It’s like déjà vu all over again.  Another Supreme Court term has started and another government agency finds itself before the justices trying to justify taking an expansive view of its own authority.  In Garland v. VanDerStok, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) seeks to defend a rule it promulgated two years ago expanding its ability to regulate so-called ghost guns and their parts by expansively interpreting certain terms in—and adding others to—the Gun Control Act of 1968. For those unfamiliar, ghost guns are guns, or gun parts, that can be assembled from online kits and typically do not have serial numbers because the manufacturers argue that these items are not covered by the Gun Control Act’s definition of a “firearm.” That act defines a “firearm” as “(A) Any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; [and] (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon.” But the Gun Control Act does not define what constitutes a frame or receiver. And from shortly after the act’s enactment until 2022, the ATF had defined those terms by regulation as “that part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward position to receive the barrel.” That changed in April 2022 when the ATF promulgated its new rule. As counsel for the challengers explained: The Rule added to the definition of firearm in two pertinent respects.  First, the Rule expanded the definition of frame or receiver to include precursors that “may readily be . . . converted to function as a frame or receiver.” Second, the Rule expanded the definition of firearm to include weapon parts kits that “may readily be . . . converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.” The Rule also changed the regulatory definition of frame or receiver to require housing only of the breechblock (for receivers) or one component of the firing mechanism (for frames. Several entities and individuals challenged this new rule, and both the district court and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the challengers that the ATF exceeded its authority in promulgating this rule. The Supreme Court then granted the Biden-Harris Justice Department’s petition to hear the case, which it did on Tuesday, Oct. 8th. At oral argument Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar (the Biden-Harris administration’s lawyer) made much of the supposed ease with which criminals might buy ghost-gun kits to avoid the background checks and serial numbers required for buying a fully assembled firearm. She continued that no sensible reading of the law would deprive the ATF of authority to regulate ghost guns because such a reading would defeat the congressional purpose behind the Gun Control Act. That summed up the administration’s view of why the ATF’s regulation was desirable as a policy matter. But as Pete Patterson, representing the challengers, made clear, those policy concerns are for Congress to consider—not the ATF, which is simply supposed to implement and enforce the law that Congress has passed. Justice Samuel Alito seemed concerned that the ATF is essentially trying to regulate components that could at some future point become a firearm but that themselves wouldn’t meet the statutory definition of a firearm. He asked whether his pen and blank paper could be considered the equivalent of a grocery list because it could become that at some point. He also asked whether putting “on the counter some eggs, some chopped up ham, some chopped up pepper and onions” could be considered the equivalent of a completed western omelet. Prelogar said that standing alone, it couldn’t because those ingredients could be used to make other dishes too. But she said that if someone went to Trader Joe’s and bought an omelet-making kit that contained all the necessary ingredients and other helpful items to make omelets, it would fair to say someone bought omelets from Trader Joe’s. And by analogy, if someone bought a kit containing all, or most, of the components for making a firearm, those should be treated as the equivalent of the firearm itself. The eventual ruling in this case will be interesting not only because of the implications for owning or making certain types of guns, but also because of how it will relate to two cases the court decided last term.  First, in Garland v. Cargill, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the ATF exceeded its authority by interpreting the term “machine gun” too expansively as to include bump stocks (which can cause semi-automatic firearms to function similarly to automatic firearms but in a mechanically different way). Here, like there, the VanDerStok challengers argue that the ATF has twisted the relevant statutory language and interpreted it too expansively. Second, and more peripherally, is the Supreme Court’s momentous decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo. There, the court rejected its longstanding practice of deferring to agency interpretations of law. While Loper Brightwas not a case about guns, its holding that courts must enforce only the best reading of a given law applies as forcefully to the Gun Control Act as it did to the Magnuson-Stevens Act in Loper Brightor to any other law on the books. And it constrains the ATF as much as any other agency. No more can agencies get by, arguing that their interpretation of the law is reasonable. Accordingly, Prelogar took pains to assure the court that the ATF had the “best” reading of the act, one that was based on the agency’s “longstanding” interpretation, which is another criterion whose relevance the Loper Brightdecision has renewed. At bottom, this case provides an opportunity for the court to consider whether administrative agencies like the ATF can grant themselves regulatory authority over new objects and items simply through their own reinterpretation and expansion of statutory terms. Here, the ATF has sought to use wordsmithing to exert control over gunsmithing in a way Congress never intended.  While it’s hard to predict how the court will ultimately rule, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett both seemed sympathetic to the government’s arguments. And it would be difficult for the challengers to prevail without both of their votes. Barrett seemed sympathetic to Prelogar’s meal-prep analogy asking if these gun kits could be thought of as similar to a HelloFresh meal-prep kit, which contains all of the needed ingredients and recipes for a given meal. And Roberts seemed skeptical during Patterson’s arguments that converting the gun kits into functional firearms could take significant skill. Roberts said, “my understanding is, is that it’s not terribly difficult for someone to do this, and it’s certainly not terribly difficult to take the plastic piece out [as required by some of these gun kits].” While we don’t know when the Supreme Court will issue its decision in this case, we expect the decision no later than the end of the court’s term in June 2025. The post Ghost Guns at SCOTUS: The ATF Once Again Seeks an Expansive View of Its Own Authority appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Preparedness Basics – 5 Simple Steps to Get You Started Today

A Crash Course in Frugalite Soupenomics

Godfather of AI Wins Nobel Prize

The record for holding your breath underwater is over 24 minutes.

