Tapp into the Truth
News • Politics
Welcome to the Tapp into the Truth community. You don't have to be a listener or a fan of the show to be part of this community (but it helps). You just need to be a fan of personal liberty, a defender of the Constitution, and a lover of the republic that was founded as the United States of America.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
Biden’s DOJ Moves To Challenge States Over Abortion Laws With New Task Force

How do you fight back when it is the DOJ that is acting in a lawless manner? (Answer: one court case at a time; one election at a time.) It doesn't matter that the political left wants abortion on demand, the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision makes it clear that the federal government should not be involved in promoting or discouraging abortion. The existence of the so-called “Reproductive Rights Task Force” is the use of taxpayer dollars and resources to promote abortion and an overreach of power the federal government does not have to attack states on a matter that is a state issue.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/bidens-doj-moves-to-challenge-states-over-abortion-laws-with-new-task-force

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Posts
Articles
September 06, 2024
Tapp into the Truth - Deprogramming, Vaxxed, In-Vest & CO2 Coalition

The Thursday livestream is in the archives. You can watch it now if you missed it. My guests were: The host of Deprogramming With Grace's Dad, Scott Schara, as we discussed the tragedy of his daughter’s death and why he insists that it was “medical murder,” the new film Vaxxed 3, and the research that he has been doing in the effort to help deprogram people from believing that you can just trust everyone in the medical profession. Michael A. Letts, Founder, President, and CEO of In-Vest USA, who joined me to talk about his organization, In-Vest USA, and the current consequences of the current open border policies that have led to illegal alien criminal actions focused against U.S. citizens. And Gregory Wrightstone, geologist, Executive Director of the CO2 Coalition, and best-selling author, discussed the benefits of CO2, China and other developing nations’ focus on increasing the use of fossil fuels, and the current policy goals for EVs.

...

placeholder
Don't Give Up The Ship, Carrying the Cross in the Desert, & Battle for America

If you missed the Friday live show (9/6/24), I had great conversations with my guests, retired Naval Aviator Captain Tom Burbage, who is President of the Calvert Task Group and a contributing author of the new book Don't Give Up The Ship; Randy L Noble, a prolific author and host of the podcast The Cross in the Desert: Speaking Hope and Freedom to Iran; and Richard V. Battle, a multiple award-winning author and political commentator. Give it a listen now.

https://www.spreaker.com/episode/don-t-give-up-the-ship-carrying-the-cross-in-the-desert-battle-for-america--61290762

September 06, 2024
Navy Secretary Faces Hatch Act Violation for Comments on Biden

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel says that Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro violated the Hatch Act for statements supporting Joe Biden during a work trip to the United Kingdom. Secretary Del Toro has acknowledged in the past that military work and partisan politics should not be mixed. While civilian Defense Department employees like Del Toro are permitted to publicly back political candidates in a personal capacity, the Hatch Act prohibits federal officials from engaging in political activities while serving in their official capacity.

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2024/09/05/del-toro-faces-hatch-act-violation-for-comments-on-biden

August 02, 2024
post photo preview
Communicate Like a Pro When You're Not One

  If you are a business leader, public speaker, content creator, or just someone tapped to give a presentation, you will need to convey a message. Your success will be judged not by the organization of your data or the passion you exude (although those are undoubtedly important) but by how well you communicate your message to the audience you find yourself attempting to connect with. The most successful communicators often adhere to a few simple rules. Rules that if you keep in mind, will allow you to add "expert communicator" to your skill set.

   The first thing to keep in mind is who your target audience is. This is not just a generic, common-sense point, but a crucial aspect of effective communication. Your audience is not just a group of people you're speaking to, but the very reason for your presentation. Understanding who they are and what they need to hear will determine the best way to deliver your message. This does not mean 'talking down' to groups you think might have trouble understanding the more technical parts of your presentation. However, crafting your message in layperson's terms may be appropriate. In most professional settings, you should avoid adopting slang or colloquialisms of groups of people that you may be addressing but that you are not a part of, as many are likely to find this inauthentic or, worse, offensive. Despite your intentions (attempt at humor, showcase an apparent divide that can be overcome, etc.), this will often end any chance you had in connecting with the audience.

