She shouldn’t be allowed to run...If she wins, it would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis. In that situation, we could very well have a sitting president under felony indictment and, ultimately, a criminal trial. It would grind government to a halt.
Donald Trump regarding Hillary Clinton in 2016.
This was an attempt, apparently not successfully given the comment, to point out a bit of hypocrisy on Trump's part. If he followed his own advice, he'd drop out of the race.
The Agreement on Disengagement between Israel and Syria was signed in Geneva. Artillery fire stopped at 1:15 p.m. The United Nations Disengagement Force was created by UN Security Council Resolution 350. Israel was left with the Golan Heights.
The British Home Office announced the end of the "bread and water" diet as a prison punishment.
Malaysia and China established diplomatic relations.
Vietnam Veterans marched from Boulder to Denver in protest over the war, which the US had of course withdrawn from, and for amnesty for draft evaders and deserters.
Last prior edition:
The Canadian 1st Corp took Frosinone; the British 10th Corps Sora. The US 6th Corps captured Velletri and Monte Artemiso, unhinging the Caesar Line.
US forces on the north coast of New Guinea come under heavy Japanese attacks. The Australians took Bunabum.
The Government of India formed the Department of Planning and Development to plan for the postwar future of the country.
Sarah Sundin reports that Japanese Gen. Sato Kotoku ordered Japanese forces to withdraw from Indian, against his orders. More here: Today in World War II History—May 31, 1944
She also reports that forces for Omaha beach began to load.
Polesti was bombed by the U.S. Army Air Force with heavy aircraft losses.
The USS England sank the Japanese submarine RO105, the sixth sub victory by the England in twelve days. The HMS Milne sank the U-289 in the Barents Sea.
Last prior edition:
The scientific Harriman Alaska Expedition left Seattle for the coast of Alaska.
Last prior edition:
In the early 1930s, upset with President Franklin Roosevelt, some well-placed businessmen plotted to stage a coup and install Gen. Smedley Butler (an odd choice, given Butler's independent character) as a fascist "President", or at least there's reason to believe they were plotting that.
Butler wouldn't go along with it, the plot failed, and FDR, thinking it best to not disrupt the country too much, never brought it out in the open, if in fact he did not outright encourage a general belief that the whole thing had never happened.
Read the recent Robert Reich item here:
Reich reports that Elon Must recently held a billionair's gathering with the tehme of defeating Biden in which he invited; well. . . :
The guest list included Peter Thiel, Rupert Murdoch, Michael Milken, Travis Kalanick, and Steven Mnuchin, Trump’s Treasury secretary.
You've heard of Murdoch, of course, the Australian-born billionaire who owns newspapers of a certain type, and who has recently been opposed to Trump. And you've heard of Michael Milken. Certainly you've heard of South African born Elon Musk.1
Consider this quote by billionaire Peter Theil.
The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron. 2
Consider that somewhat alarming? Well consider this, from the same individual:
But I must confess that over the last two decades, I have changed radically on the question of how to achieve these goals. Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.
Theil contributed $15,000,000 to J.D. Vance's campaign. And according to Reich:
Just 50 families have already injected more than $600 million into the 2024 election cycle, according to a new report from Americans for Tax Fairness. Most of it is going to the Trump Republican Party.
One of the really remarkable things about politics of the last 20 or so years has been the swamping of right wing money into it. Rank and file Republicans like to worry about George Soros, but it's really the far right that's getting the cash infusion, and it's showing. It had a major impact on altering Wyoming's politics existentially, taking a more or less "leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone" brand of local Republicanism into far right populism. Early on, that was accompanied by lots of money. So much so that one frustrated legislature told me that those forces were "buying the legislature".
The amazing thing to see is the degree to which those who have radically different economic interests simply follow along. Again, the far right likes to call everyone else "sheep", but the analogy actually applies to Republican voters far more, who vote against their own economic interests continually.
The extremely wealthy can use their wealth in any number of ways. It's notable that Warren Buffett and Bill Gates weren't on the list. But that this occurs at all is troubling, to say the least.
Capitalist may believe that their interests serve everyone else, and that "freedom" would be "preserved" in an odd sort of Pax Capitalismus with a Cesarean Trump at its head, and probably as a figurehead but wealth, business and capital doesn't exist for the wealthy, but for everyone.
Panem et circenses, hatred and discontent, and false internal enemies. Sadly, the trend is well-developed, helped on by a Democratic Party beholding to its own blood soaked, genitals obsessed left wing.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
Footnotes:
1. There's something concerning here that two really rich guys who were not impoverished when they showed up here are now messing with American politics in some fashion. This, as much as anything, shows how screwed up our immigration policies are. Both Murdoch and Musk ought not to be in the US at all.