The comet photobombed SOHO’s coronagraph.

Al Pacino has shared his harrowing experience of nearly dying from Covid-19 in 2020, revealing he “didn’t have a pulse” for several minutes. In interviews with The New York Times and People, the 84-year-old actor described his battle with the virus before vaccines were available. “They said my pulse was gone. You’re here, and then you’re not. I thought: Wow, you don’t even have your memories. You have nothing. Strange porridge,” Pacino told The New York Times. Pacino recalled feeling unusually ill with a fever and dehydration before losing consciousness. “I was sitting in my house, and then I was gone. Just like that. I didn’t have a pulse,” he said. When paramedics arrived, he woke up surrounded by medical staff in protective gear. “They looked like they were from outer space,” Pacino remarked. “It was shocking to open my eyes and see them. Then I heard, ‘He’s back.'” Speaking to People, Pacino questioned if he had truly died, despite a nurse confirming his lack of pulse. “I thought I experienced death. But how could I be dead? If I was dead, I fainted.” Reflecting on the experience, he told The New York Times he “didn’t see the white light” and felt there was “nothing there” after death. He quoted Hamlet, musing, “It was no more. You’re gone.” Despite this near-death encounter, Pacino says it hasn’t changed his outlook on life. “Not at all,” he told People. Pacino shares more about this event in his upcoming memoir Sonny Boy. His latest film, Modì, Three Days on the Wing of Madness, premiered last week at the San Sebastián Film Festival. The post Al Pacino Discusses His Near-Death Experience and Views on the Afterlife appeared first on Anomalien.com.

Woke is a Marxist philosophy that insists there is no good or evil. It's proponents redefined injustice as justice and vice versa. While we chuckle every week over the circus freaks who represent the ideology, over the past year, we've seen Woke in its purest form AND it's a lot scarier than a man in a dress. On this episode of "Woke of the Weak," I recap how the ideology has devolved into support for terrorism.

