Silas Truth

[Silas Truth @SilasTruth250]

@289Scooter37865 @BrandiKruse That is my understanding as well.
Silas Truth. Sons of Liberty

[Silas Truth @SilasTruth250]

That is actually a good question.

The Court couldn't simply send I-2066 back and tell someone to rewrite it because voters had already approved a specific piece of legislation.

The majority decided the different subjects were not legally severable, so they struck the whole initiative.

But here is where it gets interesting: three justices dissented and said essentially what you are suggesting.

They believed the unconstitutional portions could be removed while preserving much of what Washington voters approved.

One correction, though: this ruling does not mean everyone's natural gas gets shut off.

What it does mean is that the protections I-2066 would have provided are gone, and the previous laws and regulatory authority aimed at moving buildings away from natural gas remain in place.

That distinction matters.

The next question should be:
what does Olympia do now with the message voters sent when they passed I-2066?

It feels like this happens when the people interrupt the revenue stream.

Lean on Artical 1 Section 1 of Washington States Constitution.

Silas Truth, Sons of Liberty

[Silas Truth @SilasTruth250]

@PillofChill @GovBobFerguson “Governor Ferguson says he’ll do anything to support Washington’s maritime industry. In Olympia, that usually means someone is already looking for a way to put an ecology fee on the fuel dock.”
Silas Truth, Sons of Liberty

[Silas Truth @SilasTruth250]

Senator Murray, same song, same dance.

Premiums are rising. RFK Jr. talked about “chemtrails.” CHD has pushed false vaccine claims.

But stacking three separate facts together still doesn’t prove the story you want them to tell.

And “getting kids killed” is a serious claim. Where are the receipts?

Apparently we’re back to accusation first, evidence sold separately.

God gave us discernment for a reason.

Silas Truth
Sons of Liberty

[Silas Truth @SilasTruth250]

Jason, I had to read this one twice.

Apparently Seattle City Hall has decided the missing piece in its civil-rights code was relationship geometry.

To be accurate, Seattle did NOT legalize plural marriage.

What the Council did was add consensual relationships involving multiple partners, including non-monogamous relationships, into the city’s protected definition of sexual orientation.

That raises a legitimate question.

Liberty means consenting adults are free to make their own private choices.

But does every private relationship arrangement automatically need to become a protected civil-rights category?

Those are not the same thing.

Government can leave people alone without creating a new protected legal status for every way people choose to organize their intimate lives.

Somewhere between “mind your own business” and “write it into the civil-rights code,” Seattle appears to have skipped a few pages.

Which makes me wonder: what the heck comes next?

God gave man free will.

The Constitution protects liberty.

Neither requires City Hall to redefine a civil-rights category every time society develops another relationship structure.

And once government starts expanding protected categories this way, the obvious question becomes:

What is the limiting principle?

Where exactly does Seattle draw the line?

Maybe the tattoo analogy is fitting for Seattle.

Coffee in one hand. Scooter app in the other. Another tattoo going into the city code.

It may feel fashionable today, but unlike the latte, this one doesn’t wash out.

Years later somebody may look at it and ask, “What exactly were we thinking?”

But there it is.

Ink in the skin. Language in the code.

Easy to add.

A lot harder to erase.

Silas Truth
Sons of Liberty

[Silas Truth @SilasTruth250]

Move the Barrel: Follow the Chokepoints

Here is the question we should be asking:

Why is so much of the oil the world depends on still exposed to a handful of vulnerable chokepoints surrounded by military tension, armed factions, and competing strategic interests?

Hormuz. Bab el-Mandeb. Pipelines that can be hit. Ports that can be threatened.

And now the market is beginning to put a price on the difference.

This week, while Brent futures were trading near $108 a barrel, Reuters reported some physical crude cargoes in Europe reaching roughly $122 a barrel as buyers scrambled to replace disrupted Saudi supply.

