The reason why tranny insanity is taking hold is because of the Supreme Court. On June 15, 2020, SCOTUS ruled in 3 separate cases that Title VII of the Civil rights act applies to LGBT people, thus making men who believe themselves to be women as official super citizens who are entitled to more rights than the rest of us. This effectively places delusional people in charge.
The cases were Bostock v. Clayton County, Zarda v. Altitude Express, and Stephens v. Harris Funeral Homes. Writing for the six-3 majority, Justice Gorsuch held that Title VII’s protections against discrimination or harassment “because of sex” extend to members of the LGBT community. Specifically, Title VII prohibited firing the Plaintiffs because they were gay or transgender, because sex necessarily plays a role in the decision.
This means that the Federal government has, through SCOTUS, officially granted transgenders the full protections of the law.
It’s gonna get worse as the empire collapses.
Vox has posted an article titled “How the Supreme Court put itself in charge of the executive branch” in which they complain about SCOTUS declaring that the Biden administration cannot do things like fight climate change, declare pistol braces to be illegal, or forgive student loans. The entire article is complete bullshit. The President never had those powers, and it’s time that we all recognized why.
The document that grants powers of lawmaking to the Federal government is Article 1 of the Constitution, which lays out the lawmaking power of the United States in Section 1:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States
The laws passed by Congress are called the United States code (USC). This is what the USC looked like in 1925. Note that all of the laws passed by Congress in the first 150 years of its existence were found in one book:
That one volume represents all of the laws that were passed by Congress in the first 150 years of this country’s existence. That Federal Law library has now expanded immensely.
What was one volume in 1925 expanded to become 25 volumes just 90 years later.
Article 2 of the Constitution lays out the duties of the Executive branch, along with those of the chief executive (The President).
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
The duties of the President are found in sections 2 and 3, which I have summed up in the following bullet points:
That last one is really important. He, through the executive branch, sees to it that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed. Note that CONGRESS has been vested with ALL legislative powers, and the executive makes sure that those laws are carried out. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any provision for the Congress to abdicate and delegate its legislative powers to the executive branch.
Even so, our government has created an entire branch of government and of law called Administrative law. It is through this law that administrative departments like the ATF are declaring things to be illegal or prohibited, even when those things are not prohibited by legislation.
Administrative law is the body of law created by the agencies and departments of the government, which carry out the laws passed by Congress or a state legislature. Why do they need help doing this? BEcause most of the members of Congress are complete morons who spend most of their time chasing pussy, getting drunk, and using their power to enrich themselves. They don’t have time to be informed on the issues, so they punt.
When Congress passes a law on a complicated issue, Congress often needs help determining all of the details of how the law will be enforced and implemented, because they are corrupt morons. Administrative agencies and government departments fill in those gaps for Congress and pass additional rules and regulations to achieve what they want Congress’s goals to be, in their own opinion. Of course there is a great deal of corruption, graft, and people putting their own desires and spin on the ball.
All of these administrative laws are called the Code of Federal regulations. The number and complexity of laws passed by the executive dwarfs the 25 volumes of laws that have been passed by Congress.
This, despite the fact that the Constitution explicitly states that all legislative Powers shall be vested in Congress, and makes no provisions for Congress to abdicate, delegate, or assign those legislative powers to the executive branch.
The case of Marbury v. Madison established the concept of Judicial review. The court has had the power to declare laws unconstitutional ever since. In my opinion, the Supreme Court hasn’t gone far enough in declaring that the entire CFR is unconstitutional wherever and whenever those regulations do anything except control how the laws will be enforced. As soon as a regulation changes the plain meaning of the wording of any law passed by Congress, it is null and void.
For example, there is nothing in the laws passed by Congress that would permit a machine gun to be defined as anything other than a firearm that discharges more than one shot for each function of the trigger. The President can’t forgive student loans because all expenditures must originate from the House of Representatives. If Congress wanted student loans forgiven, they would have done so.
Of course, that can’t happen any longer. The system is far too complex for it to suddenly by unrestrained. The damage that has been done to the intended form of government by permitting these administrative agencies to write laws out of wholesale cloth.
On June 1, the Republicans caved by giving President Biden a blank check to borrow whatever and how ever much money he wants to spend. On that day, the US debt stood at $31.46 Trillion. Within a month, the US had borrowed another Trillion dollars. Here we are, just six and a half weeks after they handed him the credit cards, with $32.54 Trillion in debt.
Proving that the Democrats never deal on ANYTHING with good faith, they are already calling for the abrogation of the handshake agreement that the parties reached to rein in the spending. They are borrowing money at a rate of over $100 Billion every business day. To put that in perspective, I wrote in 2009 that Obama had broken a record by borrowing a Trillion dollars in only six months.
