Arrest, charge, and he should lose his seat!

Why would they not tase him?

The latest Dim FAFO moronic stunt. Outrage! Outrage! Outrage! Sigh….

Those commenting on Breitbart, are none too kind.

“senator” thinks he can get away with all manner of rude and inappropriate behavior just because the “senator” thinks he is “special”.

Yes, but still too late. The funding would have begun in January so, they should find it!

The IRS is as loony left DS as it gets.

if you wanna find out who all the funding players are and where their money comes from, bring back Musk and let him and his folks dig. It’ll be a week and you’ll know the whole story.

Then Blonde and Patel will have to do something about it……

Kristi, tell the IRS to contact DataRepublican(smallr). DR has already put up flowcharts and a database to track where the money comes from.

Because everyone is screaming at them to arrest the money men.

They also need these pols, NGO’s and “activists” to know that the IRS is coming.

So you announce it because you want them to pause and get freaked out before their “kings day” riots, knowing that they can’t cover their tracks for what they’ve already done.

The IRS will terrify them far more than the FBI or DOJ. Because financial crimes are hard to spin as political to a jury.

I though President Trump gave the job to Pam Bondi?

So no one can say they didn’t know. Even though ignorance of the law is not a defense, not being citizens or familiar with U.S. laws, going forward neither they nor their lawyers can use that as a get out of jail free card.

More garbage.

Not sure why SWC is dissing Tulsi. Disappointing.

He appears to be a sharp attorney and represented over 100 J6 defendants.

I don’t trust her, or Rubio, and I would argue she wants to be Rubio’s running mate, not Vance’s.

Everyone does good things around Trump, its how they behaved before, is how they always behave after.

Apparently this guy hasn’t read any of Sundance’s posts re” Tulsi. I don’t know what his problem is?

I would say all of these people are auditioning for 2028, including Vance, Rubio, Noem, and others. If they are doing their jobs, what is the problem?

Seems like SWC has an inherent bias towards Tulsi.

This little quote from NPR shows exactly why they need to be defunded. Such bias and lies.

She sure wet the bed regards Arizona. I don’t trust her at all.

Hope thus has something to do with getting Tina Peters free. They should go after CO hard. CO has as many lunatics as CA.

She works for Pam Bondi

She said this on her swearing in

“It has been my dream to be able to serve our great country, and I am so excited to be part of an incredible team of lawyers led by @PamBondi.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/10/trump-harmeet-dhillon-justice-department-civil-rights
https://www.justice.gov/opa/gallery/attorney-general-pamela-bondi-swears-harmeet-dhillon-assistant-attorney-general-civil

I would be careful about going too deep into 2024 election tanpering.

There is a lot of stuff starting to trickle out thay Trump did not win fair and square.

Agree PC! Dhillon recently also filed suit against the NC Board of Elections regarding suspect voter registrations that were allowed on the voter rolls. These were arguably the difference that defeated the R running for NCSC seat by a razor thin margin.

It wasn’t “President Trump’s false claims about elections.”

It was President Trump’s true claims about false elections.

The way CO went after anyone who questioned 2020 is a sign they have much to hide.

Remember, outside of Cory Gardner in 2016, Republicans haven’t won’t statewide office in almost 20 years…

…not surprisingly, this trend coincides with the expansion of automatic delivery of mail in ballots…

Don’t complain about people getting caught up in these raids when you are refusing to turn off criminals and not working with ice.

You will go to the hospital….
and then to jail! 😉👍👏

I love his….way with words 👏👏❤️

Damn Straight. I ain’t seen my Sheriff since we Elected him over the last do nothing joker.

It’s good to see Brevard got serious LE for once. Where I live the Sheriff does not patrol dirt roads like the one I live on, and Deputies are at least 35 to 40 minutes out under the best conditions if there is a 911 call for service.

Rioters are in big trouble if they make it out here looking for easy pickins..

Amen.

WOW!

I love that man, and the office he holds, and the laws he actually follows.

Oh, I’m dreaming of living in a land of law and order, and it ain’t in northern Minnesota.

I love it!

“graveyard dead” … I think he means it…

Teamsters.

Their “feelings” mean more to them than the law.

.

The teamsters support the violent protests?

Tell me it ain’t so!

They actually WANT people tearing stuff up — stuff that those same teamsters will be paid to fix . . .?

just like you and me?

Thanks Ad rem! Filmed by. Padilla’s staff so they made sure to film even where it was prohibited.

Good. These asshats all need to be held to account. They think they can just do whatever they want with no consequences. BS to that. USC 8 enforcement needs to be ramped up big time. Anyone in violation should be charged and held with no bond.

Dims no longer above the law.

“STOP RESISTING!!”..😂

Oh…THAT was enjoyable!

He looks and sounds intoxicated.

CTHfan – do you remember Event 201? It was a ‘What If’ exercise run in October 2019. Specifically, ‘what if’ a respiratory virus caused a global pandemic? It was conducted at Johns Hopkins University with one of the funders being Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Recently, I saw an Instagram post from Sarah Fisher regarding a ‘Bio Defense Scenario’ (a Bipartisan Commission on Bio Defense) scheduled for July 2025 funded, again, by Bill Gates. The hypothetical is the release of a ‘bioweapon’ in the US.

It doesn’t seem too difficult a scenario and we should be concerned.

Agree. Seems simple enough so why is it taking so long?

Never trust at face value that anything pols do that is claimed to be in YOUR best interests actually is.

Q: What possible threats to individual liberties are created by passage of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act of 2025?

Grok:

The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act of 2025 aims to create a federal regulatory framework for stablecoins in the United States, with provisions for licensing, reserve requirements, transparency, and compliance with anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CTF) regulations. While the Act is designed to foster innovation, protect consumers, and ensure financial stability, some aspects could raise concerns about potential threats to individual liberties. Below, I outline possible risks based on the information available and critical analysis, while noting that specific outcomes depend on the final text of the legislation and its implementation.

### Potential Threats to Individual Liberties

1. **Increased Surveillance and Privacy Concerns**

  – **Issue**: The GENIUS Act mandates that stablecoin issuers comply with AML and CTF regulations, treating them as financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). This requires robust know-your-customer (KYC) and transaction monitoring processes to detect illicit activities.
  – **Threat to Liberty**: Enhanced KYC and transaction monitoring could lead to extensive data collection on individuals using stablecoins for payments or transfers. This might involve tracking personal financial activities, sharing data with federal authorities, or maintaining detailed records accessible to regulators. Such surveillance could erode financial privacy, particularly for users who value the pseudonymity often associated with cryptocurrencies.
  – **Implication**: Individuals may face reduced control over their personal financial data, as issuers would need to report suspicious activities to authorities, potentially exposing lawful transactions to scrutiny. This could disproportionately affect users engaging in legal but sensitive transactions, such as donations to controversial causes or private purchases.

2. **Centralization of Financial Control**

  – **Issue**: The Act establishes a licensing system that restricts stablecoin issuance to “permitted payment stablecoin issuers” (e.g., subsidiaries of insured depository institutions, federal or state-qualified nonbank issuers). It also imposes federal oversight for issuers with a market capitalization over $10 billion, while smaller issuers may face state-level regulation.
  – **Threat to Liberty**: By limiting who can issue stablecoins and imposing strict regulatory requirements, the Act could centralize control over digital currencies in the hands of a few large, regulated entities. This may stifle decentralized innovation, particularly for smaller or non-traditional players who cannot afford compliance costs, potentially reducing consumer choice and access to alternative financial systems.
  – **Implication**: Centralization could limit individuals’ ability to participate in or create decentralized financial networks, which are often seen as a counterbalance to traditional banking systems. This might restrict access to financial tools for those seeking alternatives to conventional finance, particularly in underbanked communities.

3. **Barriers to Entry and Innovation**

  – **Issue**: The GENIUS Act’s compliance requirements, such as reserve backing, regular audits, and public disclosures, could impose significant costs on stablecoin issuers, especially smaller or foreign entities. Critics note that these burdens may favor large players, leading to market consolidation.
  – **Threat to Liberty**: High barriers to entry could suppress individual and entrepreneurial freedom to innovate in the digital currency space. Smaller developers or startups might be unable to compete, reducing the diversity of financial tools available to individuals and limiting the potential for decentralized, user-driven financial systems.
  – **Implication**: Individuals may have fewer options for using stablecoins that align with their values (e.g., privacy-focused or community-driven projects), as the market could consolidate around a few dominant, federally approved issuers.

4. **Risk of Overregulation and Arbitrary Enforcement**

  – **Issue**: The Act’s dual federal-state regulatory framework, with federal oversight for larger issuers and state oversight for smaller ones, introduces complexity. The lack of clarity on territorial scope (e.g., what constitutes issuing a stablecoin “in the United States”) could lead to inconsistent or overly broad enforcement.
  – **Threat to Liberty**: Vague or overly broad regulations could result in arbitrary enforcement actions, potentially targeting individuals or entities unfairly. For example, individuals using stablecoins issued by non-compliant foreign entities might face legal risks, even if their usage is lawful. Additionally, the complexity of complying with both federal and state regulations could lead to unintentional non-compliance, exposing users to penalties.
  – **Implication**: Individuals might face uncertainty about the legality of their stablecoin transactions, particularly in cross-border contexts, which could chill legitimate financial activity and limit economic freedom.

5. **Potential for Government Influence and Conflicts of Interest**

  – **Issue**: Critics, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, have raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest, particularly given the involvement of figures like President Trump and his associates in stablecoin ventures (e.g., World Liberty Financial’s USD1 stablecoin). The Act’s bipartisan support and endorsement by the Trump administration have fueled speculation about policies benefiting specific interests.
  – **Threat to Liberty**: If the Act is perceived as favoring certain issuers or politically connected entities, it could undermine trust in the fairness of the regulatory framework. Individuals might face a financial system where access to stablecoins is influenced by political or corporate affiliations rather than open competition.
  – **Implication**: This could erode individual autonomy in choosing financial tools, as the market might tilt toward issuers with political favor, potentially limiting access to neutral or independent stablecoin platforms.

6. **Exclusion of Algorithmic Stablecoins**

  – **Issue**: The GENIUS Act prohibits algorithmic stablecoins, which rely on algorithms rather than asset reserves to maintain their peg.
  – **Threat to Liberty**: By banning algorithmic stablecoins, the Act restricts a form of financial innovation that some individuals and developers prefer for its decentralized nature and potential to operate without traditional banking intermediaries. This could limit the ability of individuals to engage with alternative financial models that prioritize decentralization.
  – **Implication**: Individuals seeking to use or develop non-fiat-backed stablecoins may be forced into regulated, fiat-backed systems, reducing their freedom to experiment with or adopt alternative economic models.

7. **Bankruptcy Risks and Consumer Protections**

  – **Issue**: While the Act prioritizes stablecoin holders’ claims in bankruptcy, some critics argue it does not go far enough to ensure repayment at par value, unlike bank deposits, which are clearly defined as debts. Stablecoins might be treated as commodities repurchaseable by the issuer, potentially complicating recovery in insolvency.
  – **Threat to Liberty**: Inadequate consumer protections could expose individuals to financial losses if a stablecoin issuer fails, undermining confidence in using stablecoins as a reliable store of value or payment method. The lack of FDIC insurance or mandatory refund mechanisms, as criticized in the context of the STABLE Act, exacerbates this risk.
  – **Implication**: Individuals might face financial insecurity when using stablecoins, particularly if issuers fail to maintain adequate reserves or if bankruptcy proceedings do not fully protect their holdings, limiting their ability to rely on stablecoins as a safe financial tool.

### Counterarguments and Mitigating Factors

– **Consumer Protection Benefits**: Proponents argue that the GENIUS Act enhances individual liberties by providing a safer environment for stablecoin use through reserve requirements, transparency, and audits. These measures aim to prevent collapses like Terra Luna, protecting users from financial loss.
– **Innovation and Access**: The Act could foster mainstream adoption of stablecoins by providing regulatory clarity, potentially increasing access to digital payments for underbanked individuals and promoting financial inclusion.
– **Bipartisan Support**: The Act’s bipartisan backing suggests a balanced approach, aiming to protect consumers while encouraging innovation, which could mitigate overreach or favoritism.
– **State Flexibility**: The dual federal-state framework allows smaller issuers to operate under state regulations, potentially preserving some decentralization and local autonomy.

### Critical Perspective

While the GENIUS Act aims to balance innovation and oversight, its emphasis on regulatory compliance and federal control could inadvertently prioritize institutional interests over individual freedoms. The focus on AML/CTF compliance and the exclusion of algorithmic stablecoins may align with traditional financial systems but risks alienating users who value privacy and decentralization. Moreover, the potential for market consolidation and political influence raises questions about whether the Act truly serves the public or entrenches existing power structures. The lack of clarity on extraterritoriality and bankruptcy protections further complicates its impact on individual users.

### Conclusion

The GENIUS Act of 2025 could threaten individual liberties by increasing financial surveillance, centralizing control over stablecoin issuance, raising barriers to innovation, and introducing risks of arbitrary enforcement or inadequate consumer protections. While it offers benefits like regulatory clarity and consumer safeguards, these come at the cost of potential privacy erosion and reduced financial autonomy, particularly for those who rely on cryptocurrencies for decentralized or private transactions. The Act’s final impact will depend on its implementation, enforcement, and any amendments addressing these concerns. 