2. It's getting impossible not to note the real rise of misogynistic commentary by the far right.
It's not the comments of people like Harrison Butker so much, as the comments by other characters on the far right. Butker's comments have to be taken from the position of traditional Catholic thought. In some Evangelical corners of Christianity, however, there are now some really beyond hostile views of the current roles of women. Interestingly, these same forces seemingly have no problems with conduct well outside the Christian norm, ranging from Trump's serial polygamy to Theil's homosexuality.
All this should give the far right pause. People like Trump, or Theil, clearly aren't in the traditional Christian camp if their own conduct is observed.
Sarah Sundin, in her blog, Today in World War II History—May 30, 1944, reports that loading of invasion forces for Utah beach in Operation Overlord commenced.
Ugh, a week on one of those boats. . .
She also reports that the Germans authorized the summary execution of airmen who strafed civilians or passenger trains, who were termed terrorflieger.
In Irish elections, Fianna Fáil took an overall majority.
Princess Charlotte of Monaco renounced her rights to the throne in favor of her son, Prince Rainier.
Last prior edition:
We meet again upon this hallowed ground to commemorate those who played their part in a particular outbreak of an age old conflict. Many men have many theories about the struggle that went on from 1861 to 1865. Some say it had for its purpose the abolition of slavery. President Lincoln did not so consider it. There were those in the South who would have been willing to wage war for its continuation, but I very much doubt if the South as a whole could have been persuaded to take up arms for that purpose. There were those in the North who would have been willing to wage war for its abolition, but the North as a whole could not have been persuaded to take up arms for that purpose. President Lincoln made it perfectly clear that his effort was to save the Union, with slavery if he could save it that way; without slavery if he could save it that way. But he would save the Union. The South stood for the principle of the sovereignty of the States. The North stood for the principle of the supremacy of the Union.
This was an age old conflict. At its foundation lies the question of how can the Government govern and the people be free? How can organized society make and enforce laws and the individual remain independent? There is no short sighted answer to these inquiries. Whatever may have been the ambiguity in the Federal Constitution, of course the Union had to be supreme within its sphere or cease to be a Union. It was also certain and obvious that each State had to be sovereign within its sphere or cease to be a State. It is equally clear that a government must govern, must prescribe and enforce laws within its sphere or cease to be a government. Moreover, the individual must be independent and free within his own sphere or cease to be an individual. The fundamental question was then, is now, and always will be through what adjustments, by what actions, these principles may be applied.
It needs but very little consideration to reach the conclusion that all of these terms are relative, not absolute, in their application to the affairs of this earth. There is no absolute and complete sovereignty for a State, nor absolute and complete independence and freedom for an individual. It happened in 1861 that the States of the North and the South were so fully agreed among themselves that they were able to combine against each other. But supposing each State of the Union should undertake to make its own decisions upon all questions, and that all held divergent views. If such a condition were carried to its logical conclusion, each would come into conflict with all the others, and a condition would arise which could only result in mutual destruction. It is evident that this would be the antithesis of State sovereignty. Or suppose that each individual in the assertion of his own independence and freedom undertook to act in entire disregard of the rights of others. The end would be likewise mutual destruction, and no one would be independent and no one would be free. Yet these are conflicts which have gone on ever since the organization of society into government, and they are going on now. To my mind this was fundamental of the conflict which broke out in 1861.
The thirteen Colonies were not unaware of the difficulties which these problems presented. We shall find a great deal of wisdom in the method by which they dealt with them. When they were finally separated from Great Britain, the allegiance of their citizens was not to the Nation for there was none. It was to the States. For the conduct of the war there had been a voluntary confederacy loosely constructed and practically impotent. Continuing after peace was made, when the common peril which had been its chief motive no longer existed, it grew weaker and weaker. Each of the States could have insisted on an entirely separate and independent existence, having full authority over both their internal and external affairs, sovereign in every way. But such sovereignty would have been a vain and empty thing. It would have been unsupported by adequate resources either of property or population, without a real national spirit, ready to fall prey to foreign intrigue or foreign conquest. That kind of sovereignty meant but little. It had no substance in it. The people and their leaders naturally sought for a larger, more inspiring ideal. They realized that while to be a citizen of a State meant something, it meant a great deal more if that State were a part of a national union. The establishment of a Federal Constitution giving power and authority to create a real National Government did not in the end mean a detriment, but rather an increment to the sovereignty of the several States. Under the Constitution there was brought into being a new relationship, which did not detract from but added to the power and the position of each State. It is true that they surrendered the privilege of performing certain acts for themselves, like the regulation of commerce and the maintenance of foreign relations, but in becoming a part of the Union they received more than they gave.