   The second thing to remember when crafting your message is a direct extension of the first. It is absolutely, one hundred percent all on you, the communicator, to ensure your message lands as intended. Miscommunication and misunderstanding are always a risk. We have all heard the adage, "Think before you speak." Taking the time to plan out your message allows you the opportunity to not only spot grammatical errors but also to root out vagueness or regional turns-of-phrase that your audience may not be familiar with. When preparing, you should actively look to eliminate anything unclear. Fill in vagueness with details, and be ready to explain every figure of speech that you use by adding context. And depending on the purpose of your presentation, speech, etc., test your work with people you trust. It is possible to be too close to what you have prepared to spot this type of misstep. Simply put, personal biases are the hardest for you to see. When it is appropriate, let others help you. Regardless, avoiding miscommunication is not your audience's responsibility; it is yours.

   On the topic of personal biases, unless you are a content creator or you are writing an opinion article, you should avoid being biased as much as possible. (This is an extension of knowing your target audience.) We are all individuals, and while many of us may have similar experiences, none of us have the "same" lived experience. The thing to remember here while delivering your message is "Your Truth is not The Truth," so if you rely on your biases to convey your message, you will lose the parts of the group you are trying to reach that do not share your bias. Avoid it unless you are one hundred percent certain that, when it comes to your audience, "Your Truth is also Their Truth."  

   Lastly, never underestimate the power of storytelling. The human brain has literally evolved to use storytelling to teach lessons, share information, and better remember what we have been told. There are some circumstances where it may not be appropriate to use storytelling as a tool for delivering your message, but that is the exception, not the rule. Proper storytelling will not only reach your audience in a way that charts and graphs never will, but it will also help clarify your points, as discussed earlier.

   We could discuss hundreds of other tips and dig deep into the specifics of when to do this and why never to do that, but if you are not a communications professional, you may never need anything more than these tips. They are the most basic building blocks of effective communication, and while they may seem so obvious, all you have to do is look around just a little, and you will find multiple examples of people trying to make a point but missing the mark because they didn't follow these tips. Making an elevator pitch to investors, writing a social media post in support of your favorite political candidate, or communicating whatever to whomever, these tips will help you be more effective.

Read full Article
post photo preview
Legal Standing: Meaningful Legal Principle or Convenient Tool for Activist Judges

   Before a lawsuit is allowed to proceed in the United States, there is a question that must be answered to the satisfaction of the presiding judge. "Does the party seeking judicial relief have standing?" Okay, so what is "Legal Standing," and how is it determined? The definition is simple enough, but determining who meets that bar is often a matter of judgment of the judge or judges hearing the case. 

   Standing is the legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To have Standing, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action. The judge must first decide if the person or group that has filed the complaint/challenge has been "sufficiently affected," which can sometimes be a simple matter - for example, I hit you with my car while I was driving, you have been "sufficiently affected" by that action - but then on other occasions, it's not as simple - for example; You are a taxpayer living in Florida, and the U.S. Congress raises taxes to pay for a program that will only operate in the Pacific Northwest, the court is likely to find that you are not "sufficiently affected" to sue to stop Congress from raising your taxes as all taxpayers are subject to the authority of Congress as they are operating within their Constitutional responsibilities. If the court rules that you are "sufficiently affected," then you are one step closer but still do not have standing yet.  

   Next, the court must decide if it is appropriate to intervene in the matter at hand. Is there clear, Constitutional law or legal case precedent that should be upheld and would end the dispute hand? Or, is the question outside the judicial branch's or government's preview altogether? Once both of the questions of "sufficiently affected" and "can be resolved by legal action" have been answered, the case may move forward. 

   Standing is a Constitutional principle designed to prevent government overreach and protect individual rights. However, given the nature of determining the question of Standing, an effort to apply the principle in a consistent manner, requirements for Standing have been created in case law. 

 
 

   Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife established three requirements for Article III standing:       

1.) Injury in fact, meaning an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.  

2.)A causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, meaning that the injury can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court. 

3.) A likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, meaning the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. 

 
 

Warth v. Seldin found that in deciding Standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in that person or group's declaration and other affidavits supporting that assertion of Standing. And when addressing a motion to dismiss due to lack of Standing, the court must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing. 

 
 

Over time, other cases have added more requirements via precedent, like  Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity found that when an individual seeks to avail themself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, they must show that there "is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury." And that this requirement is necessary to ensure that "federal courts reserve their judicial power for 'concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions." Someone seeking injunctive or declaratory relief "must show a very significant possibility of future harm to have standing to bring suit." via Nelsen v. King County. 