It took this nation over 200 years to borrow a trillion dollars. Trump did it in seven months, Obama did it in only 6 months. It took Biden 9 months to borrow his first Trillion dollars, but he soon got better at it. His second trillion took three months, borrowing $2 trillion in his first year. In fact, he has increased the national debt by 118% in just two and a half years.
President Trump increased the National Debt by 134% in four years.
Obama increased the debt by 194% in eight years.
President George W Bush borrowed his first trillion dollars in two and a half years. He borrowed his second trillion a year and a half later. Another two years, another $1 trillion. All told, President Bush borrowed $5 trillion in 8 years, increasing the national debt by 187%.
It took President Clinton 3 and a half years to borrow his first trillion dollars. All told, he borrowed $1.2 trillion in his first term, and $600 billion in his second. He increased the national debt by 140% in eight years.
George HW Bush borrowed his first trillion in 3 years, and he increased the National debt by 170% in four years.
Reagan borrowed his first trillion in 6 years, and doubled the National debt during his eight years in the White House.
Carter increased the National debt by 150%, but “only” borrowed $300 billion in 4 years. I guess that was when $1 Billion was real money.
Ford increased the debt by 147% in 3 years., Nixon by 135% in 5 years, Johnson by 116% in 6 years, Kennedy by 106% in 2 years, Eisenhower by 108% in eight years.
Democrats, and Republicans, both in a contest to see who can spend the most in our society of “how much can you give me if I vote for you.”
Remember when the Biden spokeswoman told us that borrowing trillions didn’t cost anything because it was already accounted for? So that’s where we are- under Biden, the US has borrowed $4.75 trillion in just two and a half years. This can’t continue.
By definition, anything that can’t continue, won’t. There is no amount of voting that will fix this.
July 4, 1776 is not the nation’s birthday. It is the day that the colonies declared independence from England. The true birthdate of the nation was the day that the US Constitution was ratified- June 21, 1788. Most of what we learned in history class was simply incorrect.
The military supply system is stupid and messed up. Everything has a stock number and a description. They frequently don’t make sense. For example, a flyswatter is referred to as “Exterminator, Insect, Manual.” When I was a new E-4, I was forced into the role of Supply Petty Officer for the workcenter by the E-4 who was previously the most junior. He was glad to be rid of the job. I was soon to understand why.
On July 1, 1941, a requisition was submitted for 150 rolls of toilet paper by an officer aboard the submarine USS Skipjack (SS-184). As the boat patrolled the Pacific, the requested item never arrived. In March 1942, Lieutenant Commander James Coe took command of the Skipjack. As Coe settled into his new role, he learned of the missing toilet paper. On June 19, Coe received a canceled invoice for 150 rolls of toilet paper. The request was the original from July 1941 and was stamped “canceled-cannot identify.” Coe wrote a response that is famous within the Navy today.
1. This vessel submitted a requisition for 150 rolls of toilet paper on July 30, 1941, to USS HOLLAND. The material was ordered by HOLLAND from the Supply Officer, Navy Yard, Mare Island, for delivery to USS Skipjack.
2. The Supply Officer, Navy Yard, Mare Island, on November 26, 1941, cancelled Mare Island Invoice No. 272836 with the stamped notation “Cancelled—cannot identify.” This cancelled invoice was received by Skipjack on June 10, 1942.
3. During the 11 1/2 months elapsing from the time of ordering the toilet paper and the present date, the Skipjack personnel, despite their best efforts to await delivery of subject material, have been unable to wait on numerous occasions, and the situation is now quite acute, especially during depth charge attack by the “back-stabbers.”
4. Enclosure (2) is a sample of the desired material provided for the information of the Supply Officer, Navy Yard, Mare Island. The Commanding Officer, USS Skipjack cannot help but wonder what is being used in Mare Island in place of this unidentifiable material, once well known to this command.
5. Skipjack personnel during this period have become accustomed to use of “ersatz,” i.e., the vast amount of incoming non-essential paper work, and in so doing feel that the wish of the Bureau of Ships for the reduction of paper work is being complied with, thus effectively killing two birds with one stone.
6. It is believed by this command that the stamped notation “cannot identify” was possible error, and that this is simply a case of shortage of strategic war material, the Skipjack probably being low on the priority list.
7. In order to cooperate in our war effort at a small local sacrifice, the Skipjack desires no further action be taken until the end of the current war, which has created a situation aptly described as “war is hell.”
J.W. Coe
Coe’s letter caused quite a stir and was circulated throughout the fleet. When the Skipjack returned to Australia after her patrol, she was greeted by quite a sight. The pier was stacked seven feet high with boxes of toilet paper instead of the usual crates of fresh fruit and ice cream. Toilet paper streamers decorated the dock, and a band greeted the boat wearing toilet paper neckties and toilet paper flying out of trumpets and horns. The men of the Skipjack would not have to do without toilet paper again, as they were greeted upon every return with cartons of the precious paper.
