Vaccine Mandates, Civil Asset Forfeiture, Big Tech, And More
Hey fam, happy Friday. I’ve received countless stories from readers over the past few days of cases involving government abuse. If you see a story that I need to highlight, just reply to this email with a link. After all, you’re part of the family. Let’s get started.
No vaccine, no domestic travel?
We’ve known for a few days that the Biden administration was strongly considering the implementation of enhance COVID testing requirements for international travel. We’ve also known since early yesterday morning that the mask mandate for all flights was extended through March 18th. What we learned late yesterday was the Biden administration was not eliminating the possibility of requiring vaccinations to travel on domestic flights.
This is from Fox News:
"I would say that nothing is off the table, so, including domestic travel," Psaki said, noting that there are "some strong protections in place already, including the requirement of mask wearing."
Life savings, gone.
Stephen Lara, a marine combat veteran was driving through Nevada when he was stopped by Nevada Highway Patrol. He was not speeding and according to reports, a police officer complimented his driving. When asked if police had his permission to search his vehicle, he consented. Lara was traveling with his lifesavings in cash because he does not trust banks. Police found almost $90K in his vehicle and seized it without probable cause. Lara’s next statement was chilling: "I just want to tell you Officer Brown, you're taking money out of my kids' mouths"
This is from Reason Magazine:
With no probable cause to seize the cash, a Nevada Highway Patrol sergeant who arrived on the scene ordered a drug-sniffing dog to be brought in. The dog alerted on the cash, and the officers announced that they would be seizing it as probable drug proceeds.
Civil liberties organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Institute for Justice say that cases like Lara's show how police use civil forfeiture to seize property on flimsy suspicions. The owners, who are never charged with a crime, then bear the burden of going to court to prove their innocence, or rather the innocence of their property, to be precise.
After the case was brought to light, the Institute for Justice filed suit on Lara's behalf against the DEA. The money was returned with interest but the larger concern around civil asset forfeiture remains.
California makes the supply chain worse.
Have you noticed the empty shelves at the grocery story and the out of stock items on Amazon? Don’t expect that to change.
The port of Los Angeles is one of the most vital ports in the frazzled mess that is the United States supply chain. Instead of helping the system, the port is dispersing the ships which will lead to longer delays. The port claimed that ships waiting to unload were hurting the air quality in Los Angeles and are now encouraging ships to wait 50 to 150 miles offshore.
This is from National Review:
So now instead of a pack of ships waiting close to the shore, there’s a more dispersed pack of ships waiting farther away from the shore. That’s not a success for American supply chains, but it allows port authorities to pat themselves on the back. Port of Los Angeles executive director Gene Seroka said on Tuesday that “the number of ships at anchor has decreased by more than 40 percent over a four-week period.” Port of Long Beach executive director Mario Cordero told CNBC on November 24 that “the vessels at anchor have been diminished” and “we’re having some progress in addressing the capacity constraints at the terminals.”
Conservatives get banned more than progressives.
This is a newsletter about government abuse but big tech abuse can’t be ignored either. Kara Frederick from The Heritage Foundation revealed some disturbing facts in a congressional hearing earlier this week about big tech.
Take a listen:
Public land unless you want to hunt?
The Trump administration radically opened the ability for hunting on federal public lands. As expected, radical environmentalist want to undo it. They claim in a new lawsuit that lead ammunition is bad for animals even if they are not directly shot with it.
This is from The Reload:
The suit takes direct aim at a rule finalized in August of 2020 that marked the culmination of the Trump administration’s efforts to increase access to public lands for outdoor sporting and recreation. If the lawsuit is successful, up to 2.3 million acres of federal public land across the country could be made off-limits for hunting, sport shooting, and fishing.
At the time the rule was enacted, the Department of the Interior called it the single largest expansion of hunting and fishing opportunities in the Fish and Wildlife Service’s history. But environmental advocates say that expansion could come at a cost to threatened, non-game species.
“Opening national refuges to increased hunting means that rare and beautiful animals like grizzly bears, ocelots and whooping cranes now face increased risk of death, ingestion of toxic lead shot, and other harms,” Camila Cossio, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, said. “With wildlife already confronted by so many threats to their survival, they rely on refuges to be safe havens.”
Happy Friday. We’ll be back on Monday.
Thank you Lawrence. On the supply chain issue. Maybe it’s a blessing in disguise. A monumental effort but stop buying “Made in China”, buy American!
Lawrence, lead in the form of shot or single bullets when ingested does cause lead poisoning in animals. Particularity affected are water foul that feed off the bottom. I do not agree with banning of hunting but the ban should be on lead projectiles that does result in poisoning.