Tag: land of the free

Metaphysical Shop Owner’s Lawsuit Over Pennsylvania Fortune Telling Ban Moves Ahead

Following a legal victory earlier this summer, a metaphysical shop owner’s lawsuit over Pennsylvania’s ban on fortune telling could go to trial next year. The compelling case dates back to October of 2023 when the Serpent’s Key Shoppe and Sanctuary in the community of Hanover received an unexpected visit from the borough’s police chief, Chad Martin. Rather than picking up some occult supplies, the lawman instead offered a rather worrisome warning to owner Beck Ravenswood about the possibility of legal trouble should they violate the state’s 165-year-old law against divination. “He informed me basically he is not here to arrest me or press charges,” the shop owner recounted at the time, “however, if he ever gets a report from anyone, he will be back on my doorstep.”

The incident understandably did not sit well with Ravenswood, who filed a civil rights lawsuit against Martin and the town of Hanover in August of 2024. Nearly two years later, the case is still winding its way through the legal system, with the shop owner recently securing a significant legal victory. “The DA’s office had been trying to dismiss my case,” Ravenswood explained to a local media outlet, “saying it wasn’t important enough for the court to rule on.” However, they received word in June that the request had been rejected. “Judge Wilson finally looked at the evidence and said there’s a compelling argument here, and we need to determine what is really at the heart of this lawsuit,” Ravenswood said, “is it about witchcraft, or is it about freedom of speech? That’s really what it is.”

In a conference call between the parties on Wednesday, a discovery deadline was set for November 30th, and what the shop owner has cleverly taken to calling the ‘Hanover Witch Trial’ was added to the court’s calendar for June of 2027. That said, Ravenswood’s attorney reportedly indicated that they intend to request a summary judgment on the constitutionality of the law, which could eliminate the soothsaying ban once and for all without the need for any further court proceedings. Meanwhile, regardless of how the case ultimately unfolds, the antiquated restriction may not be on the books for much longer, as a state legislator introduced a still-in-committee bill that would repeal the restriction last June.

Keep reading

Federal Ban on Home Whiskey Distilleries Now Heading to Supreme Court

When I was a young man, roaming around the woods and hills of northeast Iowa, two old guys had a still tucked away somewhere in the woods near Highlandville. I know that moonshining is something generally associated with the South, but nobody seems to have told these two old fellows, and from them you could buy a Mason jar of what they called “corn squeezings” for $10. It wasn’t bad, although if you had any left after a night’s revelry, you could always use it to strip paint and blast stumps.

Now, selling homemade hooch is one thing, I admit. But honestly, this is a free country; one should be able to set up a small still and make your own booze for personal use. And now, a case with that as a possible result, is headed to the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to legalize home whiskey distilleries in the United States by a conservative-leaning think tank in Ohio.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled recently that the federal ban against home whiskey distilleries is unconstitutional. However, the 6th Circuit upheld the federal ban.

The federal government said the law is constitutional because it was enacted to prevent tax evasion and that it would be easier for a distiller working out of their home to conceal the business and therefore avoid paying taxes.

That last bit seems a bit of a trite argument; it’s certainly possible now for a person to do this, just as it would be if home use were legalized, as it is now for wine and beer. And, if anyone can point out to us in the Constitution where the government is authorized to regulate booze, I’d love to see it. 

As evidence of the ambiguity of all this, we might note that two different courts of appeals issued conflicting rulings in this matter, which is why the case is going to the Supreme Court.

On Monday, the Buckeye Institute filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to decide between the two conflicting appeals-court rulings.

“Two courts of appeals considered the same provisions, against the same constitutional challenge, on materially identical facts, within 11 days of each other, and issued opposite judgments,” Buckeye’s Monday petition to the Supreme Court states.

That seems a pretty clear-cut argument for the escalation.

Keep reading

The Shocking Damage Caused by Covid Policies

he Covid lockdowns may not have been remotely effective, but at least they harmed millions of people and created long-lasting negative impacts that we’re still dealing with today.

That’s the conclusion of a massive new body of research into the nonsensical policies promoted by the public health “expert” class, promoted by their media partners, and enacted by incompetent, cowardly politicians.