That roughly $14 spread is not simply a “chokepoint tax.” Grade, freight, location, availability, and scarcity all matter.

But it tells us something important:

A barrel on paper and a barrel you can actually get to your refinery are not always worth the same thing.

That is where Move the Barrel gets interesting.

In our Imperial System framework, the chokepoints begin to look less like simple geography and more like the junkyard dog at the gate.

You may still get through.

But the risk changes the price of everything behind the fence.

Maybe “Move the Barrel” eventually means more than finding another route for the same Middle Eastern barrel.

Maybe it means asking where the next barrel should be produced, how reliably it can be delivered, and what the market will pay for a barrel that does not have to run the Hormuz–Bab el-Mandeb gauntlet.

Follow the price.

Follow the pipelines.

Follow the ports.

Follow the barrels.

That is one of the questions we are tracking in The American Doctrine on my page.

No predictions. No slogans.

No line goes on the board without receipts.

Silas Truth
Sons of Liberty

[Silas Truth @SilasTruth250]

Congresswoman Jayapal, freedom of the press and free speech absolutely matter.

But since you brought up free speech, your own record deserves a little sunlight too.

In September 2020, you and Rep. David Cicilline urged Facebook to:

• enforce its existing election-related rules against everyone, including President Trump and other elected officials,

• immediately remove posts, groups, and event pages promoting what you described as white-supremacist violence, voter suppression, or misinformation,

• and ban white nationalist and hate groups from using Facebook to organize events promoting violence, election interference, or voter suppression.

Those are not my characterizations. They come from your own congressional statement and letter.

Again, nothing goes on the board without receipts.

Now, to be fair, Facebook moderation by a private company is not legally identical to a President restricting White House press access. They raise different First Amendment questions.

But the contrast is still worth examining.

Today you are condemning Republicans for not standing up strongly enough for free speech and freedom of the press. In 2020, you were urging a major communications platform to remove specified categories of election-related content and enforce those restrictions even against the President.

So perhaps the useful question is not who can shout “free speech” the loudest.

It is this:

What is the consistent principle, Congresswoman?

How should Americans distinguish between protecting political expression and restricting content labeled misinformation, particularly when elected officials are urging a private platform to act?

Those are questions worth answering.

Receipts are inconvenient things, aren’t they?

Silas Truth
Sons of Liberty

[Silas Truth @SilasTruth250]

Senator Murray, the First Amendment matters. So do facts.

President Trump announced that CNN, MS NOW, and Politico would be barred from the White House. That part is news.

But “Presidents with nothing to hide don’t ban reporters”?

Apparently “he banned reporters” now comes with a complimentary “therefore he has something to hide.”

Convenient argument.

Evidence sold separately.

Then you jump straight to “historically corrupt,” as though repeating the accusation somehow fills in the missing proof.

It doesn’t.

There is also some context you left out.

Pew Research Center examined Trump coverage during his first 100 days and found that 56% of CNN’s coverage carried a negative assessment of Trump or his administration. At MSNBC, it was 81%.

I actually checked the numbers before making the claim. Funny how useful receipts can be.

Those figures do NOT prove every negative story was false. They do give Americans reason to question where straight reporting ends and political framing begins.

A free press absolutely should scrutinize the President.

But “free press” does not mean “above scrutiny.”

Proverbs 18:17 gives us a useful standard: the first account can sound convincing until the other side is heard and the claim is examined.

Maybe Washington, D.C. could use a little more of that and a little less accusation-by-slogan.

Senator, you took a real event and attached an unproven accusation of concealment and corruption to it.

That may make good political rhetoric.

It does not make it evidence.

As always with these three and some others the conclusion is already decided before the evidence arrives, that isn’t investigation.

That’s TDS politics wearing a press badge.

The press should scrutinize the President.

The American people should scrutinize the press.

And when a United States senator makes accusations without showing the connection between the event and the alleged wrongdoing, she should expect scrutiny too.

