennials, in that they can be kept from year to year if you’re in a warm enough climate. Up here in the north where I am, we treat them as annuals, but if you have a hot house or you live in a warm area, you can keep them alive and producing without having to replant each year.

    Annuals are important. They’re here for a brief season, they grow, and we harvest them. The majority of vegetables we eat are annuals. You can pick up pre-sprouted annuals like cucumbers and peppers at your local feed store each spring. For those of us with a yen for gardening, going to Agway is a dangerous thing right now. Somehow, these plants always end up in my dang trunk… You can also pick up seeds, both for indoor seeding and for planting right outside in your garden beds.

    Perennials, though, are even more important (in my opinion, of course). With perennials, you plant once, harvest for years. As I get older, I look for more and more perennials so that I have less work to do in the garden each summer! An asparagus bed will keep giving for 20 to 40 years, with nothing more than an occasional fertilizing and weeding. Rhubarb, too, doesn’t require a lot. You do have to “split” it up into bits every five to eight years, to keep it healthy and growing, but that’s not too arduous. Some of my herbs have been in my garden for more than a decade, and are coming along very well. I recently had to get medieval on my oregano, because it was escaping its enclosure and getting into the lawn. While that smells nice during mowing time, it’s a waste.

    (more…)

            

  • SCOTUS is Busy

    Yost v. Brown et al. was just granted a stay.

    The plaintiffs (not bad guys) are attempting to get an initiative on the ballet. Before this happens, the AG of Ohio reviews the summaries of the initiative to verify that it is an accurate summation. The AG’s opinion differed from the plaintiffs so they took it to court.

    The district court (bad guys) issued a preliminary injunction to force the AG (not bad guy) to “immediately certify” the plaintiffs’ desired summary language.

    This is another case of the courts overstepping their Article III limits.

    They have been clearing out 100s of cases requesting cert in the 2024-2025 term.

    The slapped down the DC District Court for calling preliminary injunctions a TRO to avoid review. And they also slapped down the DC Circuit Court for allowing the District Court to do so.

    The did the same for the Massachusetts District Court, which “issued what it styled as a temporary restraining order (TRO)”. This included a Gibb’s slap to the First Circuit court.

    They have not granted Cert for Snope or Ocean State Tactical, nor have they denied it. They keep conferencing the cases. I’m not sure what they are waiting for.

    They sent Antonyuk back to the District Court to finish their work.

    I think everybody has learned that fighting for a win on an interlocutory state just isn’t worth it. The Circuit Courts over these rogue District Courts are just a rogue and just as bent. The Supreme Court isn’t going to deal with an interlocutory Second Amendment case until they have a new Second Amendment opinion out.

    Simply put, the rogue inferior courts will just twist the Court’s words to get the outcome they want.

    Market Fluctuation

    What goes up must come down? Or maybe it is the other way around, what goes down must go up. I absolutely understand the panic day traders and market players must be having. People panic, people sell, the price of shares goes down.

    If you are worried about your unrealized gains or losses, you aren’t in the markets for the long run. There are very few investment securities that will lose money in the long run.

    You might not make as much, but it is unlikely that you will lose money. Just ride the trough out. Many people did just that for the four years of Biden, riding out a couple of months under Trump should be a no-brainer.

    Hypocrisy lives

    Elizabeth Warren is trying to get a bill passed to ban congress critters from investing in individual stocks. Of course, this doesn’t touch the astonishing wealth she’s accumulated since taking office.

    As Allyson says, “Read the Bill.” I don’t believe anything a Democrat says about a bill. I need to read the darn thing myself.

    It is straightforward to write a bill that sounds like it stops insider trading but leaves gaping holes for congress critters to make money from inside knowledge.

    One of Chuck Schumer or Adam Schiff got out there and said that Trump was guilty of insider trading. His proof? Trump said that it was a good time to buy while the market is in this panic sell off.

    Yet, Adam and Chuck seem to make way more money than a government employee should.

    Trump and the Second Amendment

    There are things that are happening in the administration that seem to be good. I’m concerned because nothing is set in stone. I’ll start cheering once I hear the Solicitor General get before the Circuit and Supreme Court and back The People.

    Question of the Week

    Do you think Trump is getting what is best for our country with his tariffs?

            

  • We won, again.

    These inferior rogue courts lose and the media plays it up as a win.

    The short of it, the state (not bad guys) transferred Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the El Salvador “super max”. Garcia was under a court order to be kept in the United States.