Mask mandates had been thoroughly discouraged by decades of pre-Covid pandemic planning. There was no body of research supporting the closing of certain businesses at different hours of the day, as many jurisdictions demanded.

No studies were conducted on the reduction of infection rates resulting from placing directional arrows on the floors of grocery stores to direct people through aisles in predetermined patterns.

There were no randomized controlled trials on closing skate parks and beaches, arresting people surfing alone in the ocean, restricting capacity to random percentages based on inaccurate assumptions of community spread.

We had no idea whether closing schools would be effective or “save lives,” but we did it anyway. We didn’t know if vaccine passports would actually have a meaningful impact on community spread, yet we were encouraged to push that too.

All these “interventions” started with little-to-no evidence. That’s bad enough. What makes it much worse? That we implemented them all with zero consideration of possible side effects resulting from those policies.

Lockdowns were an unprecedented incursion on freedom and liberty. What would that do to society, the economy, mental health, and so on? It appeared that no one involved gave those considerations a second thought, and now we’re paying the price.

Keep reading

Arkansas whites–only community sued for discrimination by woman with black husband whose application to buy land was denied

A whites-only community in Arkansas is being sued by a Caucasian woman who claims her membership application was rejected because she has a black husband.

Michelle Walker, 49, claims in a lawsuit that she was discriminated against when her request to join Return to the Land (RTTL)’s 160-acre site near the rural town of Ravenden was refused in November last year.

RTTL, which was launched in 2023, is described on its website as a private association ‘for individuals and families with traditional views and common continental ancestry.’ 

Walker, a real estate worker who lives in St. Louis, Missouri, said she was not drawn to RTTL for its principles but was simply captivated by its ‘exceptionally low’ sale price. 

RTTL is selling an acre of land for $1,000, significantly lower than the average price of land in the Ozarks which is around $4,000 per acre.

Walker, who ‘self–identifies as white,’ believed she would be eligible to join the community based on its requirements and disclosed that she has Jewish ancestry on her mother’s side, according to the complaint filed Wednesday in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas viewed by the Daily Mail.

Her husband is black and they have three biracial children, per the legal filing.

She was given an interview by the community in which her background was explored, and about a month later her application was denied, the lawsuit states.

On Wednesday, she sued RTTL for ‘refusing to sell her land on the basis of race and religion,’ marking the first civil case against the group.

She cited the Fair Housing Act and civil rights laws stretching back to 1866 in support of her argument.

Walker said in her filing that her application saw her complete the group’s application form in which she answered questions about her ancestry and religion.

Walker said her father’s side of the family came to the US in the 1600s and that her mother’s side of the family was made up of Russian Jewish immigrants, per the complaint.

The filing added that Walker’s husband was specifically of Irish and African descent.

When asked about her religion, Walker allegedly replied: ‘I am a Christian. I believe Jesus died for my sins and through believing in him, I will have a heavenly eternal life.’

Walker also faced questions about whether she supported ‘segregation,’ ‘multiculturalism,’ ‘gay marriage’ and ‘transgenderism,’ the filing added.

Per the lawsuit, Walker was ‘surprised’ to see those sorts of questions on the housing application.

Keep reading

Rep. Chip Roy Files Bill to BAN Chinese Communists and Radical Islamists from Buying American Homes

Rep. Chip Roy has introduced new legislation to stop Chinese Communist Party members, radical Islamists, and other designated foreign adversaries from purchasing homes and real estate in the United States.

In an announcement on Tuesday, Roy declared that American property should belong to American citizens, not to geopolitical foes who seek to undermine the country from within.

The bill would explicitly prohibit individuals affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party, Islamist groups, or other designated adversaries from acquiring residential property.

“American homes belong to American families — not the Chinese Communist Party, foreign Islamists, or our geopolitical foes,” Roy told the Daily Caller. “While Americans struggle to afford housing, hostile regimes are buying up our land and neighborhoods.”

“This bill slams the door on foreign adversaries owning American housing and forces them to sell what they already control,” Roy added. “We’re putting America’s homes back in American hands.”

