#no not an amending regulation that changes an already existing regulation

[psqqa]

every day legislators find new and exciting ways to make the legislative process as unnecessarily convoluted as humanly fucking possible

[metanarrates]

the bill (post that outlines it from last week) has been signed into law.

the slight good news: the language of the bill has been amended so that children can no longer be criminally charged for using a bathroom or locker room that aligns with their gender identity.

the bad news: literally almost everything else about the bill is the same. adults can still be charged.

in addition to everything highlighted in my earlier post, I would like to highlight that the law will charge transgender adults with trespass if “the individual enters or remains in the changing room under circumstances which a reasonable person would expect to likely cause affront or alarm to, on, or in the presence of another individual." in other words, if a transphobe is alarmed by a trans person existing in a restroom, and the judge agrees, that's a trespassing charge. maximum penalties for trespassing under utah law go up to six months in jail and a $1000 charge.

I don't think I need to explain the violence that trans people, particularly trans women, face in jail, especially if they are sent to a men's prison as a trans woman. I also don't think I need to explain the poverty that the trans community experiences as a result of systemic discrimination, and how devastating a fine can be to a poor person. and even without the charge, being harassed by both civilians and cops who will demand that you prove your gender is traumatizing and humiliating. even though this law does in fact only extend to buildings that are publicly funded (such as government offices, schools, possibly the salt lake city airport,) this will also embolden transphobes to harass trans people in other places. make no mistake, this law is violence.

additionally, the law also can give out charges of lewdness and voyeurism, both of which are sex crimes. being placed on the sex offender registry can be DEVASTATING for a person's job opportunities, ability to find housing, and basic rights to privacy. in addition to the already devastating housing and employment issues faced by ex-convicts, this would make life practically unlivable for anyone convicted.

I'll emphasize again that this endangers the trans community, particularly the transfem community, but I am also scared for black women, gnc people, and intersex people, all of whom are also vulnerable to gender policing and gender-based harassment. I am terrified at how openly this law gives leeway for civilians to act as vigilantes and for cops to demand to know what a person's genitals look like. I am terrified at the escalation of hate crimes and harassment that this will likely prompt.

please show up for the utah trans community. in the next few days, I will put together a list of trans people's gofundmes in the state. I would appreciate it if you would share that as well. chances are, we're going to need a lot of financial help in the future, especially if some of us end up choosing to flee the state.

as always, death to the american police state and all it enables.

[mariacallous]

Project 2025 outlines a radical policy agenda that would dramatically reshape the federal government. The report was spearheaded by the right-wing Heritage Foundation and represents the policy aims of a large coalition of conservative activists. While former President Trump has attempted to distance himself from Project 2025, many of the report’s authors worked in the previous Trump administration and could return for a second round. Trump, himself, said in 2022, “This is a great group, and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do.”

In other words, Project 2025 warrants a close look, even if the Trump campaign would like Americans to avert their gaze.

Project 2025’s education agenda proposes a drastic overhaul of federal education policy, from early childhood through higher education. Here’s just a sample of the Project 2025 education-related recommendations:

Dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (ED)

Eliminate the Head Start program for young children in poverty

Discontinue the Title I program that provides federal funding to schools serving low-income children

Rescind federal civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ students

Undercut federal capacity to enforce civil rights law

Reduce federal funding for students with disabilities and remove guardrails designed to ensure these children are adequately served by schools

Promote universal private school choice

Privatize the federal student loan portfolio

It’s an outrageous list, and that’s just the start of it.

We’ve reviewed the Project 2025 chapter on education (Chapter 11), along with other chapters with implications for students. We’ve come away with four main observations:

1. Most of the major policy proposals in Project 2025 would require an unlikely amount of congressional cooperation

Project 2025 is presented as a to-do list for an incoming Trump administration. However, most of its big-ticket education items would require a great deal of cooperation from Congress.

Proposals to create controversial, new laws or programs would require majority support in the House and, very likely, a filibuster-proof, 60-vote majority in the Senate. Ideas like a Parents’ Bill of Rights, the Department of Education Reorganization Act, and a federal tax-credit scholarship program fall into this category. Even if Republicans outperform expectations in this fall’s Senate races, they’d have to attract several Democratic votes to get to 60. That’s not happening for these types of proposals.  

The same goes for major changes to existing legislation. This includes, for example, a proposal to convert funding associated with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to no-strings-attached block grants and education savings accounts (with, presumably, much less accountability for spending those funds appropriately). It also includes a proposal to end the “negotiated rulemaking” (“neg-reg”) process that ED follows when developing regulations related to programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA). The neg-reg requirement is written into HEA itself, which means that unwinding neg-reg would require Congress to amend the HEA. That’s unlikely given that HEA reauthorization is already more than a decade overdue—and that’s without the political baggage of Project 2025 weighing down the process.

The prospect of changing funding levels for existing programs is a little more complicated. Programs like Title I are permanently authorized. Eliminating Title I or changing the formulas it uses to allocate funds to local educational agencies would require new and unlikely legislation. Year-to-year funding levels can and do change, but the vast majority of ED’s budget consists of discretionary funding that’s provided through the regular, annual appropriations process and subject to a filibuster. This limits the ability of one party to make major, unilateral changes. (ED’s mandatory funding is more vulnerable.)

In sum, one limiting factor on what an incoming Trump administration could realistically enact from Project 2025 is that many of these proposals are too unpopular with Democrats to overcome their legislative hurdles.

2. Some Project 2025 proposals would disproportionately harm conservative, rural areas and likely encounter Republican opposition

Another limiting factor is that some of Project 2025’s most substantive proposals probably wouldn’t be all that popular with Republicans either.

Let’s take, for example, the proposed sunsetting of the Title I program. Project 2025 proposes to phase out federal spending on Title I over a 10-year period, with states left to decide whether and how to continue that funding. It justifies this with misleading suggestions that persistent test score gaps between wealthy and poor students indicate that investments like Title I funding aren’t paying off. (In fact, evidence from school finance reforms suggests real benefits from education spending, especially for students from low-income families.)

The phrase “Title I schools” might conjure up images of under-resourced schools in urban areas that predominantly serve students of color, and it’s true that these schools are major beneficiaries of Title I. However, many types of schools, across many types of communities, receive critical support through Title I. In fact, schools in Republican-leaning areas could be hit the hardest by major cuts or changes to Title I. In the map below, we show the share of total per-pupil funding coming from Title I by state. Note that many of the states that rely the most on Title I funds (darkest blue) are politically conservative.

Of course, the impact of shifting from federal to state control of Title I would depend on how states choose to handle their newfound decision-making power. Given that several red states are among the lowest spenders on education—and have skimped on programs like Summer EBT and Medicaid expansion—it’s hard to believe that low-income students in red states would benefit from a shift to state control.

What does that mean for the type of support that Project 2025 proposals might get from red-state Republicans in Congress? It’s hard to know. It’s worth keeping in mind, though, that the GOP’s push for universal private school voucher programs has encountered some of its fiercest resistance from rural Republicans across several states.

3. Project 2025 also has significant proposals that a second Trump administration could enact unilaterally

While a second Trump administration couldn’t enact everything outlined in Project 2025 even if it wanted to, several consequential proposals wouldn’t require cooperation from Congress. This includes some actions that ED took during the first Trump administration and certainly could take again.

Here are a few of the Project 2025 proposals that the Trump administration could enact with the authority of the executive branch alone:

Roll back civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ students

Roll back Title IX protections against sex-based discrimination

Dismantle the federal civil rights enforcement apparatus

Eliminate current income-driven repayment plans and require higher monthly payments for low-income borrowers

Remove protections from predatory colleges that leave students with excessive debt

Federal education policy has suffered from regulatory whiplash over the last decade, with presidential administrations launching counter-regulations to undo the executive actions of the prior administration. Take, for example, “gainful employment” regulations that Democratic administrations have used to limit eligibility for federal financial aid for colleges that leave students with excessive loan debt. A second Trump administration would likely seek to reverse the Biden administration’s “gainful employment” regulations like the first Trump administration did to the Obama administration’s rules. (Then again, with the Supreme Court striking down Chevron, which provided deference to agency expertise in setting regulations, the Trump administration might not even need to formally undo regulations.)

Other Project 2025 proposals, not explicitly about education, also could wreak havoc. This includes a major overhaul of the federal civil service. Specifically, Project 2025 seeks to reinstate Schedule F, an executive order that Trump signed during his final weeks in office. Schedule F would reclassify thousands of civil service positions in the federal government to policy roles—a shift that would empower the president to fire civil servants and fill their positions with political appointees. Much has been written about the consequences of decimating the civil service, and the U.S. Department of Education, along with other federal agencies that serve students, would feel its effects.

4. Project 2025 reflects a white Christian nationalist agenda as much as it reflects a traditional conservative education policy agenda

If one were to read Project 2025’s appeals to principles such as local control and parental choice, they might think this is a standard conservative agenda for education policy. Republicans, after all, have been calling for the dismantling of ED since the Reagan administration, and every administration since has supported some types of school choice reforms.

But in many ways, Project 2025’s proposals really don’t look conservative at all. For example, a large-scale, tax-credit scholarship program would substantially increase the federal government’s role in K-12 education. A Parents’ Bill of Rights would require the construction of a massive federal oversight and enforcement function that does not currently exist. And a proposal that “states should require schools to post classroom materials online to provide maximum transparency to parents” would impose an enormous compliance burden on schools, districts, and teachers.

Much of Project 2025 is more easily interpretable through the lens of white Christian nationalism than traditional political conservatism. Scholars Philip Gorski and Samuel Perry describe white Christian nationalism as being “about ethno-traditionalism and protecting the freedoms of a very narrowly defined ‘us’.” The Project 2025 chapter on education is loaded with proposals fitting this description. That includes a stunning number of proposals focused on gender identity, with transgender students as a frequent target. Project 2025 seeks to secure rights for certain people (e.g., parents who support a particular vision of parental rights) while removing protections for many others (e.g., LGBTQ+ and racially minoritized children). Case in point, its proposal for “Safeguarding civil rights” says only, “Enforcement of civil rights should be based on a proper understanding of those laws, rejecting gender ideology and critical race theory.”