Back to my story: we had an upcoming deployment, and I had to order supplies to get us through the first six months. I was told to order some superglue and some wooden handled cotton swabs. I looked them up, and the superglue was listed as “adhesive, cyanoacrylate” with a unit of issue of CS (meaning case) and a unit cost of $1.44. The cotton swabs were listed as “applicator, cotton tip, wood handle” with a unit of issue of BG (bag) and a cost of $0.29. No mention in either case of how many were in a case or a bag. At the time, the military was known to be paying $400 for a hammer, so I had to guess.
I guessed that there were at most 2 tubes of superglue per case, and ordered 12 units of superglue, and that there were at most 10 swabs per bag, so I ordered 100 bags of them. What it turned out was that there were 144 tubes of glue per case, and 100 swabs per bag. I wound up with 1,700 tubes of superglue and 10,000 cotton swabs. This mistake was legendary. I caught shit about it for the entire deployment.
When I passed the job on to the newly promoted guy a few months later, I was evil about it. We sent him down to supply to get a can of eh-eye-arr. He came back to supply with a bottle marked “Air, room temperature.” He got the best of me.
As a follow up to yesterday’s post on hospitals and businesses prohibiting carry in the wake of the new constitutional carry law that went into effect in Florida on Saturday, we will address the next two claims:
First, let’s look at the claim that concealed carry isn’t permitted in hospitals. There are two laws that can be applied here, with the first of them being 394.458:
Except as authorized by law or as specifically authorized by the person in charge of each hospital providing mental health services under this part, it is unlawful to introduce into or upon the grounds of such hospital, or to take or attempt to take or send therefrom, any of the following articles, which are hereby declared to be contraband for the purposes of this section:
1. Any intoxicating beverage or beverage which causes or may cause an intoxicating effect;
2. Any controlled substance as defined in chapter 893; or
3. Any firearms or deadly weapon.
Note that this is uncharted territory. The law as it existed in 2022 specifically says “except as authorized by law” and Florida’s 790.06 does authorize one to carry a concealed weapon, and paragraph (12) gives a specific list of places off limits to carry. The addition of constitutional carry (PDF alert) also states that a person who is otherwise qualified for a permit may carry a weapon under the same conditions as a person with a permit.
The problem here is that one could make the argument that 790.06 authorizes (by law) carry in places except those listed in 790.06(12), and 790.06(15)(c) specifically says:
This section does not modify the terms or conditions of s. 790.251(7).
Meaning that the legislature means for this law to supersede others in restricting carry at certain locations, and when they don’t want it to do so, make it clear in the statute. The issue with this argument is that it can only be made in court after you have been arrested. Since no one has yet done so (as evidenced by the fact that there is no case law spelling out the limits here) this is an issue that has not yet been tested in the courts, so you do so at your own peril.
What is interesting is the second law that affects hospitals: 790.145. That law specifically says:
Unless otherwise provided by law, any person who is in possession of a concealed “firearm,” as defined in s. 790.001(6), or a “destructive device,” as defined in s. 790.001(4), within the premises of a “pharmacy,” as defined in chapter 465, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2) The provisions of this section do not apply:
(a) To any law enforcement officer;
(b) To any person employed and authorized by the owner, operator, or manager of a pharmacy to carry a firearm or destructive device on such premises; or
(c) To any person licensed to carry a concealed weapon.
Since a person who is carrying without a permit under Florida’s constitutional carry law -IS- carrying without a permit, and most hospitals are or contain pharmacies, is it still illegal for a person who is otherwise legally carrying a concealed weapon without a permit to have a firearm while inside of a pharmacy? Is this one of those cases that I mentioned above, where the legislature exempts a law when it intends to? Or has the legislature left a legal mess that the courts will have to deal with later? In my opinion, this is another case where the law is confusing and unclear, and the courts will have to deal with it after someone is arrested and charged with the crime, whereupon his lawyer will have to make this argument.
So to sum up the answer to the claim that you can’t carry in a hospital in Florida: The answer is maybe. It is specifically illegal to carry a firearm into a hospital or pharmacy in Florida, but not if you are authorized by law to do so. The law is unclear on whether or not people can carry into a hospital, or whether those who are carrying under constitutional carry may do so into a pharmacy. This question will not be cleared up unless the legislature cleans up the law, or until the courts rule on this one way or the other.
The legal issues here are quite a mess, and the only people who benefit from what the legislature has done here will be lawyers and those who write books about what the law means (in many cases, lawyers who are also authors). It will be interesting to see Jon Gutmacher’s take on this when my copy of Florida Firearms book gets here later in the week. That book is the bible for those who carry or use firearms in Florida, and there are more than a few judges who have his books on their bookshelf. If you own or carry a firearm in Florida, you should have a copy of it.