    Garcia is a bad person. The state says he is a member of MS-18, he claims he is not. He does not appear to have a criminal record outside of being here illegally. He was detained under the Biden Puppet administration.

    His transfer was a mistake. The state acknowledges this.

    The District Judge issued another of those magic TROs. He overstepped his Article III power when he ordered the Government to facilitate and effectuate the return of [Garcia] to the United States by no later than 11:59PM on Monday, April 7.

    To understand this win, it is necessary to understand the power of a court. When a court gives an order, it must be followed or the court can find you in contempt. Being in contempt can cause people to be arrested.

    In this particular case, I believe it is Kristi Noem who would have been held in contempt.

    The TRO uses two different terms with different legal meanings. The first is to “facilitate”. This is telling the Government to work with El Salvador to get Garcia back. It could be the Government paying money, it could be other diplomatic pressure, or it could be a simple “please give him back.”

    The difficulty the Government has is that Garcia is a member of MS-13. Under El Salvador law, this means he is a terrorist. As a terrorist in El Salvador, he will be detained in their super max under their laws.

    Under the facilitate requirement, as long as the Government was working to get Garcia returned to the United States, they were within the boundaries of the TRO.

    The second term, “effectuate” is different. This is a get-it-done requirement. This requires that Garcia be back in the United States before midnight on the 7th. If the Government does not have Garcia back in the United States by that deadline, they will be in contempt.

    Whatever the full reasons might be for the state not wanting Garcia back, it is unreasonable to expect the state to negotiate the return of Garcia and to have him back in the states within the deadline given by the court.

    Chief Justice Roberts quashed this TRO without committing the Court. He issued an administrative stay. Because that stay took the case past the midnight deadline, there was no more threat of contempt.

    Having made it past the deadline, the Court then issued an order today.

    The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. Due to the administrative stay issued by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent, the Government’s emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. The order heretofore entered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE is vacated.
    — 604 U.S. ___ (2025) 24A949 Justice Sotomayor

    Yep, the district court was just slapped down for overreaching its power.

    The government is no longer required to return Garcia, they are required to work towards getting him back. Meanwhile, they can continue the court case at the district level, which might end with Garcia staying in El Salvador.

    The government is only required to share, what it can, about the steps they are taking to facilitate the return of Garcia.

    “We’ve scheduled a meeting with the representative of El Salvador.” Which is 4 weeks from now. They can slow walk this thing.

            

  • Just a short follow up. In one day the portfolio I am following recovered about 530%.

    That is to say, the reported loss over the last 6 days has gone from 3.58% yesterday to 0.19% today.

    Just stay the course and things will get better.

    If you are invested in the market, don’t panic. As CBMTTek pointed out, February 2024 the S&P 500 was doing just fine, at the same level. The media wasn’t screaming about the economy tanking.

    What is curious is the lack of panic in 2021/22 when the supply chain was in shambles. Ports were not moving products, ships were idling offshore, trains were not getting loaded at ports, etc… and the Secretary of Transportation was at home on maternity leave. Why no panic then?
    — CBMTTek

    He’s correct. The amount of panic the media projects is tempered by which party is in control.

    A 0.001% drop in the market when Trump does something is cause to panic, which causes the sheep to sell, causing the market to drop. A 1.000% drop in the market when a Dem is in office creates a cricket like ambiance. And saying anything makes you a conspiracy theorist.

            

  • I had a Right leaning friend post this meme yesterday:

    What I responded with is very honest: “I don’t think so, or not without full due diligence. Remember, what the Right does to the Left or puts into practice can later be used by the Left against the Right. Put NOTHING in place that could even remotely possibly go wrong when turned around. This is something that could *easily* be turned around.”

    There will always be people on both sides of the aisle who feel they are doing what they are doing to support the Constitution. The problem with the person who posted this originally is that he knows darn well HE is defending and adhering to the Constitution… and assumes that those on the Left are not, and/or will not.

    I can think of quite a few legitimate reasons why someone in the House or Senate might choose to support an illegal alien over a US citizen. For instance, no matter how illegal someone is, if a US citizen assaults, sexually or otherwise abuses, murders, etc. someone from another country (legal or illegal), that’s wrong. I’ll support the person who was the victim.

    Putting up something this broad is not “making it perfectly clear” or stating it’s in black and white (in any way other than the fact that it’s black and white lettering). This is akin to the Dems wanting to get rid of the filibuster while the Republicans are in office and then trying to get it back in when they’re in office. If the proposed rule can’t be broadly applied, or applies only “sometimes” (ie when your opponent is in office), then it’s not a good rule.