Vice President Kamala Harris continued her tour of friendly interviews on Tuesday as she joined CBS’s Stephen Colbert for four segments and a beer on The Late Show. Colbert, who is off for the rest of the week, began with a 60 Minutes parody where he hyped the upcoming interview, “Good evening. It has been a tradition here at The Late Show since yesterday that the major party candidates sit down with me for an interview in October. We invited Kamala Harris to be our guest this evening, and she accepted. That interview in a moment. In the interest of fairness, we also invited former president Donald Trump to go [bleep] himself. He declined our offer.”     In his monologue, Colbert further previewed the softball interview to come as he listed off a series of biographical details, “She attended law school in San Francisco, where she lived with her sister, Maya, and helped her potty-train Maya's daughter. When talking about the experience, Harris said, ‘I'm dealing with this brutal stuff, dog-eat-dog in school, and then I would come home, and we would all stand by the toilet and wave bye to a piece of [bleep].’ Yeah. And if she wins next month, we all get to have the same experience. During the interview, Colbert gushed, “I want to talk about the debate for a second. Which was one of the greatest debate performances I had ever seen anyone do regardless of the opponent, but I want to ask about this.” Holding up a photo of Harris resting her hand beneath her chin, Colbert asked, “This moment went viral from the debate. Can you tell us what you're thinking at this moment right here? And keep in mind, this is CBS, so keep it clean. What was going through your mind there?” Cracking herself up, Harris replied, “It's family TV, right? It starts with a W, there’s a letter in between and then the last letter's F.” Colbert then switched topics, “Your economic plan includes small business tax credits, child care credits, down payment assistance, and other things. Those are the major ones people talk about. One of the ways that you wanted to help pay for some of that is to have billionaires pay their fair share in taxes.” He then wondered, “There are quite a few billionaires who support you… Who's your favorite billionaire? Because we all have a favorite billionaire. On three. One, two, three. Oprah. I'm sorry. I claimed Oprah. You can't take her now.”   Harris took the opportunity to claim, “We have to agree that teachers and firefighters and nurses should not be paying a higher tax rate than billionaires and the biggest corporations. In their second segment, a sarcastic Colbert tried to bat away GOP arguments that Harris is tied to President Joe Biden’s record, “Your opponent and his vice president, the other night at the debates said, ‘Well, Kamala Harris has been vice president for three and a half years. Why hasn't she fixed everything already?’ Can you describe to them what the job of vice president is like and what have you told Tim Walz about the job? Have you described to him the vast powers vested in the vice presidency?” Harris was happy to take the cover, “I have pointed out through my three and a half years of being vice president that it's vice president and there are a lot of responsibilities that you take on.” In the third segment, Colbert was more solemn as he distressingly turned to the Middle East, “Yesterday marked one year since Hamas attacked Israel and led to the massive response by Israel in Gaza. Many people at this point, a year in, are not only horrified by what they’re seeing there, but some people throw off their hands because they see no hope for any sort of peaceful resolution, especially with the spreading to Southern Lebanon and Hezbollah and the attacks by Iran on Israel now. Does anything about this give you hope?”     Harris gave a long and rambling answer that concluded, “We cannot lose some belief in the possibility of it. Because then, to your point, we throw up our hands instead of rolling up our sleeves. But it is complex and it is a conversation that requires probably more time than you and I have right now, but, yeah.” Colbert tried again, “Well, how about briefly then, not to interrupt, but briefly we've been told that a ceasefire deal was very close several times. What does that mean? What does ‘close’ mean?” Harris replied that “details remained” before claiming that “we've got to get a deal done” because of the pain that the hostage families and Palestinians are experiencing.     In their fourth and final segment, Colbert returned to the softballs, “When you first became the nominee and named Tim Walz as your vice president nominee, people were calling at the vibe election. The vibes were all good but elections, I think are won on vibes, because one of the old saws is ‘they just want someone they want to have a beer with’ so would you like to have a beer with me so I can tell people what that's like? Now, we asked ahead of time because I can't just be giving a drink to the vice president of the United States without asking. You asked for Miller High Life. I'm just curious. As the two shared a drink, Colbert quipped, “So, that covers Wisconsin. Okay. All right, let's do Pennsylvania. Let's do Pennsylvania. Eagles or Steelers and no one will be mad. Just choose one of those, but I'm sure it.” Harris replied “49ers,” and with Thursday Night Football only a day away, the only reasonable response to that is “Go Hawks.” Here is a transcript for the October 8 show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 10/8/2024 11:36 PM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: Good evening. It has been a tradition here at The Late Show since yesterday that the major party candidates sit down with me for an interview in October. We invited Kamala Harris to be our guest this evening, and she accepted. That interview in a moment. In the interest of fairness, we also invited former president Donald Trump to go [bleep] himself. He declined our offer. … She attended law school in San Francisco, where she lived with her sister, Maya, and helped her potty-train Maya's daughter. When talking about the experience, Harris said, "I'm dealing with this brutal stuff, dog-eat-dog in school, and then I would come home, and we would all stand by the toilet and wave bye to a piece of [bleep]." Yeah. And if she wins next month, we all get to have the same experience. … 12:00 AM ET COLBERT: I want to talk about the debate for a second. Which was one of the greatest debate performances I had ever seen anyone do regardless of the opponent, but I want to ask about this. Can you tell you us, this moment went viral from the debate. Can you tell us what you're thinking at this moment right here? And keep in mind, this is CBS, so keep it clean. What was going through your mind there? KAMALA HARRIS: It's family TV, right? It starts with a W, there’s a letter in between and then the last letter's F.  COLBERT: Your economic plan includes small business tax credits, child care credits, down payment assistance, and other things. Those are the major ones people talk about. One of the ways that you wanted to help pay for some of that is to have billionaires pay their fair share in taxes.  HARRIS: Yeah, yeah, and big corporations. COLBERT: And big corporations. You know, there are quite a few billionaires who support you. HARRIS: Yes.  COLBERT: You are from northern California, after all— HARRIS: Right. COLBERT: Were they grow them in fields out there. Who's your favorite billionaire? Because we all have a favorite billionaire. On three. One, two, three. Oprah. I'm sorry. I claimed Oprah. You can't take her now. HARRIS: But in all seriousness. COLBERT: Oh, no, not in all seriousness. HARRIS: We have to agree that teachers and firefighters and nurses should not be paying a higher tax rate than billionaires and the biggest corporations. COLBERT: This, I agree. … COLBERT: Your opponent and his vice president, the other night at the debates said “Well, Kamala Harris has been vice president for three and a half years. Why hasn't she fixed everything already?” Can you describe to them what the job of vice president is like and what have you told Tim Walz about the job? Have you described to him the vast powers vested in the vice presidency? HARRIS: I have pointed out through my three and a half years of being vice president that it's vice president and there are a lot of responsibilities that you take on. But did you see the kid who was interviewed after their debate? Oh, you have to see it, Stephen. He gave a total civics lesson about the role of vice president. … COLBERT: Yesterday marked one year since Hamas attacked Israel and led to the massive response by Israel in Gaza. Many people at this point, a year in, are not only horrified by what they’re seeing there, but some people throw off their hands because they see no hope for any sort of peaceful resolution, especially with the spreading to Southern Lebanon and Hezbollah and the attacks by Iran on Israel now. Does anything about this give you hope? Do you know anything about what is possible in that area, reasonably, that would give people reason to frankly keep paying attention? Because Americans will eventually throw up their hands if there is no possible solution. HARRIS: So yesterday we commemorated that massacre that took place on October 7 last year and Doug and I actually decided to have a very simple, brief ceremony. We planted a pomegranate tree at the vice president's residence. In honor of those who were lost, in honor of also what, frankly, and I spoke about this. We must always retain which level of faith in what is possible in terms of shining a light on a moment of darkness.  I truly believe that's important and it is something we learn regardless of your religion or just, I think, what we should all retain some level of optimism and in this matter, we must have a ceasefire and hostage deal as immediately as possible. This war has got to end. It has to end. And we cannot lose some belief in the possibility of it. Because then, to your point, we throw up our hands instead of rolling up our sleeves. But it is complex and it is a conversation that requires probably more time than you and I have right now, but, yeah. COLBERT: Well, how about briefly then, not to interrupt, but briefly we've been told that a ceasefire deal was very close several times. What does that mean? What does "close" mean? HARRIS: Close means that a lot of the details have been worked out, but details remained. And so there has been some progress. But it is meaningless unless a deal is actually reached. So, I don't want to suggest to you that we should be applauded for getting close at times to a deal. The reality of it is 1,200 people massacred. There are still hostages being held in Gaza. I've met with the families of hostages, both who are alive and who have, as we learned recently, who have died.  I have met with families of Palestinians who have been killed, innocent people have been killed in Gaza and there is pain, pain that, and suffering that is happening in that region of the world and we must work, and the United States must work and not lose hope and not throw up our hands around the role we must play in urging and seeking and building toward a resolution and the first thing that's going to unlock that is that we've got to get a deal done and we're not going to give up. … COLBERT: When you first became the nominee and named Tim Walz as your vice president nominee, people were calling at the vibe election. The vibes were all good but elections, I think are won on vibes, because one of the old saws is "they just want someone they want to have a beer with" so would you like to have a beer with me so I can tell people what that's like? Now, we asked ahead of time because I can't just be giving a drink to the vice president of the United States without asking. You asked for Miller High Life. I'm just curious. HARRIS: Okay, the last time I had beer was at a baseball game with Doug. Okay, cheers. COLBERT: So, cheers, there you go. Ooh. Tastes like the beautiful city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. HARRIS: The champagne of beers. COLBERT: There you go. So, that covers Wisconsin. Okay. All right, let's do Pennsylvania. Let's do Pennsylvania. HARRIS: Okay. COLBERT:  Eagles or Steelers and no one will be mad. Just choose one of those, but I'm sure it will be fine. HARRIS: 49ers. 