God gave us reason, discernment, and a standard for truth.

Perhaps we should use them before declaring the verdict.

Silas Truth
Sons of Liberty

[Silas Truth @SilasTruth250]

Congresswoman, there are actually two issues here.

If the White House excludes news organizations because officials dislike their reporting, the First Amendment question deserves serious scrutiny.

No president gets an exemption from the Constitution because he believes the press is unfair.

But then you make an interesting turn:

“This underscores why it's so important Democrats control the House next year.”

Hold on.

Isn't rigorous congressional oversight supposed to happen regardless of which party controls Congress or occupies the White House?

Republicans should scrutinize Republican presidents.

Democrats should scrutinize Democratic presidents.

Congress wasn't created to suddenly discover executive accountability whenever the other team has the ball.

That's not oversight.

That's politics wearing an oversight nametag.

Here's a novel idea:

One constitutional standard. Every president. Every party. Every time.

God gave us a pretty straightforward principle:

“Ye shall not respect persons in judgment.” — Deuteronomy 1:17

In modern English?

Don't change the measuring stick depending on who is standing in front of you.

So yes, Congresswoman, scrutinize this administration.

Ask hard questions.

Demand constitutional answers.

But shouldn't members of Congress bring that same enthusiasm for oversight when their own party controls the White House?

Reader, here's the question:

Would you trust congressional oversight more if members applied the same constitutional standard to presidents of their own party?

Funny how much simpler government gets when everybody has to play by the same rules.

Silas Truth
Sons of Liberty

[Silas Truth @SilasTruth250]

PNW, here's the part that deserves more attention.

Natural gas isn't some mysterious substance discovered last Tuesday.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, natural gas produces about 117 pounds of CO₂ per million Btu, compared with roughly 212 pounds for coal and 163 pounds for distillate fuel oil.

I looked this one up for you, PNW.

Consider it ammunition, with receipts.

Is natural gas emission-free?

No.

Neither is manufacturing solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, transmission lines or the infrastructure required to connect them.

Apparently physics didn't get the Olympia memo.

Then there's hydropower.

Washington has spent decades benefiting from something environmental planners should dream about:

Reliable. Dispatchable. Carbon-free electricity.

And here's some Washington history worth remembering.

During World War II, Columbia River hydropower helped power the Northwest's aluminum plants, shipyards and aircraft production.

It even supplied the enormous electrical demand at Hanford for the Manhattan Project.

This wasn't just electricity keeping somebody's refrigerator cold. It was industrial power helping America and the Allies win a world war.

Apparently dependable energy was considered strategically important back then.

Yet former Governor Inslee supported studying a path that could eventually remove the four Lower Snake River dams, while acknowledging their electricity would first have to be replaced.

You really can't make this stuff up.

We're told there's a climate emergency requiring carbon-free electricity.

Washington already has enormous amounts of carbon-free hydropower.

So naturally, we discuss removing some of it.

Then there's nuclear.

Washington once embarked on an enormous program to build five nuclear plants.

Most were never completed.

Projects 4 and 5 were abandoned.

Then came the $2.25 billion bond default.

Washington Public Power Supply System.

WPPSS.

Pronounced:

WHOOPS.

Thousands of investors learned that joke wasn't particularly funny when the bonds financing two abandoned nuclear plants went into what was then the largest municipal-bond default in American history.

Billions borrowed.

Plants abandoned.

Bondholders left holding the bag.

WHOOPS indeed.

And what survived?

Columbia Generating Station, still producing roughly 1,200 megawatts of reliable, carbon-free nuclear electricity.

Apparently the reactor that actually got finished forgot it was supposed to be environmentally inconvenient.

Meanwhile, natural gas can provide dependable generation when the wind isn't blowing and the sun has taken one of Washington's famous nine-month vacations.

Direct natural-gas heating also means that heating demand doesn't all have to land on the electrical grid during a winter cold snap.