 
 

   So, as you can see, precedents have established cover for judges to use their judgment - and personal prejudices - rather than well-established law in making determinations about Legal Standing. This leads us back to the question asked in the title of this piece. Has "Legal Standing" transitioned from a Constitutional principle to limit governmental power to become a tool for activist judges who are no longer content with making rulings based on law? Two recent cases illustrate the need for the American people to ask this question. 

 
 

   On August 14th, 2023, District Court Judge Kathy Seeley ruled in favor of sixteen young climate activists in a case dealing with the state's fossil fuel permits. Judge Seeley ruled that the state's approval process for fossil fuel permits violates Montana's state constitution because it does not consider the effects of carbon emissions. The plaintiffs, aged five to 22, sued the state, claiming Montana's fossil fuel policies contribute to climate change. Their lawsuit cited a 1972 clause in Montana's Constitution: "the state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations." Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen is planning to appeal the decision and will most likely win that appeal due largely to the question of Standing for the young activists who brought forth this case. 

   It is clear from Judge Seeley's writing, "Montana's emissions and climate change have been proven to be a substantial factor in causing climate impacts to Montana's environment," and "Plaintiffs have proven that as children and youth, they are disproportionately harmed by fossil fuel pollution and climate impacts." that the judge did not apply law to the ruling but rather their own pro-climate change belief. Without a personal bias on the question before the judge, how does Seeley justify allowing Standing to these young people? Even if you buy into the idea that being young somehow makes you disproportionately impacted by the harms of "climate change," there is still the question of "what is the likelihood that a favorable decision will fix the injury." How does making Montana consider climate change when deciding whether to approve fossil fuel projects such as power plants protect these young people when China, India, and multiple African nations continue to use fossil fuel at ever-increasing levels? Plus, what if, after considering climate change, Montana decides that the good of such a project outweighs the potential harm? Based on requirement three established in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife and buying into the general dogma of the Climate Change religion, Standing should not have been granted; the week-long trial should have never happened. 

    

Also on August 14th, 2023, U.S. District Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the Eastern District of Michigan issued an 18-page order dismissing a case challenging Joe Biden's latest version of a student debt bailout., concluding that the Cato Institute and Mackinac Center for Public Policy lacked the Standing to challenge the bailout. This is after the Supreme Court smacked down the Biden administration over their earlier effort at a bailout for student debt borrowers.  

   The Cato Institute and Mackinac Center for Public Policy's suit claimed that the administration violated federal law by failing to produce the forgiveness policy through the traditional rulemaking process and offering the public the opportunity to comment. (Which is accurate and, if you will recall, was the same grounds that Donald Trump's efforts to end DACA were overturned.) The groups also claimed the policy would harm their recruitment efforts, which is how the groups attempted to establish their Standing. If the filing makes it clear to the court that this policy does harm recruiting for these groups and that addressing the clear violation of the Administrative Procedure Act would correct that harm, then all of the criteria for Standing have been met. So why did Judge Ludington deny Standing? Reading through his 18-page order, at the bottom of page two, Ludington simply stated that "the Plaintiffs, in this case, cannot show such concrete particularized injury and, even if they could, Plaintiffs cannot show causation." No explanation as to why he determined this to be true, just a statement that it is the case. Did the original filing fail to prove the harm to recruiting or that a favorable ruling would correct the issue? Or did Judge Ludington not want to assist conservatives in stopping Joe Biden's attempts to bribe voters going into election season? Either way, it is an awfully convenient excuse not to address the obvious violation of the Administrative Procedure Act committed by the Biden administration. (Just as an FYI, Sheng Li, an attorney at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which is representing the conservative groups in the lawsuit, said, "We disagree with the court's conclusion regarding legal Standing and are reviewing our legal options.") 

 
 

   Given that we are now living in a time where it appears that the Department of Justice has been weaponized to attack political opposition and protect those in power, it feels vital that we restore integrity to all aspects of the judiciary system from the front line of law enforcement to each member of the highest court in the land. Officers and Agents can not behave as if they are above the law; attorneys and judges can not act as if they can re-write the law; personal politics can not be allowed to interfere with the execution of assigned duties. And most importantly, the Constitution must be recognized as the supreme law of the land, not just something to work around in order to get what you want. Otherwise, all is lost. Can we start by agreeing on defining who does and who does not have Standing? 

Read full Article
Californians Are Asking, Where’s the Beef?!
Now that it costs so much to hire entry-level workers it’s no longer worth hiring them

A McDonald's in Panorama City, Los AngelesAmericans - not just the rich ones - used to be able to afford to eat steak every now and then. America is becoming a place where most people can't afford to buy a hamburger - or a burrito - at a fast food chain. That's how it was in the movie Demolition Man.