These types of proposals don’t come from the traditional conservative playbook for education policy reform. They come from a white Christian nationalist playbook that has gained prominence in far-right politics in recent years.

At this point, it’s clear that the Trump campaign sees Project 2025 as a political liability that requires distance through the election season. Let’s not confuse that with what might happen during a second Trump administration.

[wyrmfedgrave]

4 Supreme Court decisions that have quietly jumpstarted Project 2025 | Salon.com

So, it turns out that Project 2025 has been secretly advanced by piecemeal Scotus legislation.

4 important pieces of the plan have already been passed!

1. Paying elected officials for their 'help' is no longer Bribery!

2. EPA regulations can no longer regulate protection from pollution, food additives, etc...

3. Only Christo-Fascist beliefs are imposed on all other citizens!! The separation of church & state is gone!

4. The 14th Amendment's protection of women's medical privacy was stuck down!!

Abortion is no longer a Sex Based choice but a legal one.

In all these cases, OLD common law is more important than modern ones.

Republikkkans claim that the Biden/ Harris Scotus reforms are already "Dead."

Not so.

As usual, Republikkkans lead with lies.

They've only been able to impose their full wills on a few states - for now...

All 6 partisan Scotus judges are in bed with fossil fuel companies.

And, they all belong to the Federalist Society & the Heritage Foundation.

All receive Dark Money from various rich corporate donors.

And, have the media support of rich Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Network.

Project 2025 exists mostly to secretly advance Climate Change denial...

But, you'll have only 1 chance to be able to stop this - on November 5th.

So, come out prepared to do your part to preserve your hard-won freedoms...

Cause the Republikkkans are dying to break even more laws to protect their "sugar daddies."

End.

[shadowdarkee]

Lake Spirits and Pokémon Contests

Some time following the Team Galactic crisis, and the existence of the Lake Spirits became public knowledge. The three became more aware of modern Sinnoh culture. Mesprit became highly enamored by Pokémon contests and decided it wanted to compete (at least in the performance portion). And so it approached Dawn to request (by some manner of telepathy and emotional pantomime) that she serve it as its temporary human sponsor. Mesprit's champion was delighted to help. The idea sounded like fun.

(Sure, the Lake Spirit insisted that it already had ideas for a performance routine, and that the coordinator need only sit back and watch, but that wasn't something to worry about. The Legendary merely wanted help with supplies, dressing up, and a means of entering.)

When they approached the next contest center for admission, and to ask for permission, they were given a brief reminder of the rules.

'Participants cannot use the move Hypnosis, or otherwise apply Psychic techniques to influence the judges and audience into giving their approval in lieu of an actual performance.'

Mesprit paused for a moment, and then nodded, smiling. Let in they were.

The performance, when it came, merely involved precise and rapid fire applications of the move Flash, and a small levitating disco ball to ensure maximum coverage.

An additional rule was thereafter discreetly added to the regulations. 'Participants are forbidden from using any techniques which involve injecting code directly into the brain to activate the synapses responsible for emotions. A performance must actually occur.'

(Tapes of this twenty second long 'performance' circulate to this day, where it is often used in therapy or as an anti-depressant.)

~~~~~

It came to pass that Azelf learned of these events. It was amused by Mesprit's idea (imagine: the opportunity to give a vast audience the will and courage to do as they wish, and compel the cowardly and weak willed to overcome their mental frailty). More significantly, however, it was offended when it learned that no member of the rules committee took credit for the amendment.

It did not take the spirit long to find a hotshot young coordinator whom it could convince(?) to sponsor its own entrance.

When they approached the next contest center for admission, and to ask for permission, they were given a brief reminder of the rules.

'Participants cannot use the move Hypnosis, or otherwise apply Psychic techniques to influence the judges and audience into giving their approval in lieu of an actual performance.

'Participants are forbidden from using any techniques which involve injecting code directly into the brain to activate the synapses responsible for emotions in lieu of an actual performance.'

Azelf paused for a moment, and then nodded, smiling. Let in they were.

The performance, when it came, merely involved precise and rapid fire applications of the move Uproar, and a small microphone to ensure maximum coverage.

(Recent legislation has banned recordings of this 40 second ‘performance’ from being used in advertising commercials. The sound file is nonetheless often used as an anti-depressant or ambience in fitness videos)

The intimidated rules committee came together in a close door meeting, and subsequently discreetly added a new rule to the regulations. 'Participants are forbidden from using any techniques which involve injecting code directly into the brain to activate the synapses responsible for willpower or determination. A performance must actually occur.'

This was followed immediately with a new retraction and a press release: "This rules committee is too spineless to announce rules changes due to fear of retribution from Legendary Pokémon. We are too spineless to enforce our existence rules due to fear of retribution from Legendary Pokémon. We are too spineless to take credit for new rules due to fear of retribution from Legendary Pokémon. As such, we are retracting our most recent rules patch. Because we are cowards."

This was followed shortly thereafter with a retraction of the retraction and a press release: "I, Raoul Contesta, have introduced a new rule banning neurological code injections to prevent activation of synapses responsible for willpower or determination. We also have existing rules banning the use of Hypnosis to influence the judges and audience. Azelf has violated these rules and is thus banned from participating for the next year."

(Azelf was pleased with this result, and went back to reading its new backlog of Green Lanturn comics)

~~~~

The rules committee wasn't stupid. They could see a pattern forming. To pre-empt a fiasco with the being of Knowledge, they decided to introduce an amendment focused on memory manipulation. While trying to figure out the best way to phrase it, a strange memory came to the fore. They were quite certain they'd already introduced an amendment at some point to cover exactly that. The remembered wording went something like

'Participants may not in any way fabricate memories of a performance, or memories of approving of a performance, or of judges scoring a performance. Neither may they erase any such existing memories. All parts of a performances must actually occur.'

They remembered exactly where it was in the rules,  So they opened the rulebook to the appropriate page, and found….nothing. The spot where it should have been - where there was exactly enough space for such a rule - was blank. The seeming typographical error had been there as long as they could remember.

Was the rule removed? They didn't remember when it was added in the first place, or even why. 

They checked through the tapes to find a misdeed that would have brought about the rule. Evidence to solve a missing person case? Sure. Wanted Pokémon Poacher sitting in a recent audience? Absolutely. Memory manipulators? Nothing. 

They checked through each previous addition of the rulebook to find an answer. Nothing.  Worse than nothing: the placeholder whitespace where the rule should be is present in all editions of the rulebook in every region, all the way back to the very first copy.

The day already late, the committee decides to go home for the night and pick back up in the morning. By the time they return, the amendment is entirely forgotten.

[beardedmrbean]

RIGA - The Saeima today supported in principle amendments to the Road Traffic Law, which provide for the ban of vehicles registered in Belarus in Latvia.

The bill will be processed in a fast track procedure. It stipulates that vehicles registered in Belarus that are currently in Latvian territory must be removed or registered for road traffic in Latvia by October 31.

After the deadline, Belarusian vehicles will only be able to enter Latvia for one transit crossing of the Latvian territory, by applying in advance in the e-services provided by the Road Traffic Safety Directorate.

The Justice Ministry proposes to include two exceptions. The bill would not apply to persons with reduced mobility driving a vehicle registered in Belarus and entering to visit relatives in Latvia. In line with the recommendation of the Foreign Ministry, vehicles registered in Belarus will also be allowed to enter Latvia in special security cases. In these cases, persons will have to ask the Financial Intelligence Service for permission to enter the territory of Latvia.

Janis Vitenbergs (National Alliance), a member of the Saeima national economy, rural, environment and regional policy committee, stressed earlier in the session that such exceptions do not exist in the regulation on vehicles registered in Russia, which are already banned from entering Latvia.

Dace Melbarde (New Unity), Parliamentary Secretary of the Foreign Ministry, said that the Belarusian diaspora is very different from the Russian diaspora, noting that Belarusian opposition representatives had earlier called for the initial version of the draft law not to be supported. "That is why we are ready to be flexible if the political situation in Belarus changes," she said.

The plan is that in case of non-compliance with the new regulation, Latvia will be able to confiscate vehicles registered in Belarus in favor of Ukraine, supporting Ukrainians in their fight for independence.

The planned changes to the legislation will oblige owners of vehicles with Belarusian registration plates entering Latvia to re-register these vehicles in Latvia within a certain period of time, as well as to determine the consequences and liability of persons who fail to comply with these obligations.

It will also prevent the owners of these vehicles from evading responsibility for non-compliance with road traffic rules, explained the Transport Ministry.

A similar draft law was submitted by the opposition National Alliance, but was rejected by both the responsible committee and the Saeima at the end of June, saying that the Justice Ministry was already preparing a regulation.

[azuremallone]

Azure's Corner

It's time to unfuck this mess, because people are being treated as if they're stupid by the media that is spoon-feeding them lies.

From: https://wgntv.com/news/politics/donald-trump-has-sweeping-plans-what-hes-proposed/

My comments are in red, the quoted news article is in blue.

A look at what Trump has proposed:

Immigration

“Build the wall!” from his 2016 campaign has become creating “the largest mass deportation program in history.” Trump has called for using the National Guard and empowering domestic police forces in the effort.

He called for using the National Guard, which is operated by the States and not the Federal Government, to secure the border as there are not enough ICE officers to do so. The domestic police forces already have authority to enforce United States laws. His call to empower them means to strip cities of their "sanctuary" status that allows them to ignore Federal law and violate the 14th Amendment.

Still, Trump has been scant on details of what the program would look like and how he would ensure that it targeted only people in the U.S. illegally. He’s pitched “ideological screening” for would-be entrants ...

Everyone entering the United States legally are given an ideological screening as part of their immigration processing. It was enacted a long, long time ago to entrap spies and saboteurs in the 30s, later it remained enacted post-70s to entrap terrorists. It's not a pitch, because the Biden Administration ended this practice by ignoring Federal law and allowing unrestricted, unmonitored, and unlawful entry into the United States.

..., ending birth-right citizenship (which almost certainly would require a constitutional change) [Won't happen, this is not something he pitched, it was listed in the stupid 2025 document that was released by a retarded thinktank no one listens to anyway. It cannot be enacted because the very birthright citizenship is a hallmark of the United States and is an internationally recognized maritime law.], and said he’d reinstitute first-term policies such as “Remain in Mexico,” limiting migrants on public health grounds and severely limiting or banning entrants from certain majority-Muslim nations. Altogether, the approach would not just crack down on illegal migration, but curtail immigration overall.

This is hyperbolic and misleading. Remain in Mexico existed prior to the Biden Administration. In fact, people were not "caught and released" prior to Biden, they were deported and had to remain in their countries to file for immigration legally -- after a period of six months to a year for violating US immigration law. This is the law that Biden and Kamala ignored. Public health and ill-intended ultra-nationalists were always factors of grounds to limit or ban people entry from any country. In fact, the only way to get into the US from a prohibited nation (like Iran) was asylum. Even then, if you had an incurable and highly infectious disease, you would be prohibited entry. This was the case with leprosy, which is now curable until it isn't. If someone cannot be cured because they're too far gone with the disease, they are still sent to leprosy colonies to avoid infecting the public. It will curtail immigration overall because we'll be enforcing the laws that have existed for nearly a hundred years.

Abortion

Trump played down abortion as a second-term priority, even as he took credit for the Supreme Court ending a woman’s federal right to terminate a pregnancy and returning abortion regulation to state governments. At Trump’s insistence, the GOP platform, for the first time in decades, did not call for a national ban on abortion. Trump maintains that overturning Roe v. Wade is enough on the federal level.

This is where people get mislead very easily. The Government does not give people rights via laws. It takes people's rights via laws. It is best to do so to prevent a patchwork of laws across various states. However, Roe v. Wade was not a Federal law. Repeal of it did not ban abortion. The problem was that abortion proponents were abusing the ruling and attempting to further push for abortions up to and even post birth. Their argument was that at any point, Human life can be extinguished at will of the mother or the state. Meaning, they wanted to codify how and when the Government could step in and order an abortion. Proponents of this only targeted minorities. In effect, Roe v. Wade was now promoting eugenics. The overturning of it returned the rights to the people, or the states where people had voted for laws restricting or defining the use of abortion. Any right not held by the state belong to the people: Removing Roe v. Wade put the right to choose back into the hands of women, taking the their right to choose away from the Government. I know, it's convoluted. I had to sit down and review it with a constitutional attorney friend because I was curious.

Still, Trump has not said explicitly that he would veto national abortion restrictions if they reached his desk. [Why should he? Just to make people feel good about a theoretical situation?] And in an example of how the conservative movement might proceed with or without Trump, anti-abortion activists note that the GOP platform still asserts that a fetus should have due process protections under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. That constitutional argument is a roadmap for conservatives to seek a national abortion ban through federal courts.

The quoted anti-abortion activists being noted here are in the extremist category. They are not indicative of the actual conversations around abortion in general. They are also not in a position to enact this as they are not senators or representatives. In rare instances, such voices coming from senators or representatives are in staunch minority or simply singularity. The 14th Amendment being cited incorrectly in this context. The 14th Amendment requires states to apply Federal laws equally, and thus, supply equal protections for all citizens. This does not apply to non-citizens, which include the unborn as they cannot be citizens until birth on U.S. soil. [See how this comes full circle?] Due process is associated with legal persecution. Those who leverage this are the extremists who believe that the act of abortion is being carried out as a state-enacted death sentence after a criminal trial. This is just fucking stupid for them to believe, so I'm not even going to defend it. However, they would be correct if the state did call for an abortion to occur. Instead of looking at the real issue of murdering an infant and how liberals push abortion instead of education on low-income communities, pro-abortionists showcase horrors as if they're commonplace to hide the fact that they want to allow Muffy to abort a child without her wealthy multi-millionaire parents finding out she was banging the gardener while on pot, and skipping the pill because she didn't want to toxify her body. Meanwhile, they don't support nuclear families among the impoverished because it will reduce their blindly loyal low-educated voter-base.

Taxes

Trump’s tax policies broadly tilt toward corporations and wealthier Americans.

This is an ancient fear tactic. Republicans generally want common-sense regulations. This precludes the rampant spendthrift behavior of Democrats who have indebted the country to the tune of nearly 50 trillion dollars within the past 30 years, a sharp uptick from the 1980s. The Democrats routinely tax heavily to make people feel good, and then spend that money on stupid things that serve no one but their own pockets. True facts, go look.

That’s mostly due to his promise to extend his 2017 tax overhaul ...

Which benefitted lower-to-middle income families substantially until Biden reversed it and inflation exploded, hurting those same families for 4 years and sending the country toward depression by recklessly spending M2 capital to artificially prop up the economy.

... , with a few notable changes that include lowering the corporate income tax rate to 15% from the current 21% [This is why low income families can't afford eggs under Biden/Harris...]. That also involves rolling back Democratic President Joe Biden’s income tax hikes on the wealthiest Americans [This included middle-income families, despite his claims it wouldn't.] and scrapping Inflation Reduction Act levies that finance energy measures intended to combat climate change. [This is why we are heading toward a depression, since this act spent M2 capital.]

I reference M2 capital because a recent analysis by Money Fool identified that the US Dollar was contracting within the United States. M2 capital is what the Federal Government reserves for banks and lending institutions to fuel loans. Every loan, from housing mortgages to pay-day lending institutions, is not funded by or protected via IDIC by M1 capital. M1 capital is the money you have in your bank, from your paycheck, and is circulated cash. M2 funds, when they restrict because the Government does not have the money to back these loans, are a prime indicator of the economic health of a country. There is a finite amount of money here, it cannot simply be "printed", as it's pinned to available money generated from GDP. When the US Government under Biden spent this money to pay down foreign debt when our country's credit rating dropped from AAA to AA, to raise it back up again, they made a serious mistake and it resulted in explosive inflation. While the stock market is in bullish territory, companies and individuals finance these through M1 capital. When M2 restricts, the internal value of the dollar diminishes. What cost $1 dollar yesterday costs $2 today, etc. The Government at a point would need to revalue the dollar, which will undeniably send the economy into a depression.

Those policies notwithstanding [This is a placation because the writer knows it's theoretical as to what they wrote], Trump has put more emphasis on new proposals aimed at working- and middle class Americans: exempting earned tips, Social Security wages and overtime wages from income taxes. [Finally, the Truth, supporting everything I just said.] It’s noteworthy, however, that his proposal on tips, depending on how Congress might write it, could give a back-door tax break to top wage earners by allowing them to reclassify some of their pay as tip income — a prospect that at its most extreme could see hedge-fund managers or top-flight attorneys taking advantage of a policy that Trump frames as being designed for restaurant servers, bartenders and other service workers. [This is unsupported by any information and is just a flight of fancy to bolster the negative opinions of the writer.]

Tariffs and trade

Trump’s posture on international trade is to distrust world markets as harmful to American interests. [Duh? Iran, Russia, China...] He proposes tariffs of 10% to 20% on foreign goods — and in some speeches has mentioned even higher percentages. [Reinforcing "Duh..."] He promises to reinstitute an August 2020 executive order requiring that the Food and Drug Administration buy “essential” medications only from U.S. companies. [To reduce the prices of medicines while increasing FDA oversight and corporate accountability.] He pledges to block purchases of “any vital infrastructure” in the U.S. by Chinese buyers. [How is this a negative when China wound up buying square miles of land next to a sensitive United States military base in Michigan? Note that Chinese businessmen did exactly this in other countries claiming it was for business and then these locations were militarized by Chinese military forces setting up listening posts and forward operating bases. Go look, it's been in the news of various countries in South America and Cuba.]

DEI, LGBTQ and civil rights

Trump has called for rolling back societal emphasis on diversity and for legal protections for LGBTQ citizens. Trump has called for ending diversity, equity and inclusion programs in government institutions, using federal funding as leverage.

Because they don't work and create a pseudo-Government within companies that is enforced by quasi-official United States Gestapo enforcing unwritten laws.

On transgender rights, Trump promises generally to end “boys in girls’ sports,” a practice he insists, without evidence [There's evidence. It's called SCIENCE!], is widespread. But his policies go well beyond standard applause lines from his rally speeches. Among other ideas, Trump would roll back the Biden administration’s policy of extending Title IX civil rights protections to transgender students [Because Title IX has clear definitions and the Executive Branch illegally made this change, as only Congress can create, change, or repeal laws.], and he would ask Congress to require that only two genders can be recognized at birth. [Based on Science.]

Regulation, federal bureaucracy and presidential power

The president-elect seeks to reduce the role of federal bureaucrats and regulations across economic sectors. [The Executive Branch under Biden enforced rules that violate US Law or are not granted the powers to do so, such as banning Citizens from purchasing Gas appliances or non-electric vehicles. Kamala even said she would dictate prices of all products people can buy, which when you think about it, is pretty fucking Draconian.] Trump frames all regulatory cuts as an economic magic wand. [This is conjecture and opinion, not fact. Fact indicates that these cuts are logical and have been done before to great success, and also have backfired with great failure when done incorrectly or blindly.] He pledges precipitous drops in U.S. households’ utility bills by removing obstacles to fossil fuel production, including opening all federal lands for exploration — even though U.S. energy production is already at record highs.

U.S. energy production is not at record highs, this is incorrect. The United States recently stated there's insufficient power in the grid to support the growing nation. It was highlighted in many news agencies that AI and Crypto are partly responsible, but also the shuttering of nuclear and fossil fueled power plants in favor for unreliable green energy plants resulted in a significant reduction of available power. Additionally, the electrical grid is on the verge of collapse due to poorly maintained and ancient power lines such as the case in California. Green and liberal laws have made it difficult to impossible for energy providers to do anything without a bureaucracy blocking them because one squirrel lives in a tree somewhere in miles of the work to be done. However, they'll happily invade a private residence with military force, in violation of the 4th and 14th Amendments to murder the squirrel if it resides in a house.

Trump promises to unleash housing construction by cutting regulations — though most construction rules come from state and local government. [This is due to a patchwork of laws across the United States enacted by Democrats abusing the 14th Amendment like Epstein.] He also says he would end “frivolous litigation from the environmental extremists.” [Good.]

The approach would in many ways strengthen executive branch influence. That power would come more directly from the White House. [This is a flight of fancy and ignorant, as he's asking Congress to do the work they're supposed to. Certain powers already reside with the White House in terms of these rules, which were never laws but were recommendations to States for their laws.]

He would make it easier to fire federal workers by classifying thousands of them as being outside civil service protections. [He's talking about Contractors, let's be clear about this and not lie to people.] That could weaken the government’s power to enforce statutes and rules by reducing the number of employees engaging in the work and, potentially, impose a chilling effect on those who remain.

This is fearmongering and a lie. The Government under Democrats must publicly report the pay of any Government worker, except for Contractors. Contractors are not empowered to the same authority as Government officials. Equally, Government officials must be appointed or elected, Contractors do not. Contractors for the Government are many and their companies or themselves are very highly paid far more than Government officials. Reducing them will reduce the tax burden on tax paying citizens, of which illegal immigrants are not. Full circle here.

Trump also claims that presidents have exclusive power to control federal spending even after Congress has appropriated money. Trump argues that lawmakers’ budget actions “set a ceiling” on spending but not a floor — meaning the president’s constitutional duty to “faithfully execute the laws” includes discretion on whether to spend the money. This interpretation could set up a court battle with Congress.

TRUE FACT! For monies provided to the Executive Branch, the President is ultimately responsible for the Federal Budget after Congress appropriates the funds during the Budgetary Sessions. Go look, it's in the Constitution. This is not a court battle with Congress, this person doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.

As a candidate, he also suggested that the Federal Reserve, an independent entity that sets interest rates, should be subject to more presidential power. Though he has not offered details, any such move would represent a momentous change to how the U.S. economic and monetary systems work.

The Federal Reserve is a separate entity... under the Executive Branch. However, he never said it should be subject to more Presidential power, he said it should be subject to Presidential oversight for greater accountability. The President already can set forth changes to the interest rate, but the Reserve doesn't have to abide by it.

Education

The federal Department of Education would be targeted for elimination in a second Trump administration. [This is completely false, and a full bald-faced lie.]That does not mean that Trump wants Washington out of classrooms. He still proposes, among other maneuvers, using federal funding as leverage to pressure K-12 school systems to abolish tenure and adopt merit pay for teachers and to scrap diversity programs at all levels of education. [Good. It's been done before under Regan, and tenure is abused by radicalized (near terroristic) educators creating minions instead of workers.] He calls for pulling federal funding “for any school or program pushing Critical Race Theory, gender ideology, or other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children.”

CRT is not an official US Education supported curriculum. It's called a Theory because it has no supporting facts, is not proven, and is simply ignorant of actual history. Many curriculums are in place at public schools which are not founded in science, lacking evidence of their efficacy, and often times run counter to historical fact.

In higher education, Trump proposes taking over accreditation processes for colleges, a move he describes as his “secret weapon” against the “Marxist Maniacs and lunatics” he says control higher education. Trump takes aim at higher education endowments, saying he will collect “billions and billions of dollars” from schools via “taxing, fining and suing excessively large private university endowments” at schools that do not comply with his edicts. That almost certainly would end up in protracted legal fights.

FUCKING FINALLY! The Federal Government under the DOE should be responsible for ensuring these schools are conforming to regulations. However, the commentary is used to negate the real statement here. Many of these private universities have been illicitly spending endowments without oversight on everything except the students they're there to teach. That's why it's so fucking expensive to go to college, allowing only the elite few who can to do so successfully whilst indebting students for life. There's no protracted legal fights here, laws need to be considered. Trump is asking Congress to look into this.

As in other policy areas, Trump isn’t actually proposing limiting federal power in higher education but strengthening it. [The author just invalidated their entire argument in this one sentence.] He calls for redirecting the confiscated endowment money into an online “American Academy” offering college credentials to all Americans without a tuition charges. “It will be strictly non-political, and there will be no wokeness or jihadism allowed—none of that’s going to be allowed,” Trump said on Nov. 1, 2023.

Free online college education for everyone by taking from the rich kids and giving to the poor kids? I'm not seeing the problem here.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid

Trump insists he would protect Social Security and Medicare, popular programs geared toward older Americans and among the biggest pieces of the federal spending pie each year. There are questions about how his proposal not to tax tip and overtime wages might affect Social Security and Medicare. [This is circular logic intended to confuse the reader.] If such plans eventually involved only income taxes, the entitlement programs would not be affected. But exempting those wages from payroll taxes would reduce the funding stream for Social Security and Medicare outlays. [This is intentionally misleading: Author has taken their earlier argument against the fantasy that tips would become taxable by act of Congress and reversed it to hypocritically prop up this argument.] Trump has talked little about Medicaid but his first administration, in general, defaulted to approving state requests for waivers of various federal rules and it broadly endorsed state-level work requirements for recipients. [Again, what's the problem?]

Affordable Care Act and Health Care

As he has since 2015, Trump calls for repealing the Affordable Care Act and its subsidized health insurance marketplaces. [ACA increased the cost of privatized health insurance provided by employers, who were now legally required to pass the burden on to employees in order for the ACA to subsidize itself. Most working Americans get their benefits from their employers by State and Federal Laws, so the unworking or unsupported and Elderly can get Medicaid, but the ACA added another layer to this in support of health insurance companies raking in billions in profits.] But he still has not proposed a replacement: [Medicaid & Medicare exist, we now have three different insurance programs spending taxpayer monies doing the same fucking thing.] In a September debate, he insisted he had the “concepts of a plan.” In the latter stages of the campaign, Trump played up his alliance with former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime critic of vaccines and of pesticides used in U.S. agriculture. Trump repeatedly told rally crowds that he would put Kennedy in charge of “making America healthy again.” [This is just colorization to present a negative in support of the tone of the opinionated article.]

Climate and energy

Trump, who claims falsely that climate change is a “hoax,” [Because it is, as there is equal scientific facts indicating that while Humans have had an impact on the climate, it is not the only impact as other factors have greater impacts as noted historically, and various methods in support of climate change use manipulated data to support their models. When the same data is used without manipulation, through use of statistical extrapolation to fill in blanks, climate change by Humans almost disappears. Go look, it's online and from notable scientific forums. However, climate change = money.] blasts Biden-era spending on cleaner energy designed to reduce U.S. reliance on fossil fuels. He proposes an energy policy – and transportation infrastructure spending – anchored to fossil fuels: roads, bridges and combustion-engine vehicles. “Drill, baby, drill!” was a regular chant at Trump rallies. Trump says he does not oppose electric vehicles but promises to end all Biden incentives to encourage EV market development. Trump also pledges to roll back Biden-era fuel efficiency standards. [This is good for many reasons, reducing inflation quickly is one of them.]

Workers’ rights

Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance framed their ticket as favoring America’s workers. But Trump could make it harder for workers to unionize. [This is false, Union leaders came out in vocal support for Trump, but also cited their willingness to move away from partisan politics to favor only the candidate that best meets their workers' needs.] In discussing auto workers, Trump focused almost exclusively on Biden’s push toward electric vehicles. When he mentioned unions, it was often to lump “the union bosses and CEOs” together as complicit in “this disastrous electric car scheme.” [This is true, but more investigations are needed.] In an Oct. 23, 2023, statement, Trump said of United Auto Workers, “I’m telling you, you shouldn’t pay those dues.” [This statement is presented out of context to bolster a weak argument. Go look.]

National defense and America’s role in the world

Trump’s rhetoric and policy approach in world affairs is more isolationist diplomatically, non-interventionist militarily and protectionist economically than the U.S. has been since World War II.

This is not accurately presented: Since WWII, the United States has stepped into one problem after the next, expending American lives needlessly and involving ourselves in political wars we should not be involved in. It's not isolationist to block China, Russia and Iran. It would be economically viable to restrict our involvement in overseas crises that doesn't benefit the United States in any meaningful way.

But the details are more complicated. He pledges expansion of the military [Military equipment procurement], promises to protect Pentagon spending from austerity efforts and proposes a new missile defense shield — an old idea from the Reagan era during the Cold War. [We have a modern missile defense shield, it is continuously upgraded. It's not an old idea, we have them today.] Trump insists he can end Russia’s war in Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas war, without explaining how. [He has, and prior to Biden, there was peace based on his plans. This is either statement by ignorance, or intentionally lying via omission.] Trump summarizes his approach through another Reagan phrase: “peace through strength.” But he remains critical of NATO and top U.S. military brass. “I don’t consider them leaders,” Trump said of Pentagon officials that Americans “see on television.” He repeatedly praised authoritarians like Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Russia’s Vladimir Putin. [This is false representation. He hasn't praised them. He said he respects them, which is simply diplomatic to offer an olive branch. This is intended to dissuade and diminish the opinion of the reader regarding President Trump, rather than stick to facts.]

In short, I approve of Regan's phrase because...

KANE LIVES!

[getmanlaw]

Schuyler County may ask state to reject legislation that could close shooting ranges statewide

A proposed bill in the New York Senate is a gun control law being presented under the guise of an environmental law, warns the Schuyler County Clerk. 

According to County Clerk Theresa Philbin, "the Sporting Range Good Neighbor Act," currently pending in the New York State Senate, would place heavy restrictions on shooting ranges, due to proximity to wetlands and open water sources, potentially forcing existing ranges to close.  

That, in turn, would prevent people from getting pistol permits.  It would also mean local school shooting leagues would have no place to practice. 

At Philbin’s request, on Monday (May 13) the Schuyler County Legislature will consider a resolution asking state officials to reject the bill.

The proposed resolution, drafted with the assistance of Schuyler County Attorney Steven Getman, cleared the county’s Management and Finance Committee in April.   It points out that the proposed act “will cause severe hardship on the clubs, members and schools who depend upon the fish and game clubs for this very popular recreational sport in Schuyler County and the Finger Lakes with no empirical evidence that the mandates and restrictions are necessary.”