Here's a wild idea:

What if energy policy were based on engineering, reliability, cost and measurable emissions instead of whichever energy source currently has the best political publicist?

God created a universe governed by physical laws.

Olympia can pass legislation.

The Supreme Court can issue opinions.

Neither has yet discovered how to repeal physics.

Although I'm sure somebody is drafting the bill.

Now six Supreme Court justices have invalidated I-2066 while three dissenting justices concluded substantial portions could survive.

So pull out the chair.

Turn on the mic. Open the curtains. Let in the sunlight.

Reader, before Washington removes another dependable piece from its energy board, shouldn't somebody be required to show us what replaces it, what it costs, and whether it works when we actually need it?

Because Washington has already tried:

Build it. Borrow billions. Abandon it.

WPPSS.

Some jokes get considerably less funny when taxpayers, ratepayers and investors receive the punchline.

Silas Truth
Sons of Liberty

[Silas Truth @SilasTruth250]

Jim, there's even more ammunition in the opinion itself.

Chief Justice Stephens is correct about one thing: the people's initiative power is subject to the Constitution.

But apparently six justices needed a reminder that the Constitution contains more than Article II, Section 19.

Article I, Section 1 says all political power is inherent in the people.

That's not decorative language hanging in the courthouse lobby.

And here's the part Washingtonians really ought to read.

Justice Mungia's dissent did not argue that courts should ignore Article II, Section 19.

He argued that the court could sever the offending portions and preserve much of the initiative the people actually passed.

That's an important distinction.

So the constitutional question isn't whether courts can review initiatives. Of course they can.

The harder question is:

When Washingtonians exercise their legislative power through an initiative, shouldn't a court preserve as much of their law as the Constitution permits rather than reach for the constitutional DELETE key?

That's where Article I, Section 1 deserves a seat at the table.

Then pull out the chair. Turn on the mic. Turn on the cameras.

Six justices just erased the entire initiative while three of their colleagues explained, in writing, why substantial portions could survive.

Apparently “All political power is inherent in the people” becomes a little more complicated once the people actually use it.

That deserves more than a shrug and a law-school lecture about Article II, Section 19.

Our Washington Constitution begins by placing political power in the people.

Not Olympia.

Not the Legislature.

And not six people wearing robes.

The judiciary has an essential constitutional role.

So do the people.

God reminds us in Proverbs 14:15 that the prudent examine their steps.

Good advice.

So let's examine this decision in a little sunlight.

Better yet, open the curtains.

Read the majority.

Then read Mungia's dissent.

Reader, if three Supreme Court justices concluded that substantial portions of I-2066 could constitutionally survive, shouldn't Washingtonians demand a very clear explanation for why the other six threw the whole thing out?

Maybe Article I, Section 1 should get more than a courtesy nod before nearly two years of the people's initiative work disappears with a judicial keystroke.

Jim is raising a constitutional question worth keeping front and center.

Let's keep the mic on.

Silas Truth
Sons of Liberty

[Silas Truth @SilasTruth250]

Congresswoman, this post may need an update.

Yesterday, September 17, the House introduced H. Res. 1560, specifically providing for consideration of H.R. 4393, the immigration bill you're talking about.

In plain English:

The process for bringing the bill to the House floor is moving.

You said Republicans won't bring it up because they know it will fail.

Fine. Let's test that theory.

Bring it to the floor.

Debate the actual provisions.

Offer amendments.

Put every member's vote on the record.

Then Americans can read the bill, watch the debate, and decide for themselves.

No crystal ball required.

God gives us a principle worth remembering:

“The truth shall make you free.” John 8:32

Congresswoman, if the bill reaches the floor, which specific provisions do you oppose, and what would you replace them with?

And to the reader:

Would you rather hear politicians predict what a bill will do, or watch Congress debate it provision by provision and put every vote on the record?

Yeah.