They call themselves “independent fact-checkers,” but in their “independent” opinion, Republicans have a “culture of lying.” So said PolitiFact founder Bill Adair in promoting his new book, provocatively titled Beyond the Big Lie: The Epidemic of Political Lying, Why Republicans Do It More, and How It Could Burn Down Our Democracy. According to Adair’s book, “the problem began before Donald Trump and will continue after he’s gone." Adair argued it went back to Newt Gingrich, who spurred a Republican House majority in 1994. That sends a signal that the "fact checkers" are in fact Democrats. Gingrich rhetorically broke away from the notion that Democrats were a loyal opposition. He had a more smash-mouth approach that the Democrats weren't good people, but people who wanted to undermine America. They think that's a lie. That deep-seated belief that Republicans lie incessantly matches the current “fact checking” output of PolitiFact. In a NewsBusters analysis of six months of PolitiFact articles (April to September) that evaluated a named politician or public official with a “Truth-O-Meter” ruling reveals that PolitiFact is profoundly tilted against the GOP:   REPUBLICANS (107 fact checks) True/Mostly True: 11 (10.3 percent) Half True: 8 (7.5 percent) Mostly False/False/ Pants On Fire: 88 (82.2 percent) So Republicans are tagged as factually wrong more than four out of five times. It intensified in August and September, when the False-to-True ratio was 51 to 5, more than ten to one.  Now compare it to the Other Party: DEMOCRATS (75 fact checks) True/Mostly True: 27 (36 percent) Half True: 17 (22.7 percent) Mostly False/False/Pants on Fire 31 (41.3 percent) Often Democrats are found equally True and False, with a healthy dash of Half Trues. This finding is actually tougher on the Democrats than it was in the first quarter, when the False-to-True ratio was 10 to 22. In September, PolitiFact found the Democrats on the True side three times and on the False side ten times (and six Half Trues). But as a percentage, Democrats were half as False as Republicans -- and in raw numbers, the Republicans were almost three times more likely to get flagged as False. So adding those numbers to our earlier study of January to March, the difference is clear: Republicans 19-16-135 (79.4 percent Mostly False or worse) Democrats 49-24-41 (36.0 percent Mostly False or worse, but True more than False)   The difference is starker with the presidential nominees. Donald Trump was fact-checked 42 times from April to September, and none were on the True side, two were Half True, and 40 were Mostly False or worse. Forty to zero. Does that look nonpartisan to anyone? Add in the first quarter, and it's 57 to 0. Fully 15 of the 40 new False verdicts were the worst designation of "Pants On Fire," falling just short of the 17 False rulings. From April to September, President Biden was checked 19 times, and he was on the True side as often as the False side, seven and seven (with five Half Trues). For the year, it's nine on the True side and 11 on the False side (10 Half Trues). In that time frame, Kamala Harris was checked 17 times, and she was rated as True or Mostly True on six occasions, and as Mostly False or worse on eight occasions (six Mostly False, two False). She had three Half Trues. For the year, it's eight on the True side and nine on the False side (three Half Trues). Biden drew zero “Pants on Fire” warnings this year, and has only seven of those in the entire history of PolitiFact going back to 2007 (just one during his presidency). Kamala Harris has zero overall, and she was first elected statewide in California in 2010. Trump currently has 201. This is where you can see PolitiFact's editorial aggression, since Newt Gingrich has only twelve. Bernie Sanders has a perfect zero like Kamala. In the April to September time frame, Republicans were whacked as "Pants on Fire" 19 times, and the Democrats only once. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker drew one -- for saying on ABC's This Week that J.D. Vance is "getting known for his obsession with couches." On September 4, Trump was rated as “Pants on Fire” for calling Kamala Harris a “communist.”  But Democrats and leftists (even TV hosts) have called Trump a “fascist.” Search PolitiFact for a harsh rating on that, and you won’t find any fact check. So when you point out this dramatic and partisan disparity, that's painted as just trying to intimidate the People of Fact, according to Bill Adair. His book promo explains "Adair examines how Republicans have tried to change the landscape to allow their lying by intimidating the news media, people in academia and government, and tech companies.”