    This is not a good suggestion.

    Words, as I’m constantly told, have meaning. I might be pretty sure I know what’s being implied in this meme, it’s NOT clear. If we were to put something like this into practice, it would immediately be turned around and used against the Conservatives. And rightly so, quite frankly.

    There’s a lot going on around us right now. According to the Left, the stock market is crashing like never before. I’ve heard the term “huge” used more than Trump uses it, which is driving me batty.  

    As you can see in this image (Morningstar, Inc.), the mess during Biden’s time as President was quite impactful, especially as seen after the moderately beautiful recovery started by Trump 1.0. Now, this image doesn’t include the stock market information of the past few days, but frankly, I think you can all go look yourself. Yes, there was a dip. No, it would not even register on a graph of this size. It’s barely visible on a graph that includes only 2016 onward, quite frankly. Yes, there was a dip, and that’s natural. It’s a great time to buy stock, quite honestly. With the Left influencing what people think, there are bound to be some run offs with certain types of stock. We know that nothing huge is going to happen with Trump at the helm, so we may as well invest. Just be sure to pull out before the next President gets in, unless it turns out to be Vance, in which case, stick with it.

    I really don’t get the absolute panic over the tariffs. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told I “just don’t understand” how tariffs work (hint: I do), and how Trump’s tariffs are going to tank our whole economy (hint: they didn’t, and aren’t). People I love and care for are absolutely devastated over the whole tariff business, and it’s sad, because it’s not something to be upset about.

    But… again, when tariffs get applied, our prices are likely to go up slightly. It behooves us to be ready for that. Once it all turns around, we’ll still be sitting pretty. No need for panic, folks.

    _
    “What We’ve Learned From 150 Years of Stock Market Crashes.” Morningstar, Inc., 1 Apr. 2025, https://www.morningstar.com/economy/what-weve-learned-150-years-stock-market-crashes.
            

  • Trump has put multiple tariffs into place. These tariffs cause changes in supply chains and in the costs to produce certain goods.

    Every product produced requires raw goods, tooling, work space, and skills to create.

    Consider a simple BLT. The raw goods are bacon, bacon, bacon, lettuce, tomato, bread, mayo. Having all of those raw goods does not a BLT make.

    You have to have the correct tooling. The tooling here is a way of cooking the bacon, such as a grill top, cutting tomatoes, cutting bread, spreading the mayo.

    Once the sandwich is produced, it has to be packaged for delivery. That requires still more raw goods.

    When you sell that sandwich, you include the cost of the raw materials that go into it, you include the cost of the packaging, you include the cost of the tools, the building you used, and you include the cost of labor. You then need to include the cost the government imposes on you.

    The cost of your raw goods includes the price you pay for the goods, the cost the government imposes on those goods, such as tariffs and VAT, and the cost of transporting the raw goods to your location.

    Once you have all those costs, you add profit to come up with the price you will charge your customers.

    Now, let’s change the product, instead of creating a sandwich, you are creating a gear. Your raw goods are iron and pattern making materials. You will use your tools to convert pattern making materials into patterns. You will then use those patterns to cast gear blanks. You will then turn those gear blanks into finished gears by applying different tools.

    You have converted raw materials, with knowledge, skill and labor, into a finished product, a gear.

    That gear is sold at a price which is profitable to you. That gear is likely a raw material for some other business.

    Tariffs add to the cost of anything imported into a country that imposes imports. Imports are decided on the origin country or the country of manufacture.

    Consider a car that is manufactured in Detroit. If that car includes raw materials that are imported from other countries, those materials that have tariffs applied will cost more.

    There are no “complexities” to this. The “PANIC!” people want you to think there are, that’s not true. Every business keeps track of the cost of raw materials. If they don’t know the costs, they can’t set prices. It doesn’t matter if Ford, Canada produces the part or Ford, Flynt creates the part. There is a cost that is paid to have that part in the Ford, Detroit plant to put into a new car.

    In a well-functioning business, they are always looking at the cost of raw materials. The cost of raw materials includes the cost of taxes (tariffs) and transportation.

    It also includes the cost of bad materials. If you are paying a $1.00 for a widget and there is a 10% failure rate, that means you are paying $1.10 for each working part. If somebody else has the same widget with a cost (price + extra costs) of $1.05 and a failure rate of 0.1% that means they are only scrapping 1 in 1000 widgets.

    In this case, it is actually cheaper to buy the “more expensive” widget.

    Included in the cost calculations are longer-term issues. If the ball bearings you purchase are not properly heat treated, and you assemble them into a high-precision roller bearing which then fails in a million dollar engine, there is a heck of a lot more costs involved.

    We know that people will change their purchasing habits when the cost of needed goods goes up. We saw this when Americans switched from steak to ground beef as their primary meat. Look at the CPI for food, you’ll see that in the past it had steak on it, today it has ground beef.

    Because the cost of goods goes up, people will look for better prices. If that search leads to a local business, so much the better.

    Unfortunately, local business might not be set up to cope with a large influx of new business. This leads to shortages.

    In a market-driven economy, this leads to people consumers offering more or producers charging more. This is called a “signal”.

    Because this signal exists, asking for more of that product, producers will attempt to create more product. This could be as simple as turning on an extra machine or as complex as standing up an entirely new production plant.

    When this is going on, “the market” will respond. The market responds by buying or selling ownership in different companies. If a company that used to clear $2,000,000 per year is now projected to clear $4,000,000 per year is likely to attract buyers. A company that is seeing their income drop is likely to attract sellers.

    This causes market fluctuations.

    Over the course of yesterday, the portfolio that I follow was up as much as 1% yet closed down 0.82% Since Trump announced the tariffs, the portfolio has lost 3.53%

    On $100,000 that’s a $3,530 loss.

    And it is meaningless. That portfolio will go up again.

    The people who are screaming the loudest are the people with millions in the stock market. If that are looking at a $10,000,000 portfolio, a 3.53% drop is $353,000 “loss”. That is more than a 1/4 million dollars in just a few days.

    But it only becomes a loss if they sell now. If they hold on to those securities and the price recovers or goes up, then they will “make money”. But again, that is only true if they actually sell the security to realize the profits they made.

    There is no reason to panic. The sky is not falling. If anything, this might be a good time to look at putting money into the market. The trick is to buy when near the bottom of the sell-off.

    The only reason I know this, is I did some research this last week. I am NOT the person you want to take financial advise from.

            

  • “Drink a toast to my best friend, Samuel Colt!”

    One of the things I’ve noticed in listening to the vast array of older music lately, is that most of it wouldn’t make it on today’s radio. This song, for instance, would be considered horribly violent even though it wouldn’t even be a footnote in an action movie. I’ve listened to a song about truckers showing up at a kid’s house to take him out for a ride while his mom was at work (Teddy Bear), another about a bunch of Boy Scouts sneaking up on Girl Scouts bathing nude (The Battle of Kookamonga), yet another about a guy who gets blown up running illegal liquor (White Lightning)… The one that made me giggle the most was Lil’ Red Riding Hood by Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs, which talks about how Red is “everything a big bad wolf could want.”

    I love this music. Some of it is from my childhood. Some of it is from earlier. They all tell stories that would cause pearl clutching today. Perhaps that’s why I find them so amusing.

            

  • This case has had a long and torturous journey. We are not at the end of its travels.

    Yesterday, the Supreme Court denied cert in this case. There was no statement issued in relation to this case.

    Just “cert is denied”

    That might sound like a horrible loss, it is not.

    This case has not reached a final judgment at the district court yet.

    On December 13, 2022, Judge Glenn Suddaby issued his decision and order. The state (bad guys) had filed a motion to reconsider the court’s preliminary injunction granted November 17, 2022.

    The state then appealed to the Second Circuit court. The Second Circuit court stayed the injunction pending the outcome of the appeal. They issued their opinion against The People, finding that it was ok for the state of New York to ban the carrying of firearms almost everywhere.

    The plaintiffs (good guys) appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Second Circuit Court’s ruling in light of Rahimi.

    The Second Circuit heard oral arguments again. After a suitable delay, they said that they got it right the first time, even when considering Rahimi. The plaintiffs (still the good guys), filed a petition for writ of certiorari.

    Friday, the Supreme Court justices held their Friday conference. Yesterday, they issued their order and simply denied cert.

    This means that the Second Circuits stay of the case stays in place. The case is remanded back to the district court to finish the “fact finding” and then to await final judgment.

    In other words, this case is still in an interlocutory state.

    In my humble opinion, the Supreme Court declined to hear this case because it was in an interlocutory state and if they were to GVR the case, they knew the Second Circuit will get it wrong again. The Second Circuit is a rogue inferior court.

    We still have Snope and Ocean State Tactical seeking cert.

    I don’t see either conferenced yet, but that should be forthcoming soon.