If I read history right, if they succeed, meaning through both houses, it’ll be the first time since the Clinton era.

Who let him in?

You mean all the DEM Senators are screaming 😎

Having seen the show arrests of pols in D.C., I would agree about the theater aspect. What remains is who got him and how will he be processed. California is a revolving door for Commies in the judicial system, particularly any of their leaders, so state charges are no good.

It’ll have to be federal in my opinion and vigorously pursued. If that how it plays out, vigorously federal, good. Alex should’ve stuck to pontificating on the floor of the Senate.

his staff filmed the incident.

staes in the video

https://x.com/Elex_Michaelson/status/1933228833706291258

💯

I really hate these screaming things they do now. They scream in hopes we won’t notice them doing nothing of importance.

When will CNN wake up and smell the coffee?

ABC did!

crack maybe… she’s delusional AND hideously ghoul-looking.

Clapper caliber knucklehead.

Slippery slope here???

Promises made . . . Promises kept broken?!?!?

Will there be a special designation other than the H-2B that is already in existence? I get it, the need for labor, the sheer numbers. But in my opinion this is too soon, bad timing, unless he is just going to increase or remove the cap on the number of H-2B visas? Or perhaps change the H-2B program in some other way? The “20 years” statement sounds like this group of illegal immigrants lives here full-time? Maybe give them an extra two years to obtain citizenship . . . or something?

The language in the EO will be interesting. Did President Trump make these exceptions to deportations when campaigning? I honestly do not remember discussion on H-2B, only H-1B.

The White House might need a PR campaign on this, as it is not in alignment with the daily mantra of Tom Homan–what we’ve been told day after day after day since before the election.

.

Well, if these industries need these workers in order for them to make money, then a portion of that money made should be paid the the U.S. government to compensate for the proceedings that should be necessary to ‘legalize’ these workers to work in these United States.

Work permits renewed quarterly, depending on need, with travel back and forth from their home countries required when they are not employed, good conduct required, no bringing their families here to gain access to government services.

Employers responsible for housing and food (makes sense for both these industries mentioned, that those perks are readily available), such that — unless they are working — are a drain on that employer.

If what the crying politicians say about hard working people just trying to provide for their families is true, then surely helping industries that need seasonal employees by insisting those employers also help with the cost of maintenance of such a system should not be too hard a sell, right?

Wait a minute. I thought there was already a process for seasonal workers to obtain work visas (and if there isn’t, then create one.) . So, what’s the problem?

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/senators-propose-ban-big-pharma-ads

Not really…way back around 1979 or 1980…there was a push for lawyers to be able to advertise and that slippery slope was identified then…(first the lawyers then the doctors etc)…up to that point, they were not allowed to advertise.

The advertising for meds is giving an uneducated society the misperception that there is a curative pill for everything. The advertisements give an unrealistic expectation to society and ‘are written for ailments that may have a less severe or radical treatment….like get more sleep…drink more water…lay off the booze…quit smoking, use clothing detergent that is labeled ‘gentle’…etc. etc…

20 years ago, parents were demanding antibiotics for the littles sniffles…the result of that, partly, is something called Drug Resistant Organisms from overprescribing when not necessary, but were keeping the parents ‘happy’.

Personally, in my opinion, the pHarma has abused the privilege and it must now be removed, to protect society from unrealistic promises or promises they don’t understand. It should be left in the hands of the doctor. The doctors all know what new meds are out there…Rant done.

.

I miss the cigarette ads.
.

I don’t think there would be any issue banning television advertising of products that can only be obtained by a doctor’s prescription. These tv ads are a fairly recent phenomenon-they used to be banned.

Wow, no Langley spin from The Hill? Shocker.

Since Saturday is the Army 250th, I’ll pull out dad’s burial flag, mom’s union card and her ration books and other WW2 memorabilia for a reminder. Ordinary people sacrificed a lot and that included being on the lookout for nefarious or suspicious characters.

“… immigrants who are in the country without documentation” are not “immigrants.” They are illegal aliens.

RSBN?

Indeed! 😁 😃 😍 😎

https://www.rsbnetwork.com/video/live-president-trump-honors-u-s-armys-250th-anniversary-with-a-grand-military-parade-6-14-25/

Watch LIVE on RSBN at 4:30 pm EDT on June 14, 2025.

The below link works.