Housing affordability is a top issue for American families struggling with high prices and limited inventory, while foreign entities, especially from China, continue to snap up homes and farmland in strategic locations.

Keep reading

New Buffalo Township tries to rein in cannabis boom it helped create

A booming cannabis market that turned New Buffalo Township into one of Michigan’s busiest marijuana destinations is now prompting local leaders to ask a difficult question:

How much is too much?

Recent reporting by Crain’s Chicago Business and Crain’s Grand Rapids Business highlights a community trying to regain control of an industry it once aggressively welcomed — even as it continues to benefit from the revenue those businesses generate.

From opportunity to overload

In just a few years, New Buffalo Township has gone from cannabis newcomer to one of the most concentrated retail markets in the state.

Today, nearly 30 dispensaries operate within the township — a remarkable number for a community of roughly 2,500 residents. Several more have been proposed or approved, creating a level of density that has drawn attention well beyond Southwest Michigan.

The location tells much of the story. Positioned along the I-94 corridor near the Indiana line, the township has become a convenient stop for out-of-state customers, particularly from Illinois, where prices and taxes are typically higher, and Indiana, where cannabis is still illegal.

That steady stream of traffic helped fuel rapid growth — and a steady flow of revenue.

A shift in tone at the Township Hall

Now, township officials are signaling that the rapid expansion may have gone too far.

According to Crain’s reporting, local leaders have begun taking steps aimed at reducing the number of dispensaries, not by banning cannabis outright, but by tightening oversight and enforcement.

Those efforts include:

  • Reviewing and, in some cases, seeking to revoke special land use permits
  • Holding public hearings tied to compliance concerns
  • Working more closely with the state on enforcement actions involving individual operators

The approach reflects a notable shift — from encouraging development to managing its consequences.

The revenue reality

Complicating the picture is the financial upside.

Cannabis sales have generated significant tax revenue for Michigan communities, and New Buffalo Township has been among the biggest beneficiaries due to its unusually high concentration of stores.

That revenue supports local services and budgets, making it difficult to simply shut the door on the industry.

At the same time, more dispensaries mean the pie is divided into smaller slices. As additional licenses come online, the amount of state-distributed revenue tied to each location can decline — raising questions about whether continued growth actually benefits the township in the long run.

Keep reading

DYSTOPIAN Truck Tech: AI Scans Faces, Reads Lips & Checks Police Database BEFORE You Can Drive

A video exposing Ford’s dystopian patents for new vehicles has gone viral on X, fueling outrage over the accelerating war on personal vehicle ownership and freedom of movement. 

The clip details in-cabin cameras, biometric scanners, lip-reading AI, emotion detection, and real-time criminal database queries – all deciding whether your truck will let you drive.

In the video, the narrator states “imagine there was an emergency outside the truck… An accident…I jump in this truck. But it won’t shift into drive. Why? Because cameras and sensors inside of my cab won’t let me shift.”

“It detects that my eyes are big. There’s some emotion. Some panic. And doesn’t feel like I’m fit to drive. That isn’t science fiction. This is happening. Ford just filed patents,” he explains.

He continues: “Ford actually has a series of patents down at the U.S. Patent and Trade Office that deal with sensors and cameras inside their cab. And if that sensor determines you’re not fit to drive, the truck won’t shift from park to drive.”

The patents extend deep into control. Biometric systems scan face, iris, and fingerprint, cross-referencing law enforcement databases before allowing movement. 

“You wake up one morning, walk out to the driveway, climb into a vehicle with your name on the title… Before you go anywhere, before you’ve done a single thing wrong, your truck has already run your face through a law enforcement database. Ford’s own patent language describes this as ‘potentially useful for police,’” the narrator further outlines.

Lip-reading tech uses interior cameras and machine learning on vast mouth-movement datasets, plus inaudible sound waves. This enables not just voice commands in noisy conditions but also monitoring for targeted ads based on conversations. 

Ford Pro Telematics also already feeds live driver video to fleet managers.

This corporate push dovetails perfectly with government efforts to restrict mobility. Just weeks ago, Massachusetts Democrats advanced Senate Bill S.2246, directing MassDOT to set binding goals for slashing statewide vehicle miles traveled (VMT) under “climate” pretexts. 