The same thing applies to the individual in organized society. When each citizen submits himself to the authority of law he does not thereby decrease his independence or freedom, but rather increases it. By recognizing that he is a part of a larger body which is banded together for a common purpose, he becomes more than an individual, he rises to a new dignity of citizenship. Instead of finding himself restricted and confined by rendering obedience to public law, he finds himself protected and defended and in the exercise of increased and increasing rights. It is true that as civilization becomes more complex it is necessary to surrender more and more of the freedom of action and live more and more according to the rule of public regulation, but it is also true that the rewards and the privileges which come to a member of organized society increase in a still greater proportion. Primitive life has its freedom and its attraction, but the observance of the restrictions of modern civilization enhances the privileges of living a thousand fold.
Perhaps I have said enough to indicate the great advantages that accrue to all of us by the support and maintenance of our Government, the continuation of the functions of legislation, the administration of justice, and the execution of the laws. There can be no substitute for these, no securing of greater freedom by their downfall and failure, but only disorganization, suffering and want, and final destruction. All that we have of rights accrue from the Government under which we live.
In these days little need exists for extolling the blessings of our Federal Union. Its benefits are known and recognized by all its citizens who are worthy of serious attention. No one thinks now of attempting to destroy the Union by armed force. No one seriously considers withdrawing from it. But it is not enough that it should be free from attack, it must be approved and supported by a national spirit. Our prime allegiance must be to the whole country. A sentiment of sectionalism is not harmless because it is unarmed. Resistance to the righteous authority of Federal law is not innocent because it is not accompanied by secession. We need a more definite realization that all of our country must stand or fall together, and that it is the duty of the Government to promote the welfare of each part and the duty of the citizen to remember that he must he first of all an American.
Only one conclusion appears to me possible. We shall not promote our welfare by a narrow and shortsighted policy. We can gain nothing by any destruction of government or society. That action which in the long run is for the advantage of the individual, as it is for the support of our Union, is best summed up in a single word; renunciation. It is only by surrendering a certain amount of our liberty, only by taking on new duties and assuming new obligations, that we make that progress which we characterize as civilization. It is only in like manner that the citizens and the States can maintain our Federal Union and become partakers of its glory. That is the answer to every herald of discontent and to every preacher of destruction. While this is understood, American institutions and the American Union are secure.
This principle can not be too definitely or emphatically proclaimed. American citizenship is a high estate. He who holds it is the peer of kings. It has been secured only by untold toil and effort. It will be maintained by no other method. It demands the best that men and women have to give. But it likewise awards to its partakers the best that there is on earth. To attempt to turn it into a thing of ease and inaction would be only to debase it. To cease to struggle and toil and sacrifice for it is not only to cease to be worthy of it but is to start a retreat toward barbarism. No matter what others may say, no matter what others may do, this is the stand that those must maintain who are worthy to be called Americans.
But that great struggle was carried on by those whom this day is set apart to commemorate, not only for the preservation of the Union. The authority of the Federal Government had been resisted by armed force. They were also striving to restore peace. It must be remembered that our Republic was organized to avoid and discourage war, and to promote and establish peace. It is the leading characteristic of our national holidays that they are days of peace. The ways of our people are the ways of peace. They naturally seek ways to make peace more secure.
It is not to be inferred that it would be anything less than courting national disaster to leave our country barren of defense. Human nature is a very constant quality. While there is justification for hoping and believing that we are moving toward perfection, it would be idle and absurd to assume that we have already reached it. We can not disregard history. There have been and will be domestic disorders. There have been and will be tendencies of one nation to encroach on another. I believe in the maintenance of an Army and Navy, not for aggression but for defense. Security and order are our most valuable possessions. They are cheap at any price. But I am opposed to every kind of military aggrandizement and to all forms of competitive armament. The ideal would be for nations to become parties to mutual covenants limiting their military establishments, and making it obvious that they are not maintained to menace each other. This ideal should be made practical as fast as possible.
Our Nation has associated itself with other great powers for the purpose of promoting peace in the regions of the Pacific Ocean. It has steadily refused to accept the covenant of the League of Nations, but long before that was thought of, before the opening of the present century, we were foremost in promoting the calling of a conference at The Hague to provide for a tribunal of arbitration for the settlement of international disputes. We have made many treaties on that basis with other nations.
But we have an opportunity before us to reassert our desire and to lend the force of our example for the peaceful adjudication of differences between nations. Such action would be in entire harmony with the policy which we have long advocated. I do not look upon it as a certain guaranty against war, but it would be a method of disposing of troublesome questions, an accumulation of which leads to irritating conditions and results in mutually hostile sentiments. More than a year ago President Harding proposed that the Senate should authorize our adherence to the protocol of the Permanent Court of International Justice, with certain conditions. His suggestion has already had my approval. On that I stand. I should not oppose other reservations, but any material changes which would not probably receive the consent of the many other nations would be impracticable. We can not take a step in advance of this kind without assuming certain obligations. Here again if we receive anything we must surrender something. We may as well face the question candidly, and if we are willing to assume these new duties in exchange for the benefits which would accrue to us, let us say so. If we are not willing, let us say that. We can accomplish nothing by taking a doubtful or ambiguous position. We are not going to be able to avoid meeting the world and bearing our part of the burdens of the world. We must meet those burdens and overcome them or they will meet us and overcome us. For my part I desire my country to meet them without evasion and without fear in an upright, downright, square, American way.
