Muda69

We've Already Blown Past Last Year's Federal Budget Deficit: https://reason.com/2019/08/13/weve-already-blown-past-last-years-federal-budget-deficit/ This combined with this: Dow tumbles 600 points after bond market flashes a recession warning: https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/14/investing/dow-stock-market-today/index.html Good times ahead........................

Andrew Luck's "Small Little Bone" Injury Is Apparently On The Move: https://deadspin.com/andrew-lucks-small-little-bone-injury-is-apparently-o-1837222894 This injury story is looking like it's going to spiral out of control, much like Mr. Luck's serious shoulder injury did.

https://reason.com/2019/08/14/the-case-for-legalizing-organ-sales/ Agreed. Government needs to let the free market work, in this case a voluntary transaction between two consenting adults.

https://mises.org/wire/abolish-federal-death-penalty Is the Death Penalty Ever Warranted? I am not an anti-death-penalty absolutist. That is, in some cases where the testimony and physical evidence is overwhelming — and the crimes are particularly heinous — the death penalty could be warranted, at least in theory. But given police corruption, incompetent prosecutors, and an over-reliance on circumstantial evidence in court, a great many death-penalty cases are built on a pretty shaky foundation. Moreover, it is extremely likely thatinnocent people have been executed in the United States whether through errors, or through outright fraud on the part of government officials. In other words, the death penalty is serious business, and given that government bureaucrats can't even run the DMV or the VA competently, there's no reason to assume their criminal-justice skills are anything deserving of our unconditional trust. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that the death penalty could be justly applied in some cases. There's No Need for a Federal Death Penalty When examining the federal death penalty, however, it quickly becomes apparent that it is simply unnecessary — and should be completely abolished. State laws already address the need to prosecute violent criminals. Murder, rape, assault, and other violent crimes are already illegal in every state of the Union. If Smith murders Wilson in, say, Pennsylvania, Smith can be tried for murder under Pennsylvania law. This is true even if Smith employs bombs, airplanes, or other tools associated with international terrorism. There is no need for an extra layer of federal criminal justice. For example, Timothy McVeigh, who was convicted of the Oklahoma City bombing, was certainly eligible to be tried for murder under Oklahoma law. Those who perpetrated 9/11 were certainly eligible to be tried for murder under New York and Virginia laws. But McVeigh was tried for the federal crime of killing a federal agent. Zacarias Moussaoui was prosecuted in federal court for his role in the 9/11 attacks, specifically "conspiracy to murder United States employees," among other crimes. Although these sorts of killings are certainly illegal in the states where they occur, the federal government insists on having prerogatives to prosecute defendants under federal law also. This is often done to add an additional layer of possible prosecution, and so that defendants can be prosecuted more than once for the same crime. This is a violation of the Bill or Rights, of course (as explained by Justice Neil Gorsuch) but federal courts have looked the other way on this loophole for years. Besides, cases of terrorism or international crime rings are hardly what's behind most capital cases in federal court. We're not talking about Russian crime bosses or domestic supervillains. On the contrary, nearly all defendants in capital cases in federal court are brought to trial for run-of-the-mill crimes involving drug deals, bank robberies, or other acts that are already violations of state criminal statutes. Moreover, in some cases, federal prosecutors deliberately go against the wishes of local prosecutors. Lezmond Mitchell, for example, is a Navajo Indian who was convicted of murdering a Navajo woman and her granddaughter on Navajo land. He is now awaiting execution in a federal prison. But note the murders took place on Navajo land, and Navajo law does not allow the death penalty. Nonetheless, the federal government inserted itself into the case. According to an analysis by The Intercept: No one directly involved with the case who lived within 500 miles of the reservation demanded the death penalty. But then-US Attorney General John Ashcroft intervened to ensure the death penalty was on the table. Expanding Federal Powers The fact that a car theft had allowed the federal government to demand jurisdiction in the Mitchell case reflects a longtime strategy used by federal lawmakers to expand federal jurisdiction over time. By gradually adding more and more federal criminal offenses to the statute books, federal policymakers have made it possible for the federal government to insinuate iselfs into an ever growing number of crminal investigations. The US Constitution, meanwhile, only mentions three federal crimes: treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. Only piracy involves crimes that necessarily occur beyond the jurisdiction of state laws against violent crime. Counterfeiting, in contrast, is merely a type of fraud. And fraud is already illegal in every state. Treason is only a real problem if it involves violent acts against others — in which case it is already covered by state laws against violent crime. All other federal crimes beyond these three are based on tortured legal reasoning designed to do an end run around the Tenth Amendment. They're justified under the "necessary and proper" clause or the commerce clause. They are redundant and largely function to greatly expand federal intervention into each and every American community. Beyond piracy, the entire federal apparatus for criminal prosecutions ought to be abolished. But the federal death penalty is a good place to start. Agreed. The federal criminal justice 'system' is out of control.

https://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2016/08/10/the-list-of-clinton-associates-whove-died-mysteriously-check-it-out/ 47 - Jeffery Epstein.

hhttps://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit-dropped-230770

https://reason.com/2019/08/13/if-youre-near-the-scene-of-a-crime-authorities-can-demand-that-google-hand-over-your-data/ The slippery slope of the police state continues unabated.

What part of "arrested" do you not understand? As long as Mr. Epstein evaded the long arm of the law the Clintons had really no reason to deal with him, and now with his arrest they did. Possibly Mr. Trump as well. Which side 'suicided' Mr. Epstein? We'll probably never really know.

So the late Mr. Epstein was arrested for the sexual abuse of children during those years when it was known that Mr. Clinton flew on Mr. Epstein's plane? No, Mr. Epstein was 'suicided' because he had dirt on Mr. Clinton and others, possibly even Mr. Trump. The Clinton have done it before. #clintonbodycount.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/public-school-cronyism-is-fueling-the-pension-crisis/ Another ticking time bomb set to go off.

So that permit is just filling out a few lines and paying a few thousand $? Is Indiana tank friendly? There used to be a private military/tank museum near Crawfordsville that IIRC had dozens of those types of vehicles.

https://mises.org/wire/why-dollar-rules-world-—-and-why-its-reign-could-end Looks like history is doomed to repeat itself.

Every Democrat in the Senate Supports a Constitutional Amendment That Would Radically Curtail Freedom of Speech: https://reason.com/2019/08/12/every-democrat-in-the-senate-supports-a-constitutional-amendment-that-would-radically-curtail-freedom-of-speech/

One wonders why our civilian peacekeepers, aka local law enforcement, are allowed to own and use military grade weaponry, but now the call is not allow the actual civilians to own and use them? Cops Still Love Their Armored Vehicles: https://reason.com/2019/08/13/cops-still-love-their-armored-vehicles/ If local civilian law enforcement is allowed to own and use MRAP's, concussion grenades, etc. then why can't I own and use a bazooka, or a tank?

It's a manifesto, so he's obviously lying. Right?

He was paid to say that by the Clintons.

https://reason.com/2019/08/11/illinois-is-the-canary-in-the-pension-coal-mine-says-adam-schuster/#comments The state of Illinois is pretty much waiting for a federal government bailout at this point. And because of Chicago they will probably get it. How nice to make all Americans pay for bad decisions of Illinois.

Yes sir, Mr. Grammar Nazi sir. But perhaps you could have actually asked me if I still owned said gun before making yet another nitpicking statement. I used both the shotgun and the rifle. Hunted for squirrel and rabbit with the shotgun, mainly target shot with the rifle.