Now, it's how it is - in reality.

It's not so much because the cost of beef has gone up  - or that the buying power of money has gone down - although that hasn't helped. What's made it so expensive to buy beef at a fast-food burger joint in states like California is the cost of paying people to make them.

Gavin Newsom - the Leftist (there are no "Democrats" anymore) governor of California - recently signed into law a mandatory minimum wage of $20-per-hour for flipping burgers, making tacos, or ringing up customers at fast-food restaurants such as McDonald's and Chipotle.

The result is that regular people increasingly can't afford to eat at McDonald's, Chipotle, or Taco Bell anymore.

Interestingly, Newsom, who is rich enough to eat prime rib for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day, exempted restaurants that make and sell their own bread. This just coincidentally includes Panera restaurants, which Newsom has an interest in protecting from the business-killing policy he signed into law.

According to the Orange County Register, "Panera has 24 locations in California, all owned by Gregg Flynn, Newsom's friend and billionaire campaign donor. Newsom denies carving out the exception to help his friend, despite a Bloomberg article reporting that he and Flynn have a long business relationship, with Flynn apparently bragging to colleagues that he is on a texting basis with the governor."

So Newsom is aware there's a problem when the cost of labor exceeds its value.

Leftists get upset when such evaluations are pointed out. But the market is indifferent to how Leftists feel about how much a fast-food worker's labor is worth. They insist that fast-food workers - who used to be generally teenagers working part-time after school and on weekends - be paid as if these entry-level/first-time jobs were careers rather than learning experiences. Fast-food jobs used to be precisely that. A first-time job you accepted in order to learn how to show up on time, meet someone else's expectations, take pride in your efforts, and hopefully, the value of the money earned. Few, if any, saw a job at McDonald's as a career - unless they wanted to move up to being an assistant manager, then a manager, and (one day) owning their own franchise.

In which case, the minimum wage was a temporary/entry-level wage.

Now that it costs so much to hire entry-level workers, it's no longer worth it to the restaurants to hire them. Despite the initial costs, automation is a far more cost-effective alternative. (McDonald's isn't the only fast-food chain working on automating entry-level/first-time jobs.) Because a Quick Service restaurant doesn't have to pay a computer an hourly wage to take your order or a machine to prepare your burger, they can reduce their overhead costs (which does affect the product's pricing). Automating more is the only way to keep fast-food burgers - and burritos - available at fast-food (rather than steak) prices.

And to keep fast-food restaurants from being pushed out of business.

But there is another cost: the human cost. This is the lost jobs of the people who do them (or did them). It's a hidden cost to those not directly affected by it but no less expensive to those who are. High school kids and other young people no longer get the opportunity to earn money after school and on weekends or to learn how to show up on time, deal with customers, and be good workers. Many of them remain dependent on their parents for money—and remain as children well into adulthood.

Because they never learned how to grow up.

The California Business and Industrial Alliance (CABIA) says "10,000 jobs have been cut across fast food restaurants" since Newsom signed the $20 mandatory minimum wage bill into law last year. Southern California Pizza Co., which owns multiple Pizza Hut stores, announced layoffs of around 841 delivery drivers across the state. Another restaurant chain - Rubio's Coast Grill - recently announced it would be closing 48 of its restaurants across the state.  

More such layoffs are all but certain because a $20 hourly wage is not sustainable - to use a word beloved by the Left. To understand why it isn't, ask why not raise the minimum wage to $100 per hour. That would be a "living wage" - another favorite term of the Left. The problem, of course, is that few businesses could afford to pay it - so it might as well be no wage at all. 

The same applies to the $20 mandatory minimum. It's only paid if the business can afford to pay it and is making—rather than losing—money. 

Leftists like Newsome can afford to be seen as "caring" for the people they drive out of work, who can't afford to eat a beef burrito, taco, or burger at a fast food joint that can't afford to pay staff to make and serve them. 

CABIA president and founder Tom Manzo is right on the money when he says, "Governments, unlike private businesses, have options when they run out of money." By this, he means that governments can take as much money as they like out of taxpayers' pockets.

Leaving those taxpayers with even less money for fast-food burgers or burritos.

All the more reason to buy beef - at affordable prices - by not buying it at the drive-thru. It's not going to do much for the people who've lost their jobs to the $20 minimum wage. But it's a way to avoid paying $20 for a beef burrito, taco, or burger. 

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals