Government overreach - UK, Brazil, China, EU, California authoritarian leftists going full 1984

I would say Wickard v. Filburn and Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States are the two best examples of government overreach, along with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

sure, the CDC listens to and responds to CANADIAN complaints . . . but those coming from U.S. citizens? not so far

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/b...for-dogs-entering-us-canada-says/74440160007/

CDC agrees to slightly relax new rules for dogs entering US, Canada says
Allison Wei
The Detroit News

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency said Wednesday it has reached an agreement with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control to slightly relax requirements for Canadians to cross the border with their dogs starting Aug. 1.

In a news release, the Canadian agency said one requirement has been dropped from the new U.S. regulations: Canadians will no longer need an endorsement from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to cross the border with their dog, only an endorsement from a Canadian-licensed veterinarian.

In an email Wednesday, CDC spokesperson Dave Daigle said: "I am not able to confirm changes to the US Regulation."

Due to increased concern about rabies in dogs, the CDC in May announced new requirements for all dogs entering the United States effective Aug. 1. They include:

• Dogs must:
  • be at least 6 months of age;
  • have an ISO-compliant or universally readable microchip;
  • appear healthy upon arrival;
• A CDC Dog Import Form receipt is required for all dogs entering the U.S.;
• The owner must have a Canadian export document issued and signed by a Canadian-licensed veterinarian with vaccination and microchip information.
• All dogs entering the U.S. from Canada will need to be accompanied by additional documentation, which varies depending on where the dog was vaccinated against rabies, and where the dog has been in the past six months before entering the United States.

While the new agreement slightly reduces the burden for Canadian dog owners, the Canadian government said it continues to negotiate with the CDC about the rules.

"We continue to advocate for an exemption from these requirements, given that both Canada and the United States are free from dog rabies, the geographic realities of our shared border, and our strong economic and social ties," said Mark Holland, the Canadian minister of health.

The Canadian government remains concerned about the negative impact the new CDC regulations will have on both Canadians and Americans.

"These new CDC regulations will impact all dogs entering the U.S. from Canada and will require Canadians to take on additional planning and costs to satisfy the new requirements," Holland said. There are no exceptions for service or guide dogs. Because of the new regulations, many dog breeders, mushers and in the industry say they face income losses in the thousands of dollars. Multiple members of Congress from states that border Canada have called on the CDC to reconsider the new regulations, including Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Reps. Timothy Kennedy, D-N.Y., and Nick Langworthy, R-N.Y.
​

NICK LANGWORTHY IS MY GUY. GET 'ER DONE, NICK.

 

lotta unhappy campers out there right now

 

gotta give credit where credit is due

 

a little anti-Biden dog owner humor here

 

Why are people trafficking dogs?

 

when dogs are outlawed only outlaws will have dogs

 

https://blog.simplejustice.us/2024/07/19/when-keeping-secrets-from-parents-is-the-law/

When Keeping Secrets From Parents Is The Law
by SHG
July 19, 2024 by SHG.

Who, you might ask, is primarily responsible for their child? This question, once so simple, is at the nexus of progressive activism when it comes to the division of responsibility between a public school and parents. That question has now been answered, not as a matter of philosophy, but as a matter of law, in California.

The “SAFETY Act,” AB 1955, signed by California Democratic governor Gavin Newsom, legally forbids schools from adopting any policy that would force them to disclose “any information related to a pupil’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to any other person without the pupil’s consent.” Schools may not, as a matter of policy, inform parents of a child’s new gender identity unless the child volunteers her approval. The law also prohibits schools from punishing any school employee found to have “supported a pupil” hurtling down a path toward risky and irreversible hormones and surgeries.​

Up to now, there had been a battle being fought in the hallways of public schools as to whether the same school that would call in parents when junior uttered a forbidden word would call mom and dad if junior wanted to shower with the girls. Schools, believing they were protecting vulnerable transgender or nonbinary students from parents who were more inclined to be concerned for the welfare of their children than to react like a supportive sycophant. This law puts an end to the battle by making it unlawful for schools to craft policies requiring parental notification.

After all, when a school will indulge every childish whim, why tell the parents who will be there with their child for the rest of their lives, long after the winds of educational fashion shift and the teachers have taken their pensions?

In California, instruction in sexual orientation and gender identity has been mandatory for all public school students K–12 since the passage of the Healthy Youth Act in 2016. Because such instruction typically occurs within the required “anti-bullying curriculum” rather than the sex education curriculum, parents cannot elect that their children opt out of what is, in practice, a full-bore indoctrination into gender ideology.

When a child then predictably decides in class that she too may be nonbinary or transgender, this revelation will often trigger schools’ gender support plan, effectively a school-wide conspiracy to promote the child’s new name and gender identity without tipping off Mom and Dad. Official documents and emails and report cards are sent to parents to preserve the child’s birth name and pronouns, concealing the social transition from parents.​

The issue isn’t whether children who decide they’re transgender or nonbinary should be treated respectfully, but whether public schools should be pushing the issue in the first place on students too immature to handle pretty much any aspect of their lives except to be persuaded that any difference between their self-perception and that of some stereotypical gender person means they need a new pigeonhole for their gender.

And then, once the school in its infinite wisdom has given an impressionable child reason and permission to do something that will have an enormous impact on their lives, welfare and happiness, bend over backwards to conceal it from the child’s parents, who will be left to deal with the detritus the school walks away from but the parents cannot.