“This Bill is based upon misinformation as to the trajectory of skeet shots, and the reason why most trap and skeet fields have been operating for decades without the need for this additional legislation,” the resolution notes.

“This mis-named Act would require skeet field tracts at shooting ranges to be a minimum of 600 yards by 300 yards….Participants are shooting shotguns with small lead pellet loads which are only capable of traveling a maximum distance of 150-200 yards; in addition, most clubs reclaim the expended pellets for reuse.”

The bill says these restrictions will prevent lead from bullets getting into the environment.

Critics of the bill, including Philbin, have noted that shooting ranges already have to meet restrictive guidelines to operate safely, costing them up to $100,000, and that restrictions will cost thousands of dollars more, possibly forcing them to close.

“This Bill essentially will force most ranges and clubs to build a covered backstop and be required to follow the State rules regarding lead reclamation,” Philbin said. “Most if not all clubs will not be able to afford to comply with these regulations.”

Getman noted that closing ranges could impact citizens’ ability to obtain a pistol permit under New York State’s gun control laws.

“If you wish to apply for a concealed carry license, you need to complete the Concealed Carry Firearm Safety Training Course,” Getman said.  “Often, those classes are held at the local ranges.”

“Forcing those ranges to close would effectively prevent many New Yorkers from exercising their Second Amendment rights.”

According to Philbin, it is not just club members who participate at these ranges, but also school trap teams.    “When you look at those kids that are on school-sponsored sports teams, they get better grades in school, they have a lower dropout rate, they stay away from alcohol and drugs and tobacco,” she said.  

"This legislation could negatively affect students’ futures.  That’s why we want to protect our clubs."

The county’s resolution, if passed, will be sent to Gov. Kathy Hochul and the county’s representatives in the New York State legislature, Senator Thomas O’Mara and Assemblyman Philip Palmesano, asking each to oppose the bill.

The Schuyler County Clerk is the point of contact for pistol permit processing in Schuyler County. Amendments to the permit, name and/or address changes, transfers to/from other counties, as well as suspensions are made through the office. Pistol permit records are kept in the office, the original of each record is sent to the state.

The Schuyler County Attorney is the legal advisor for county government and its various officials. The County Attorney prepares legislation and prosecutes and defends civil actions on behalf of the county and county employees acting pursuant to their official duties.

A complete copy of the proposed resolution is available here

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Rupa Subramanya

Published: Mar 6, 2024

One of the first things you learn—or should learn—in Civics 101 is that there is no freedom at all without freedom of expression. Free speech is the essential freedom from which our other rights flow. It’s a right that we have taken for granted in the West. 

But a new wave of hate speech laws has changed that. In English-speaking countries with long traditions of free expression—countries like Canada, Britain, and Ireland—this most basic freedom is under attack. 

Take Canada. Civil liberties groups north of the border are warning a new bill put forward by Justin Trudeau’s government will introduce “draconian penalties” that risk chilling free speech. How draconian? The law would allow authorities to place a Canadian citizen under house arrest if that person is suspected to commit a future hate crime—even if they have not already done so. The legislation also increases the maximum penalty for advocating genocide from five years to life.

These punishments depend on a hazy definition of hate that Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, executive director and general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, has warned could blur the line between “political activism, passionate debate, and offensive speech.” 

The proposed law is in keeping with the Trudeau government’s broader hostility to free expression. I’ve reported before for The Free Press on this censorious turn in my country, from the crackdown on the trucker protesters to the backdoor regulation of online speech. And, testifying before the U.S. Congress in November, I urged Americans to treat Canada’s war on free expression as a cautionary tale. Increasingly, though, what’s true of Canada is true across the English-speaking world. 

In Ireland, the government is pressing ahead with controversial new restrictions of online speech that, if passed, would be among the most stringent in the Western world. 

The proposed legislation would criminalize the act of “inciting hatred” against individuals or groups based on specified “protected characteristics” like race, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation. The definition of incitement is so broad as to include “recklessly encouraging” other people to hate or cause harm “because of your views” or opinions. In other words, intent doesn’t matter. Nor would it matter if you actually posted the “reckless” content. Merely being in possession of that content—say, in a text message, or in a meme stored on your iPhone—could land you a fine of as much as €5,000 ($5,422) or up to 12 months in prison, or both. 

As with Canada’s proposed law, the Irish legislation rests on a murky definition of hate. But Ireland’s Justice Minister Helen McEntee sees this lack of clarity as a strength. “On the strong advice of the Office of the Attorney General, we have not sought to limit the definition of the widely understood concept of ‘hatred’ beyond its ordinary and everyday meaning,” she explained. “I am advised that defining it further at this juncture could risk prosecutions collapsing and victims being denied justice.” 

In Britain, existing online harm legislation means that tweeting “transwomen are men” can lead to a knock on the door from the cops. Now the governing Conservative Party is under pressure to adopt a broad definition of Islamophobia as a “type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” 

Other parties have adopted this definition, and free-speech advocates in Britain worry that it is only a matter of time until a Labour-run government codifies the definition into legislation. To do so, they argue, would mean the introduction of a de facto blasphemy law in Britain. 

These growing restrictions on speech across the Anglosphere are making the United States, with its robust First Amendment protection of speech, an outlier—though not for the Biden administration’s lack of trying. 

In April 2022, the Department of Homeland Security announced the creation of a “Disinformation Governance Board” to “coordinate countering misinformation related to homeland security.” There was an immediate pushback from free-speech advocates, who pointed to the obvious fact that this new body would necessarily impinge on protected First Amendment rights. The administration dropped the idea a few months later. 

Then, in September 2023, a federal court ruled that the Biden administration violated the First Amendment when they “coerced or significantly encouraged social media platforms to moderate content” during the pandemic. 

Jay Bhattacharya was one of the scientists on the winning side of that case. Writing in The Free Press after the ruling, he recalled being grilled on the First Amendment during his citizenship test when he was nineteen. “The American civic religion has the right to free speech as the core of its liturgy,” he wrote. “I never imagined that there would come a time when an American government would think of violating this right, or that I would be its target.” 

The trouble isn’t just the Biden administration. 

Listen to Barbara McQuade, an MSNBC legal analyst and professor at the University of Michigan Law School. Her new book, Attack from Within, details “how disinformation is sabotaging America.” America’s “deep commitment to free speech in our First Amendment. . . makes us vulnerable to claims [that] anything we want to do related to speech is censorship,” said McQuade in an interview with Rachel Maddow last week. 

A worrying number of Americans appear to be sympathetic to McQuade’s argument. A 2023 Pew survey found that just 42 percent of voters agreed that “freedom of information should be protected, even if it means false information can be published.” 

McQuade has it backward. The First Amendment is a feature, not a bug; a strength, not a vulnerability; and the bedrock of American freedom and flourishing. 

Across the English-speaking world, we once took our civil liberties for granted. Freedom of speech was understood as a blessing of democracy, not something that needed to be fought for every day. We thought that opaque and vague laws were used by those in power to punish their political or ideological opponents only in illiberal autocracies such as Russia or China. But we were wrong. And those now fighting censorship in Canada, or Britain, or Ireland, wish they had a First Amendment of their own to fall back on. 

==

Calls for censorship always come from those in power to silence dissent.

You're not supposed to notice that although they're doing it in the name of - and using the language of - "victimhood," those calling for censorship and restriction of speech are the ones who hold power from that claim to victimhood.

[udyamregister]

How to Update Udyam Registration Certificate Online: A Step-by-Step Guide

In India, the Udyam Registration is a crucial step for businesses, especially Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), to get recognized and benefit from government schemes and initiatives. Udyam Registration serves as a certification for an enterprise that falls under the micro, small, and medium categories. It is issued by the Ministry of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSME) under the Government of India.

While Udyam Registration is a one-time process, there may be instances when business details need to be updated. This could include changes in the business name, address, type of business, or ownership. Updating the Udyam Registration Certificate ensures that the business remains compliant with the regulations and can continue availing itself of various government benefits.

In this article, we’ll walk you through the steps on how to update your Udyam Registration Certificate online and the various reasons why you might need to do so.

Why Update the Udyam Registration Certificate?

Before diving into the process, let's look at some of the common reasons why an enterprise might need to update its Udyam Registration details:

Change of Business Name: If a company undergoes a rebranding or changes its name, it’s important to reflect the new name in the Udyam Registration certificate.

Change in Address: If a business moves to a new location, it must update its address in the Udyam Registration.

Ownership Change: Any changes in the ownership structure, such as the addition of partners or a transition to a private limited company, must be updated.

Change in Business Activity: If a business switches or expands its activities, it should update its classification in the Udyam Registration to reflect the new scope of work.

Changes in Investment or Turnover: When the investment in plant and machinery or annual turnover crosses the limits prescribed for the MSME classification (micro, small, medium), businesses must update their Udyam Registration to avoid issues with government schemes and benefits.

Corrections in Data: Sometimes, errors or inaccuracies may exist in the registration details. Updating the certificate can correct these mistakes.

Also read : Print Udyam Registration Certificate Online

Steps to Update Udyam Registration Certificate Online

Updating your Udyam Registration Certificate can be done conveniently online through the official Udyam Registration portal. Below are the steps to follow:

1. Visit the Udyam Registration Portal

Start by visiting the official Udyam Registration portal This is where you can register a new enterprise as well as update the existing details.

2. Log in to the Portal

To update your Udyam Registration details, you’ll need to log in to the portal using your credentials. If you are already registered, you should have the User ID and password that you created during the initial registration. Enter your credentials and click on the login button.

If you have forgotten your login credentials, there is an option to reset your password through the portal. You will need to provide your registered mobile number or email ID to receive a password reset link.

3. Select the Update Option

Once logged in, look for the option that allows you to update your Udyam Registration details. This might be listed under sections such as “Update Udyam Details” or “Amend Udyam Registration”.

Click on this option to proceed with updating your information.