Me too.

Let's see the receipts.

Silas Truth
Sons of Liberty

[Silas Truth @SilasTruth250]

Attorney General Brown, protecting Washingtonians' private information is a worthy job.

But at 78 lawsuits against the federal administration and counting, I'm starting to wonder whether Olympia issued you a law degree or a lance.

Don Quixote had his windmills. You have Washington, D.C.

On this case, let's be precise.

The court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the federal government's demand for a database containing sensitive information on roughly 17 million commercial drivers while the lawsuit continues.

That's significant.

But a preliminary injunction is not the same thing as a final judgment proving everything your office alleges.

And there's a larger question.

Washington driver information already moves through government information-sharing systems for legitimate law-enforcement and public-safety purposes.

So instead of another victory lap, how about some sunlight?

What information could federal agencies access before this ruling, what exactly does the injunction prevent them from accessing now, and what access remains?

If privacy is the principle, apply it consistently.

Otherwise Washingtonians may start wondering whether we're protecting their privacy or merely watching another knight from Olympia charge whichever federal windmill appears over the horizon.

And since we're up to 78 federal lawsuits, perhaps Washington taxpayers deserve a jousting scoreboard:

How many final victories? How many losses? How many settlements? How many are still pending? And what has all this litigation cost Washington taxpayers?

Reader, after 78 trips onto the tournament field, wouldn't you like to see the scoreboard along with the press releases?

Silas Truth
Sons of Liberty

[Silas Truth @SilasTruth250]

Senator, $9.5 billion makes a great headline. It just isn't the number DOGE spent on the program you're attacking.

Let's untwist the numbers and drag this into the sunlight.

GAO = Government Accountability Office, Congress's watchdog.
OPM = Office of Personnel Management, the federal government's HR agency.
GAO estimated $9.5 billion in total paid administrative-leave salary costs across 76 agencies in 2025.

It did not attribute that entire $9.5 billion to DOGE.

About $6.7 billion was associated with the Deferred Resignation Program, and GAO warned that data problems could overstate the totals.

Here's the part your post leaves out:

OPM projects the workforce reductions will save taxpayers more than $20 billion annually.

Is that proven?

No. GAO says better accounting is needed to determine whether those savings actually materialize.

That's the bedtime story.

Billions spent up front. Billions more in annual savings projected. Now measure the results.

Senator, give Americans the whole ledger, not just the biggest number in the report.

Psalm 109 warns about the power of deceitful words. That's a useful reminder for all of us: when billions of taxpayer dollars are involved, words should illuminate the facts, not obscure them.

Reader, what do you want from Washington: a $9.5 billion headline or the complete accounting?

Let's see the receipts.

Silas Truth
Sons of Liberty

[Silas Truth @SilasTruth250]

https://t.co/YHy4prsDwJ

[Silas Truth @SilasTruth250]

https://t.co/ClHu0WC1pr

[Silas Truth @SilasTruth250]

Senator, that's a remarkable description of what EPA actually announced.

EPA says it is screening drinking water for pharmaceuticals, PFAS, and more than 1,000 potential contaminants.

If medication used for abortion is among those pharmaceuticals, why shouldn't scientists measure whether it is present?

Follow the science, remember?

If you have evidence this study was designed specifically to satisfy anti-abortion activists, show us the receipts.

Otherwise, testing our drinking water for pharmaceuticals sounds remarkably like something the Environmental Protection Agency ought to be doing.

I don't understand your objection. Is there a scientific reason EPA shouldn't know what's in our drinking water, or is this just another headline designed for shock value? And isn't the whole point of broad testing to discover contaminants we may not already know are there?

If there's evidence, Senator, bring it. If not, perhaps your staff should spend a little more time reading the study before writing the post.

Or did you write this one yourself?