We will address the last of the three claims tomorrow when we look at “Concealed carry isn’t allowed in police stations, and our hospital contains a ‘police substation'” I think that this post is long enough already.
Now, the disclaimer: I don’t advertise, and receive nothing for my reviews or articles. I have no relationship with any products, companies, or vendors that I review here, other than being a customer. If I ever *DO* have a financial interest, I will disclose it. Otherwise, I pay what you would pay. No discounts or other incentives here. I only post these things because I think that my readers would be interested.
In this case, I have had a relationship with the author of the book that I mention in this post. You can read about it here. I wrote an email to Mr. Gutmacher at the time, letting him know that the property records of Florida showed that the property licensed for explosives manufacture and the resorts were two different pieces of property, as they must be, because under the fire code, you can’t have a hotel on the same property with an explosives factory. He was interested in my point, but I don’t know if he made that point in his legal case or not.
I do not make any money from the book, or from Mr. Gutmacher, but I still want to disclose the relationship, however tenuous it was.
I was at work last night and the supervisor of security came wandering through the ED. One of the nurses asked him if Florida’s new concealed carry law was going to make his job more difficult. His reply was that many people in Florida don’t realize that concealed carry doesn’t apply to the hospital. When I asked him why the law didn’t apply, his reply was that there were three reasons:
When I told him that most of those statements weren’t what the law says, he told me that he and the police likely know more about the law than I do, so I should just stay in my lane. Let’s tackle his claims one at a time, with this post addressing the “property owner” argument:
The police are the ones circulating the “carry isn’t allowed on private property” trope, and I am not sure where it’s coming from. I searched the social media pages of every sheriff’s office in central Florida, along with a sampling of city police departments. This is what I found:
It’s being pushed by a fair number of law enforcement agencies all over the state. The problem here is that the law says nothing of the sort. The new law says that a person who doesn’t have a permit but would otherwise be eligible for one may still carry a concealed weapon or firearm wherever they could carry that weapon if the DID have a permit. There is a list of places off limits to carry that can be found in 790.06(12). Property owners prohibiting carry is not anywhere on that list.
The only statement that could be construed as allowing a property owner to prohibit carry is the general property rights that any property owner has. If you are in a place not specifically mentioned in the law as being prohibited for concealed carry, but it has posted “no guns” signs, and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged. Even if the property is not posted and you are asked to leave you must leave, but that is different from claiming that the “law doesn’t apply” to private property. If they don’t ask you to leave, it is legal to carry right past a “no guns” sign.
Since this is being widely pushed by some (but no all) police agencies all over the state, I can’t help by believe that this is an intentional misstatement by law enforcement to enforce a law that doesn’t exist.
Next, we will take a look at carry in hospitals and police stations.
Although the Department is a relative newcomer among Cabinet-level agencies, its origins goes back to 1867, when President Andrew Johnson signed legislation creating the first Department of Education. Its main purpose was to collect information and statistics about the nation’s schools. However, due to concern that the Department would exercise too much control over local schools, the new Department was demoted to an Office of Education in 1868.
Over the years, the office remained relatively small, operating under different titles and housed in various agencies, including the U.S. Department of the Interior and the former U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare (now Health and Human Services).
Beginning in the 1950s, political and social changes resulted in expanded federal funding for education. The successful launch of the Soviet Union’s Sputnik in 1957 spurred nationwide concern that led to increased aid for science education programs. The 1960s saw even more expansion of federal education funding: President Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” called for the creation of many programs to improve education for poor students at all levels—early childhood through postsecondary. This expansion continued in the 1970s with national efforts to help racial minorities, women, people with disabilities and non-English speaking students gain equal access to education. In October 1979, Congress passed the Department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88). Created by combining offices from several federal agencies, the Department began operations in May 1980.
In the 1860s, a budget of $15,000 and four employees handled education fact-finding. By 1965, the Office of Education had more than 2,100 employees and a budget of $1.5 billion. As of mid-2010, the Department has nearly 4,300 employees and a budget of about $60 billion.
In 1868, there was concern that the DoE would exert too much control over local schools, so it was demoted to an “Office of Education” with four employees and a budget of $15,000. It was made into a cabinet level department in 1979, under Jimmy Carter. Since then, it has grown to 4,300 employees and a $60 billion budget. It now issue orders to local schools encompassing everything from curriculum to what they must serve for lunch. I would say that the fears of “too much control over local schools” was well founded.
It’s well past time to get rid of the Department of Education. There is no reason for this bloated department to make decisions for each state and how it will run its schools. You can’t say that test scores are any better or worse, because it is impossible to know. There is no way to measure performance of students in 1979 and compare it to now. Tests that were taken by students have been changed several times over the years, so that it is impossible to determine whether or not students today are any better or worse off than counterparts from other time periods.