4. Make Necessary Changes

In the update section, you will be prompted to provide the details you wish to change. This can include:

Business Name: If you have changed your business name, enter the new name as per the official records.

Business Address: Update the registered office address, and provide proof of address such as utility bills, lease agreements, etc.

Ownership Structure: Update details of the business ownership, such as whether it is now a partnership, limited company, or a sole proprietorship.

Business Activity: Modify the nature of business activity or the industry type as per the latest business operations.

Investment and Turnover: If the business has seen changes in the investment in plant and machinery or turnover, update these figures.

5. Upload Supporting Documents

After making the necessary changes, you may need to upload supporting documents, especially for changes in business ownership, address, or investment figures. Common documents include:

A copy of the business’s new address proof

Updated financial statements (for turnover or investment-related updates)

New partnership deeds, incorporation certificates, or any legal document supporting ownership change

Ensure that the uploaded documents are clear, legible, and in the correct format as specified by the portal (usually PDF or JPEG).

6. Review and Submit

After making all the necessary updates, carefully review the details you’ve entered to ensure accuracy. Once everything is correct, click the “Submit” button.

You might receive an OTP (One-Time Password) on the registered mobile number or email address for confirmation of the changes. Enter the OTP in the required field to proceed.

7. Acknowledge the Updates

Once you’ve submitted the updates successfully, the portal will acknowledge the changes and provide an updated Udyam Registration certificate. You can download the new certificate from the portal directly.

8. Wait for Approval (If Necessary)

In most cases, the updates are processed immediately. However, if your updates require approval or verification by the authorities, there may be a short waiting period. The portal will inform you of the status of your update request.

Things to Keep in Mind While Updating Udyam Registration

Timeliness: Keep in mind that any changes in the business must be reported within a reasonable time frame. Failure to do so may result in non-compliance with government schemes and benefits.

Accuracy: Ensure that all the information you submit is accurate and backed by the necessary documentation. Incorrect information or forged documents can lead to the rejection of the update request.

Supporting Documents: Keep all the necessary documents handy for a smooth update process. These could include the certificate of incorporation, address proof, financial statements, etc.

Technical Issues: If you face any technical issues while trying to update your Udyam Registration, the portal has a helpline and FAQ section that can guide you.

Conclusion

Updating your Udyam Registration Certificate online is a straightforward process that ensures that your business remains compliant and eligible for various government schemes and programs. Whether it’s a change in the business name, address, or ownership structure, keeping the Udyam Registration up to date is important for maintaining the credibility of your enterprise and taking full advantage of the benefits available under the MSME sector.

[gaelic-symphony]

OH LOOK IT'S THE THING I ACTUALLY KNOW ABOUT!!!

Okay, so, here's why the Raimondo case is absolutely, 100% on the Supreme Court and the Republicans who appointed and confirmed these right-wing justices. Basically, the legal question here is how much deference should courts give to decisions made by Executive Branch agencies tasked with interpreting and applying statutes already enacted by the Legislative Branch. Congress enacts a statute for a certain purpose, say, for example, the Clean Air Act, which Congress passed in order to regulate emissions and control air pollution. The Act outlines the framework for regulating emissions and the federal agencies tasked with carrying out this regulatory framework, but it doesn't get into the nitty gritty of every single corporate or industrial behavior that could be covered by the Clean Air Act.

For example, in an amendment to the Clean Air Act, Congress required that new industrial projects would have to go through an extensive EPA approval process if they would create a "major stationary source" of air pollution. What is a "major stationary source" of air pollution? Great question! The statute left it somewhat open to interpretation. It was intentionally worded in such a way that "source" could apply to significant upgrades or changes at existing factories, not just the construction of a new factory or plant. Statutory language pretty much always leaves certain standards and definitions open to interpretation for a couple of reasons.

The first reason is that the members of Congress who make the laws are not technical experts on every single thing that Congress has the power to regulate. Congress can pass the Endangered Species Act to protect and conserve endangered flora and fauna, but these elected officials who make the laws are not scientists. They don't know which species are threatened and what kinds of conservation efforts will be most beneficial to them. So Congress relies on the experts at the US Fish and Wildlife Service to use their expertise to write and enforce administrative regulations that will carry out the intention of Congress in passing the ESA.

The second reason is that new technologies and human progress can change the practical reality of what certain statutes mean and how they should be enforced. For example, most people know that the Federal Communications Commission regulates broadband internet providers and was responsible for restoring net neutrality. But the statute that created the FCC and charged it with regulating "communication by wire and radio" was enacted in the 1930s. There was no internet, no television, and no cell phones, but Congress was pretty concerned with the regulation of telegraph wires. The landscape of electronic communication has changed drastically in ways that the members of Congress who drafted and voted on the Communications Act of 1934 could never have anticipated. So our laws and our regulations need to adapt to our current reality, and most of the time, it's a lot easier to do that by having a regulatory agency enact or amend a rule than by changing a statute through an act of Congress.

Now, back to the Clean Air Act. Under Reagan, the EPA changed the way it defined "source" in the new source provision of the Clean Air Act so that it only applied to new construction like a new plant or factory, which gave corporations and industries a lot more freedom to act without agency oversight because they could avoid having to go through the EPA approval process when making significant alterations to existing factories, as long as they made other changes that offset the additional pollution caused by adding a new boiler, smokestack, etc. The Natural Resources Defense Council sued them over this interpretation of the statute.

In a landmark case for administrative law known as Chevron v. NRDC, aka the very same case the Supreme Court just gutted, the Court held that the EPA's interpretation of the statute was valid because Congress had intentionally left the "policy decision" of interpreting the meaning of the word "source" in the statute to the EPA, and the EPA had interpreted it in a way that was valid and reasonable. This created a standard for review known as Chevron deference, which means that whenever a court is reviewing an agency's interpretation of a statute that Congress tasked them with enforcing, the court must defer to the agency's interpretation when a) there is ambiguity in a statute to interpret it in multiple ways, and b) the agency has chosen a way to interpret it that is not "arbitrary or capricious." This test has been the foundation of our administrative state for the past 40 years, and our current hyper-conservative Supreme Court just tossed it out.

Let me be very clear about Chevron: It was never about Congress. It was judge-made law. Congress has never played a part in dictating how courts should review the decisions of Executive Branch agencies. Could they have codified Chevron? Yeah, sure, I guess, that doesn't violate Separation of Powers or anything. But given, you know, the state of our country and our government, that wasn't exactly super high on the legislative agenda. It's not like Congress failing to codify Roe before Dobbs. So when federal judges are undermining federal agencies and gutting regulations left and right, remember that this is happening because Mitch McConnell has been on a judicial power grab to pack the federal courts with young right-wing judges who will serve lifetime appointments, including allowing Trump to nominate and confirm one third of the highest court in our country.

Supreme court came down with two earth-shattering decisions this morning:

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo allows courts to make decisions that used to be the job of federal agencies.

If the FDA says hormone treatments are safe, the court can now say "mmm, nah" and ban those treatments.

The court can ban mifepristone or miscarriage care contrary to medical experts.

The court can lower requirements by the EPA that regulates climate change.

The court can overrule trade rules by the FTC.

The court could require less safety regulation on airplanes.

And much much more!!

This is very very bad, and the way to solve this problem is by voting for Joe Biden so that he can replace Thomas and Alito when they die. If you care about marginalized communities, PLEASE vote.

City of Grant Pass v. Johnson says that criminalizing/fining people for sleeping outside (aka being homeless) isn't cruel and unusual punishment. It will punish people of color and disabled people disproportionately.

On my knees begging you to vote for Joe Biden. You cannot sit this one out. Activism is not tweeting or blogging. You are not helping by not exercising your right to vote, a right that can and will be taken from you if Joe Biden is not reelected.

Edit: they also dismissed some charges against January 6 defendants but quite frankly that is not as important, even though that's what everyone is freaking out about.

[providentalproperties]

Legal Considerations for Foreign Buyers in Abu Dhabi Real Estate

Abu Dhabi is a promising city in UAE which is bustling with economic activity. Because of such growth and its strategic position in the Persian Gulf, it is a dream destination for expats who would like to invest in a foreign country. 

With such alluring attractions Abu Dhabi has found solid investments from foreign nationals in the real estate sector.

Abu Dhabi’s Department of Municipalities and Transport recently reported a rise in foreign investments in real estate by 363 percent in the first half of 2023.

These statistics are indeed the result of deliberate efforts and legislation on the part of incumbent authorities. 

Until 2019 there were restrictions for foreign nationals to own land or any properties. As a part of the governing body's interest to multiply its economic prowess, the government has opened real estate to foreign nationals with certain restrictions.

Can a foreigner buy property in Abu Dhabi? 

As already mentioned right to own land was restricted for foreigners in Abu Dhabi. As a result, most expats had to lease out properties with contracts that may reach up to 99 years. 

In 2019 a law regulating the ownership of real estate properties was amended by the incumbent governor of Abu Dhabi. This amendment, in the law numbered 19 in 2005, gave way for foreign nationals to own land in Abu Dhabi. This was made possible with amendments in its Articles 3 and 4. 

So the answer to the question is, Yes a foreigner can buy freehold properties in Abu Dhabi in areas fixed by the authorities. 

Thus homes for sale in Abu Dhabi got a surge in demand from foreigners.

Paper works for foreign buyers in Abu Dhabi

Registration, creation of an escrow account, and notarising contracts such as the sale and purchase agreement provide you legally binding transfer of property in Abu Dhabi. The paperwork involved in such procedures might overwhelm you. In such cases, it is better to consult a professional legal practitioner for preparing or evaluating this paperwork.

You might find it alluring to jump after cheap houses for sale in Abu Dhabi. Wait! There are a few more legal considerations that will assure you a legitimate ownership of the property.

Legal Considerations

Title Deed: Before making the transaction please verify the title deed. The seller should have a legal title over the property with zero space for disputes. Homes for sale in Abu Dhabi might come with attractive offers. However, keeping and checking necessary documents is essential for legitimate ownership. A professional lawyer can assist you in this property title search.