The bill creates a new council to shove residents onto public transit, hitting rural drivers hardest who rely on cars for work, family, and essentials.

Keep reading

America: Land of the (Not Really) Free

Last week, President Donald Trump commemorated income tax payments being due by having DoorDash deliver food from McDonald’s to the White House. The delivery was intended to highlight the first year of tax-free tips. Removing tax on tips was part of the 2025 Big Beautiful Bill (BBB).

As the sponsor of the first No Tax on Tips legislation introduced in Congress, I was obviously pleased to see this change in tax laws included in the BBB. The bill also included other good tax changes such as removing tax on overtime and extending the 2017 tax cuts. Unfortunately, the bill also increased federal spending and debt.

Supporters of the income tax implicitly endorse the idea that our rights are gifts from government and, thus, can be revoked by government at the will of our rulers. Adoption of the income tax signified the abandonment of the belief that individuals have inalienable rights granted them by the Creator.

Therefore, those who believe in natural rights must reject income taxation. It is also a violation of the people’s rights when the central bank reduces the value of the dollar, and thus the people’s purchasing power, via the hidden inflation tax.

The income tax system’s rejection of natural rights is exemplified by withholding that gives government first claim on an individual’s earnings. The government then may return, via what it calls a refund, some of what was taken. However, a normal refund is when a business returns a customer’s payment because the customer is dissatisfied with the good or service he received, not when a thief returns some of what the thief stole.

Withholding was implemented during World War Two as a “temporary” wartime measure. Yet, it is still with us decades later.

Milton Friedman, as a young economist, played a role in the US government’s development of withholding. Of course, Friedman went on to become a leading advocate for free markets. He also redeemed himself for his work on withholding by becoming a prominent advocate for ending the military draft.

The draft is the worst example of how the government has rejected the principles of the Declaration of Independence. The draft gives government power to force young men (and possibly young women) to join the military and kill or be killed in a war. Contrary to the beliefs of some progressives, support for the draft is not justified by allowing individuals to choose between serving in the military or performing some other form of mandated “service.”

While the US does not have a military draft, the infrastructure for the draft remains in place via Selective Service registration. A provision in this year ‘s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allows Selective Service to automatically register all men between the ages of 18 and 25. This makes it easier than ever for government to reinstate a draft.

Income taxes, along with the military draft and other types of mandated “service,” are incompatible with a free society and should be opposed by all who value liberty and peace. As Ronald Reagan said in a statement that could be modified to apply to income taxes, the draft “rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state…. That assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea.”

Keep reading

Massachusetts Dems Advance Bill To Limit How Far You Can Drive In Your Own Car

Massachusetts lawmakers are barreling ahead with a bill that would force the state to slash the total miles residents drive, all under the banner of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The proposal, Senate Bill S.2246, doesn’t slap a hard cap on your daily commute… yet – but it orders the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) to set binding goals for reducing statewide vehicle miles traveled (VMT). It also creates a new government council tasked with pushing people onto public transit whether they like it or not.

A local Boston report highlights the move:

“The bill proposed in Massachusetts would limit how far you can drive in your own car. So lawmakers say it would help reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. Now, while no specific mileage limit was listed, the bill would require MassDOT to set goals to reduce the number of statewide driving miles. It would also establish a new council to find ways to make public transportation more accessible for residents. Now, critics say A cap on personal vehicle miles would directly impact those in rural parts of the state.”

The committee gave it a favorable 4-1 vote and shipped it to the Senate Ways and Means Committee, keeping the radical plan alive on Beacon Hill.

This isn’t some fringe idea cooked up in isolation. It’s part of a broader push to ration mobility under the twin excuses of “climate” and “equity.” Similar thinking powers the 15-minute city concept – the urban planning fad sold as “convenience” but designed to make driving anywhere outside your little neighborhood a bureaucratic nightmare.

Need to visit family across town or haul supplies for a business? Too bad. The goal is fewer cars, fewer miles, and more dependence on government-run transit that’s already unreliable and crime-ridden in blue cities.

Keep reading