The SAFETY Act would significantly stymie, if not eliminate, this local pushback to the increasingly unpopular practice of schools playing adoptive parents with other people’s children. (Although already, the Chino Valley Unified School District has filed suit against Newsom over this act.) The plain text of the California law claims that it merely prevents schools from adopting policies that “forcibly out” trans kids—as if confused fifth-grade girls are in the same position as closeted gay adults in decades past who risked arrest and firing for being outed.

The law’s clever sponsors are typically quiet on the subject of “outing” to whom. The entire school already knows that Lily is now “Tyler.” Teachers will cheerfully share that information with each other, school mental health staff, administrators, and other students. The only ones who don’t get to know are the parents.​

The rationale is that some parents will be less than fully supportive, which schools and California legislators find unacceptable. Indeed, some parents may be concerned, and some might be hostile to learning their child is transgender.

A favorite talking point of activists on the left is that with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity, schools must keep secrets with young children to protect them from transphobic and homophobic parents. Even in the most progressive of states, the claim that parents who discover that their child is transgender might abuse or kick her out is used to justify a policy that would otherwise be difficult to understand and impossible to justify.​

But they are still the parents, for better or worse, and yet California has decided that teachers and politicians are better positioned to care for children than their parents. In California, this is now the law.
​

 

I think of all the abuse conservative parents give towards children who don't follow a very narrowly defined path of acceptable social traits like sending them to child abuse camps and think to myself:

"Parents don't always know best"

Do you sincerely care about children or this thin veneer of freedom you chose to express?

Do children have the freedom to not be mentally abused by their parents? Is that a freedom you ever consider?

 

and they wonder why Biden is losing support

 

lol. airlines just caving one by one. "Let it be someone else's problem."

The key to good governance.

 

I hate dog people

 

https://reason.com/2024/07/21/utahs-straw-test-crackdown/

Utah's Straw Test Crackdown
by C. Jarrett Dieterle
7.21.2024 6:00 AM

Utah is known for many things—beautiful mountains, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mitt Romney—but it truly distinguishes itself when it comes to notoriously ridiculous alcohol laws. While the state's so-called "Zion Curtain" has widely been considered one of the dumbest booze rules in America, it turns out there is no limit on inane drinks laws in the Beehive State. In fact, state regulators have recently upped their bureaucratic ante by cracking down on bartenders who use a "straw test" to sample cocktails before serving.

As one might notice when visiting a cocktail bar, the straw test is a common technique used by bartenders to determine whether their drinks are satisfactory before serving them to a customer. One conducts a straw test by dipping the end of a straw into a drink, placing a thumb or forefinger over the other end, and then tasting the tiny amount of liquid trapped in the straw. The test is efficient and provides a hygienic method for performing quality-control checks on libations.

The straw test is highly useful for establishments that frequently invent and serve newly created cocktail recipes. It's also a go-to for "bartender roulette"—often popular at high-end mixology bars—whereby a customer describes what types of flavors they like and then the bartender riffs off that inspiration to whip up a brand-new cocktail on the spot. If a bartender has literally just created a new drink, he or she obviously wants to be able to ensure it tastes palatable before pushing it across the bar to a patron.

But Utah liquor regulators are taking issue with this long-used practice. According to Axios, bar owners in the state have noticed a marked uptick in Utah's Department of Alcoholic Beverage Services (DABS) agents warning them against utilizing the straw test.

As one Utah bar owner said: "For some reason recently, they have decided that they wanted to let us know that it's absolutely not OK, even though it's something that they know [bars have] been doing for years."

DABS notes that the law has been on the books for decades—curiously tucked into a section of the state code prohibiting minors from serving alcohol to restaurant customers—and that it's unsure of the recent "confusion" around the ban on straw tests. A department spokesperson did admit, however, that the agency has been seeking to "improve communication" with alcohol license holders regarding state alcohol rules, according to Axios.

Such bureaucracy-speak obscures the potential repercussions at stake. Running afoul of the straw test ban constitutes a "serious violation," which can result in a fine of up to $3,000 and a 30-day suspension of a bar's liquor license—a near death warrant in the hypercompetitive restaurant industry.

To be fair, Utah is not alone in its prohibition of straw tests—Oregon also bans taste tests for liquor, while confusingly allowing bartenders to taste beer and wine—but it appears to be particularly zealous in its enforcement of the law as well as its stubbornness in maintaining it. Other states with similar rules, such as Oklahoma, have moved to repeal their version once it became apparent that it was needlessly hindering bartenders.

The apparent rationale behind the ban is that bartenders need to be prevented from becoming inebriated during shifts given their responsibility to safely serve customers. But it would be essentially impossible to get drunk off the straw test. Axios actually conducted its own experiments (who says journalism can't be fun?) and found that it took 70 straw tests in a row (from a 4 oz martini) to fill up a 1 oz. jigger with liquid. For context, most bartenders perform no more than 30 straw tests over the course of an entire night and often much fewer.

This ban is a cocktail of nonsense, and Utah should repeal it.



​

 

Would some of you self labeled libertarians say Hoover's FBI war against Black activists, more specifically the Black Panthers with COINTELPRO?

I'm just wondering if doing mean things to wealthy white people is the only way a government can overreach?

 

When I see what speakers in the RNC convention b**** about and what you b**** about, I realize how petty the problems that wealthy white people have when it comes to interfacing with the government.

Like when you can dedicate half your national political convention to the plight of transgenderism, you can assume these people live very comfortable lives with no systemic problems in regards to access to basic needs

 

that's racist

 

Why are your complaints about the government so ...



Trivial?