Registration: Registering the property in your name at the Abu Dhabi land department is necessary to ensure lawful custody of the property.

Fees Involved: Property Transfer Fee, Registration Fee, and all other fees and taxes should be paid in compliance with Emirati laws. 

The changes in Abu Dhabi laws have resulted in enormous investment in the real estate sector. Leveraging this opportunity effectively requires adherence to the existing laws. These laws are intended to provide trouble-free transactions for sellers and investors equally. Thus before proceeding with the search for homes for sale in Abu Dhabi, it is required of you in your best interest to understand the legal terrain of Abu Dhabi land laws.

With a team of qualified legal professionals Providential Properties Management is all set to take you through a hassle-free process of finding a trustworthy investment opportunity in Abu Dhabi.

[wyrmfedgrave]

4 Supreme Court decisions that have quietly jumpstarted Project 2025 | Salon.com

So, it turns out that Project 2025 has been secretly advanced by piecemeal Scotus legislation.

4 important pieces of the plan have already been passed!

1. Paying elected officials is no longer Bribery!

2. EPA regulations can no longer regulate protection from pollution, food additives, etc...

3. Only Christo-Fascist beliefs are imposed on all other citizens!! The separation of church & state is gone!

4. The 14th Amendment's protection of women's medical privacy was stuck down!!

Abortion is no longer a Sex Based choice but a legal one.

In all these cases, OLD common law is more important than modern ones.

Republikkkans claim that the Biden/ Harris Scotus reforms are already "Dead."

Not so.

As usual, Republikkkans lead with lies.

They've only been able to impose their full wills on a few states - for now...

All 6 partisan Scotus judges are in bed with fossil fuel companies.

And, they all belong to the Federalist Society & the Heritage Foundation.

All receive Dark Money from various rich corporate donors.

And, have the media support of rich Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Network.

Project 2025 exists mostly to secretly advance Climate Change denial...

But, you'll have only 1 chance to be able to stop this - on November 5th.

So, come out prepared to do your part to preserve your hard-won freedoms...

Cause the Republikkkans are dying to break even more laws to protect their "sugar daddies."

End.

[davies-parker]

A Comprehensive Guide for Businesses to comply with the California Privacy Right Act

Introduction:

The California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) came into effect on January 1, 2023, marking a significant shift in data privacy legislation. With full enforcement scheduled for July 1, 2023, businesses must understand the implications of this new law on their websites and operations. In this blog post, we dissect the key elements of the CPRA, shedding light on its implications and the necessary steps for compliance.

Compliance with Tsaaro:

Tsaaro Consulting is already ahead in ensuring compliance with California’s data privacy laws. As we transition into the CPRA era, Tsaaro continues to offer robust solutions to navigate the evolving landscape, aligning seamlessly with the state’s stringent regulations.

California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA): A Quick Overview

The CPRA, passed into law on November 3, 2020, serves as an extension of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which took effect on January 1, 2020. Positioned as a data privacy frontier, California significantly bolsters residents’ rights and introduces stricter regulations on the use of personal information (PI). Notable changes include the establishment of the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) for statewide data privacy enforcement.

Key Changes Introduced by CPRA:

Creation of Sensitive Personal Information (SPI): The CPRA introduces a new category, SPI, encompassing data on race, religious beliefs, genetic information, and more. SPI is regulated separately, granting users expanded control over its use.

Updated Definitions and Scope: The CPRA modifies the definition of business, excluding smaller entities and including those with substantial revenue generated from the collection, sharing, or selling of Californians’ PI.

New and Modified Rights: California residents gain four new rights, including the right to correction and the right to limit the use of SPI. Existing rights, such as the right to delete and opt-out, are also modified to enhance user control.

Regulation of Behavioural Advertising: The CPRA specifically regulates cross-contextual behavioural advertising, allowing users to opt-out of targeted ads based on their behavioural data.

Introduction of the CPPA: The creation of the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) marks a significant shift in enforcement responsibilities from the Office of the Attorney General. The CPPA has the authority to investigate and fine violations, ensuring strict adherence to the CPRA.

GDPR-Like Provisions: The CPRA introduces GDPR-like requirements, emphasising data minimization, purpose limitation, and storage limitation. Businesses are now mandated to collect, use, and share data strictly according to the purpose of collection.

Timeline for CPRA Compliance:

January 1, 2021: CPRA is passed into law, and the CPPA is created.

July 1, 2021: launch of the procedure for creating and approving CPRA regulations.

January 1, 2022: In accordance with the CPRA’s one-year lookback period, PI collection becomes liable.

July 1, 2022: The CPPA’s deadline for approving the CPRA’s final regulations.

January 1, 2023: The CPRA goes into effect fully.

July 1, 2023: Under the CPPA, the CPRA is first enforced.

CCPA vs. CPRA: A Unified Data Privacy Regime

It’s crucial to understand that California operates under one overarching data privacy regime. The CPRA serves as a comprehensive amendment to the CCPA, refining and reinforcing the existing framework. While the CCPA laid the foundation, the CPRA renovates it, addressing ambiguities and introducing additional regulations.

Conclusion:

As businesses navigate the complex terrain of California’s data privacy laws, compliance with the CPRA is not just a legal necessity but a commitment to user rights and ethical data practices. With Tsaaro leading the way in compliance solutions, businesses can confidently embrace the CPRA era, ensuring the protection of user data and upholding the highest standards of privacy.

Click Here for Data Privacy Services

[waterfiltergurus]

EPA Lead and Copper Rule Revisions LCRR (Ultimate Guide)