Silas Truth
Sons of Liberty

[Silas Truth @SilasTruth250]

THE AMERICAN DOCTRINE
PRESENT-DAY BOARD WATCH

We're still working our way through history in The American Doctrine, but every once in a while something happens in the present that deserves a pin on the board.

Several just did.

FOLLOW THE GEOGRAPHY

We've been watching the Strait of Hormuz because geography gives Iran enormous leverage over energy and shipping.

Now Treasury says Iran's Hormuz Safe system has been using cryptocurrency connected to maritime payments through the Strait.

That gives us a remarkable chain:
GEOGRAPHY → SHIPPING → REVENUE → CRYPTO → IRAN
But there's another layer.

Treasury says Iran's BitBank facilitated hundreds of millions of dollars in Bitcoin transfers to the IRGC.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department is seeking forfeiture of about $61 million in cryptocurrency allegedly connected to Iranian black-market oil sales.

Prosecutors allege the larger network moved more than $1.5 billion through Chinese companies, cryptocurrency accounts, unhosted wallets and other intermediaries.

That brings a new phrase onto our board:

PAINTING BITCOIN AT THE OFF-RAMPS

Bitcoin itself cannot simply be stamped “IRGC.”

But its blockchain history can help investigators identify transactions associated with sanctioned wallets and networks.

So perhaps you don't have to stop the Bitcoin from moving.

You make it increasingly difficult to use.

Crypto eventually has to buy something.

Oil equipment.
Shipping.
Machinery.
Currency.
Technology.
Materials.

Somewhere along that road sits an exchange, bank, broker, supplier or other counterparty.

That's the off-ramp.

Identify the illicit money.

Follow it.

Then make touching it increasingly expensive and dangerous.

The Bitcoin may still move.

But $100 million that nobody reputable wants to accept isn't economically equivalent to $100 million moving freely through the world's financial system.

BUT HERE'S THE COUNTERMOVE

Iran isn't operating in a vacuum.

Treasury just sanctioned Russia's VTB Bank for allegedly helping Iran maintain banking relationships and evade sanctions.

DOJ's new crypto case alleges Chinese companies and UAE-based exchange infrastructure were used in the Iranian oil-money network.

That does not prove those governments directed the activity.

But it demonstrates why painting the Bitcoin has limits.

If Iran can build a sufficiently large alternative network of exchanges, banks, suppliers and trading partners willing to accept the risk, eventually the question becomes:

Does anybody on the other side care that the Bitcoin is painted?

And now another piece we've been watching comes back onto the board.

MOVE THE BARREL

What happens if the pressure comes from both directions?

Reduce the usefulness of Iran's illicit financial network.

And simultaneously:

Reduce the world's dependence on the barrel that must pass through Hormuz.
That's where our Western Hemisphere productive-energy hypothesis becomes interesting.

More energy produced, refined, transported and exported from the Americas could reduce the economic importance of the chokepoint itself.

One pressure point attacks the money generated from geography.

The other attacks the value of the geography producing the leverage.
Is that actually the strategy?

We don't have enough receipts to say that yet.

And you know our rule:

No line goes on the board without receipts.

But something is clearly happening at the intersection of geography, energy and money.

So we're putting another pin in the board.

Follow the geography.
Follow the money.
Follow the barrel.

The board will tell us whether these pieces eventually connect.

Silas Truth
Sons of Liberty

[Silas Truth @SilasTruth250]

Fair point, Brian. I-1639 changed numerous provisions of Washington firearms law.

But the constitutional question isn't simply how many statutes were changed. It's whether those provisions qualify as one subject under Article II, Section 19.

Now compare that standard with what the court just applied to I-2066.

If the measuring stick is consistent, the case law should show it. If it isn't, that's a much bigger story than either initiative.

I'm not interested in defending the court or attacking it without evidence or receipts.

Let's pull the cases apart and compare the measuring sticks.

Silas Truth
Sons of Liberty

[Silas Truth @SilasTruth250]

https://t.co/kN8CPgfkFT