Lead is a heavy metal with some of the most serious health risks to humans. It's classed as a neurotoxin, and no amount of lead is safe in drinking water. With that said, between 6 and 10 million lead service lines still exist in the US, and we still continue to hear stories of lead poisoning epidemics around the country - with the most recent being the September 2022 discovery of dangerous levels of lead in Chicago's public drinking water system. The EPA is thankfully taking the matter of lead in water seriously, and has recently made public the Lead And Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR), which builds on the existing Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) with the goal of eliminating lead from our homes once and for all. The new regulation is a high priority in the White House, and will hopefully fast-track the plans and processes in place to ensure all US communities have access to lead-free drinking water. In this guide, we've done a deep dive into the EPA LCRR, sharing everything you need to know about this important subject. Note: If you have specific questions about the LCRR that you want answering quickly and simply, check the FAQ section at the bottom of this article. 📌 Key Takeaways: - The EPA Lead And Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) is a revised version of the original Lead And Copper Rule. - The aim of the LCRR is to better protect communities from lead in drinking water, particularly children and disadvantaged communities, and support the government in eliminating all lead service lines in the US within a decade. - The first draft of the LCRR was published in 2019, and the initial compliance date is currently set to October 2024. - This date will likely change because the EPA has been working on an amended version of the LCRR (the LCRI) which is set to be implemented in the near future. 🤔 What Is The EPA Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR)? The EPA Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) is an update to the existing Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), produced by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address issues related to lead and copper contamination in drinking water. It was implemented on December 16, 2021. October 16, 2024 is the first compliance date. The original Lead and Copper Rule was established in 1991, but had faced criticism for not doing enough to protect public health. The LCRR aims to strengthen regulations surrounding lead and copper in drinking water systems and ultimately reduce exposure to these harmful contaminants. There are several aims of the LCRR, including introducing more stringent testing requirements, establishing a lower "action level" for lead (which requires corrective actions when exceeded), and improving public transparency through better communication with consumers about lead levels in their drinking water. The rule also mandates the replacement of lead service lines - a significant source of lead contamination, especially in older communities. These revisions are a vital step towards ensuring safer drinking water for all communities in the US, and preventing the kind of lead crises that we've seen in the past (such as the infamous Flint, Michigan case). 📆 What Are The Key Dates For The LCRR? Here's a timeline of dates documenting the implementation of the Lead And Copper Rule Revisions, from 2018 to 2024: - 2018: The LCRR was included by the White House as a key objective in a federal action plan that aimed to protect children from lead. By this point, the EPA had already been gathering feedback on revisions for over 10 years. - 2019: The EPA published a draft of the Lead And Copper Rule Revisions, allowing stakeholders to give their input. - January 2021: The LCRR was officially implemented by the EPA, and the first compliance date - January 2024 - was set. Executive Order 13990 was issued, requiring federal agencies to determine the sufficiency of the existing rules in relation to scientific data, public health, and environmental protection. The outcome of this order was that the EPA needed to review the LCRR and an additional 47 other rules. - March 2021: The EPA delayed the implementation of the LCRR because of the issuing of Executive Order 13990. The date was pushed back to June of the same year, but the EPA also requested comment on whether the implementation should be moved as far back as December for the sake of seeking public feedback. This same month, the American Jobs Plan was issued, proposing to "eliminate all lead pipes and service lines in our drinking water systems". - June 2021: The LCRR’s implementation date was pushed back to December by the EPA, and a new compliance date - October 2024 - was issued. - April - August 2021: Over these months, the EPA met with stakeholders and held public hearings, requesting comments, with a focus on the communities disproportionately impacted by lead exposure in water. - November 2021: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Act was signed by President Biden, and $15 billion was delegated for the identification and replacement of lead service lines within a period of 5 years. - December 2021: The EPA reimplemented the LCRR and maintained its amended compliance date of 16 October 2024. This month, the White House also announced the Biden-Harris Lead Pipe and Paint Action Plan, with the aim of replacing all the lead pipes in the country. 🔎 What Is The Lead And Copper Rule? Before we look in more detail at the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions, let's jump back to look at the original Lead and Copper Rule. The Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) is a federal regulation that was established by the EPA in 1991 to safeguard the quality of municipal drinking water and reduce our exposure to lead and copper in public water systems. The primary goal of this rule was to protect the public, especially vulnerable populations like children, from the concerning health effects associated with lead and copper contamination. The original LCR required public water systems to monitor lead and copper levels in drinking water through regular testing. If their water supplies contained lead at levels that exceeded the action levels, water systems had to take corrective actions, like implementing corrosion control measures to reduce the leaching of lead and copper from pipes and fixtures. The rule also required water utilities to notify the public of their test results and provide guidance on how to minimize exposure. Plus, lead service lines were mandated to be replaced over time, and the rule imposed a ban on lead-containing materials in plumbing. 🧐 What Was Wrong With The Original Lead And Copper Rule? The original LCR has faced criticism over the years for not being sufficiently protective of public health, particularly in light of the Flint, Michigan water crisis. One of the key issues was that the rule's action level for lead was too high, allowing public water systems to exceed lead levels considered safe before they legally had to take action. As a result, the extent of lead contamination was underestimated in some areas. The rule was criticized because it didn't require the immediate replacement of lead service lines, allowing them to remain in use, which perpetuated the risk of lead leaching into drinking water. Finally, the LCR also lacked transparency, as it didn't require authorities and public water systems to sufficiently notify and inform their communities about lead contamination in water systems, so many residents were simply unaware of the potential health risks of this toxic metal. We've seen numerous examples over the years that tell us the original LCR hasn't been sufficient in protecting communities from lead in water. If the rule was 100% effective, there should have been no concealed or underplayed cases of lead contamination since its implementation. Unfortunately, this simply wasn't the case. 🚰 Did The Original Lead And Copper Rule Do Anything Right? Yes, actually - despite its criticisms, a lot of good came out of the original Lead And Copper Rule. We've seen a 90% decrease in the number of large public water systems that exceed the lead “action level”, which is promising news. And this figure has got better in recent years - only 3% of water systems reported exceeding this “action level” during the last three years. Plus, the actions implemented as a result of the LCR, combined with other federal regulations, have helped to reduce the concentration of lead in the blood of children aged one to five by 95% since the 1976-1980 date range. Back then, the median concentration of lead in these children's blood measured at 15 micrograms per deciliter, while in 2013-2014, the median concentration measured at just 0.7 micrograms per deciliter. Of course, we want to see a concentration of 0, but improvements have clearly been made. We can see from these examples and other data that we've come a long way since the EPA Lead And Copper Rule was first implemented. But we still haven't achieved the goal of eliminating lead from drinking water, and that's where the Lead And Copper Rule Revisions come into play. 🔑 What Are The Key Revisions To The Lead And Copper Rule? The key Lead And Copper Rule Revisions are: - Lead testing at child care facilities and schools. Public water systems are now required to test for lead in schools and childcare facilities. - Lead service line inventories. PWS must also provide information on their lead service lines for public viewing. - Trigger level to mitigate lead exposure. If lower levels of lead are detected in municipal water supplies, PWS must now initiate mitigation based on a new "trigger level" of 10 µg/liter (lower than the action level of 15 µg/liter) for the contaminant. The LCRR also builds on a lot of the measures that existed in the original Lead And Copper Rule, including the replacement of lead service lines, treatment to control corrosion, public education, lead drinking water sampling, and more. Some of these additional changes to existing measures include: - Better and more reliable lead sampling. The new regulation provides stricter guidance on the method of collecting samples and has updated the sample collection process. - "Find and fix" initiative. The LCCR has also implemented a "find and fix" initiative that aims to help public water systems to identify high levels of lead in customer homes. - Provide improved education. According to the revised rule, PWS must also provide more thorough education to communities to better protect the public. - Increase the lead service line replacement rate. The rule also aims to increase the annual lead service line replacement rate and increase the program period to 1-2 years minimum. - Additional lead service line replacement rules. There are a few specific mandates that tie into lead service line replacements, including avoiding delay to replacements and requiring a full replacement if a customer plans to replace their portion of a line. ✅ What Are The Lead And Copper Rule Improvements? While the Lead And Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) and the Lead And Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) might sound like they're exactly the same, but they're not - the LCRI are the changes that have been made to the LCRR. The purpose of these improvements was to acknowledge the Biden-Harris Lead Pipe and Paint Action Plan, which, as we mentioned earlier, was implemented in December 2021 and has big aims to replace all the lead pipes in the country. This new regulation is still being developed by the EPA and has not yet been issued - all we know is that it'll be released before the initial compliance date of the Lead And Copper Rule Revisions (which are looking like they will likely be delayed due to changes to the regulation's requirements). What can we expect to see in the Lead And Copper Rule Improvements? The EPA hasn't yet released the exact planned contents of this regulation, but it has announced that the LCRI will focus on four key areas: - Improving lead sampling practices - Replacing all lead service lines - Ensuring that resources and funding for lead service line replacements are equitable - Providing clarification on the "trigger" and "action" levels for lead in drinking water, and reconsidering whether the "trigger" level is necessary. The EPA is also in the process of determining whether to reduce the implementation-to-compliance period of three years (as outlined in the Safe Drinking Water Act) for the Lead And Copper Rule Improvements, preventing the unnecessary delay in implementing public health improvements. How aggressive will the LCRI be? Again, we don't know how aggressively the EPA will amend the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions with the LCRI. One argument is that the changes made to the initial regulation are only minor, since it's set to be implemented soon. If major changes were to be made, the EPA could take years - even decades - to update the regulation, which is far from ideal given the pressure from the government to replace lead as a service line material in all water systems in the country within a decade. With that said, the EPA might provide a fast turnaround and make aggressive changes to the regulation - again, because of the pressure to remove all lead service lines and eliminate this source of lead in drinking water as quickly as possible. 📖 Helpful Terms To Be Aware Of To get a more thorough grasp of the new Lead And Copper Rule Revisions, it's worth being aware of a few helpful terms. These are: Lead Service Lines Lead service lines are pipes made of lead that were originally widely used to connect homes and buildings to the public water supply. Lead was historically used for this purpose because of its durability and malleability. We now know that lead poses a significant health risk and can leach into drinking water, which is why Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1986, banning the use of lead in new service lines. Unfortunately, this ban didn't require existing lead service lines to be replaced, but efforts have since been made to replace lead service pipes with those made from safer materials, like copper or plastic. In the revised Lead And Copper Rule, "lead service lines" is often shortened to LSR. Lead Service Line Replacement Following on from the above, when a public water system or a resident replaces part of, or all of, the lead pipe connecting the water main to their home, it's referred to as a lead service line replacement. You'll see this mentioned in the Lead And Copper Rule Revisions because there are several new requirements or updates to the original regulations that relate to the subject. There are typically two sides to a lead service line: one side that's owned by the customer and one that's owned by the water utility. Customers must pay for the replacement of their side of the lead service line, but the new regulation requires utilities to replace their side of the line when the customer informs them that they plan to make this replacement. Water systems are working on identifying and replacing lead service lines in their communities, but the sad reality is that many customers can't afford to replace their side of these lines. "Lead service line replacement" is often abbreviated to LSLR in the Lead And Copper Rule Revisions. Corrosion control treatment Unlike most other trace contaminants in drinking water systems, lead rarely enters the water from the environment. The majority of cases of lead exposure in drinking water are the result of leaching from lead pipes. While replacing lead service lines is ultimately the best solution to the problem of lead in municipal water, it's also an expensive one. In the meantime, many public water systems use corrosion control treatment: a method or set of measures employed to prevent or minimize the lead corrosion of metal pipes and plumbing components in a water distribution system. The primary goal of corrosion control is to ensure that the water remains safe to drink, while also protecting the infrastructure from damage. The exact methods of corrosion control treatment vary depending on the situation, but common methods include adjusting pH, increasing water hardness or alkalinity, or using corrosion inhibitors, like silicates and orthophosphate or sodium polyphosphates. Corrosion control treatment is usually abbreviated to "CCT" in the Lead And Copper Rule Revisions. Lead Sampling Lead sampling was, and remains, a big part of the Lead And Copper Rule. In the revisions made to the rule, there are updated requirements that public water systems must adhere to when taking and documenting lead water samples. There are now very precise rules for lead sampling, which specify how and where a lead sample should be conducted. The rules also mandate the frequency of sampling, and from whom lead samples should be taken. A water system must take action if lead is detected in levels higher than the standards set by the EPA. This action may involve implementing corrosion control treatment, replacing a lead service line, or even distributing lead removal water filters for municipal drinking water customers affected by the lead contamination. Lead Service Line Inventory A lead service line inventory is a comprehensive record-keeping system that municipalities and water utilities use to track and manage the presence of lead pipes or components in their drinking water distribution systems. The inventory records the following data: - The known lead service lines in the community - The material type for the service lines - Any galvanized service lines that need to be replaced (if they're downstream of lead pipes) - Documentation of "lead status unknown" if the pipe has not yet been properly assessed for lead The purpose of creating and regularly updating a lead service line inventory is to enable authorities to prioritize the replacement of lead-containing pipes, implement corrosion control measures if necessary, and communicate effectively with residents about their potential risks and necessary precautions they should take. Lead service line inventories are often referred to as LSL inventories in the Lead And Copper Rule Revisions. 📈 What Are The EPA's Projections For The Lead And Copper Rule Revisions? We know the goals and intended outcomes for the revised Lead And Copper Rule - but what does the Environmental Protection Agency project for the future once the new rules have been implemented? The EPA anticipates that between 213,500 and 350,000 lead service lines will be replaced in the next 35 years simply as a result of increased community awareness and lead service line inventories. Once all the revisions to the LCR are taken into account, the EPA estimates an even better figure for lead service line replacements: between 339,000 and 555,000. This should mean that water utilities make significant process compared to the previous lead service line replacements under the original Lead And Copper Rule. 🧾 Are There Any Non-Regulatory Actions That The EPA Is Taking? Yes, there are a number of non-regulatory actions that the EPA is taking to help fulfill the White House's clean water plan and address concerns held by stakeholders. These are: - Collaboration with federal agencies and partners to ensure that facilities like child care centers and schools have the support and funding they need to protect their facilities from lead in water. Without this collaboration, the EPA's authority over these facilities is limited. - Raising awareness in communities by providing templates and guidance to water systems, states, and tribes, to increase awareness of the risks of lead exposure. The EPA will also be revising the Consumer Confidence Report Rule so that water systems must make customers aware when corrosion control treatment is being used, and how a utility is mitigating a case of lead presence above the EPA action level. Read the full article