While there are those who think we would be exposed to peril by adhering to this court, I am unable to attach great weight to their arguments. Whatever differences, whatever perils exist for us in the world, will come anyway, whether we oppose or support the court. I am one of those who believe we would be safer and that we would be meeting our duties better by supporting it and making every possible use of it. I feel confident that such action would make a greater America, that it would be productive of a higher and finer national spirit, and of a more complete national life.
It is these two thoughts of union and peace which appear to me to be especially appropriate for our consideration on this day. Like all else in human experience, they are not things which can be set apart and have an independent existence. They exist by reason of the concrete actions of men and women. It is the men and women whose actions between 1861 and 1865 gave us union and peace that we are met here this day to commemorate. When we seek for the chief characteristic of those actions, we come back to the word which I have already uttered; renunciation. They gave up ease and home and safety and braved every impending danger and mortal peril that they might accomplish these ends. They thereby became in this Republic a body of citizens set apart and marked for every honor so long as our Nation shall endure. Here on this wooded eminence, overlooking the Capital of the country for which they fought, many of them repose, officers of high rank and privates mingling in a common dust, holding the common veneration of a grateful people. The heroes of other wars lie with them, and in a place of great preeminence lies one whose identity is unknown, save that he was a soldier of this Republic who fought that its ideals, its institutions, its liberties, might be perpetuated among men. A grateful country holds all these services as her most priceless heritage, to be cherished forevermore.
We can testify to these opinions, not by our words but by our actions. Our country can not exist on the renunciation of the heroic souls of the past. Public service, from the action of the humblest voter to the most exalted office, can not be made a mere matter of hire and salary. The supporters of our institutions must be inspired by a more dominant motive than a conviction that their actions are going to be profitable. We can not lower our standards to what we think will pay, but we must raise them to what we think is right. It is only in that direction that we shall find true patriotism. It is only by that method that we can maintain the rights of the individual, the sovereignty of the States, the integrity of the Union, the permanency of peace, and the welfare of mankind. You soldiers of the Republic enrolled under her banner that through your sacrifices there might be an atonement for the evils of your day. That is the standard of citizenship for all time. It is the requirement which must be met by those who hold public place. That must be the ideal of those who are worthy to share in the glory which you have given to the name of America, the ideal of those who hold fellowship with Washington and Lincoln.
Ike Boone hit first Red Sox grand slam at Fenway Park.
The big Memorial Day planned in Casper was somewhat ruined by rain.
April 16, 2024
The BLM's new oil and gas leasing rules has effectuated new oil and gas leasing rules for the first time since 1988.
The new rules adjust bond amounts for the first time since 1966, increase royalty rates for the first time in over a century (leasing has only been in place for a century). Bond rates will go from $10,000 to $150,000 and state-wide bonding requirement for operators with more than from $25,000 to $500,000.
Governor Gordon criticizes oil and gas rule that raises costs to producers
CHEYENNE, Wyo. –Governor Mark Gordon is criticizing an announcement from the Department of Interior last week that will increase the costs to oil and gas companies seeking to drill on federal lands. The Governor used the following statement:
“If there was any doubt, it could not be more clear now that the Department of Interior has lost its way. Within a day of announcing its renewable energy rule designed to promote the equivalent of a modern-day gold rush of development for renewables by reducing fees and rents on federal lands by 80%, Interior issued an oil and gas rule increasing costs to Wyoming’s industry by 1400%.
America surely needs more energy, including from renewable sources. What our country does not need are policies that greatly reduce the return to our nation’s taxpayers while simultaneously increasing the impacts and burdens on states and communities. We don’t need policies that increase the costs to consumers while also reducing reliability, or rules that sharpen the threat of industrializing our open spaces and crucial wildlife habitat without recognizing the importance of balance in our energy portfolio. These policies should seem misguided to most Americans of every stripe who love our country. Instead of experience and practicality, DOI has doubled down on bias, dogma, and politics. America is suffering as a result.
It is time we get back to common-sense energy policy. I will continue to fight against federal policies that are short-sighted and antagonistic to Wyoming’s industries, our workers, and our way of life. We need to build a realistic, all-of-the-above energy strategy that correctly plans a future of reliable and dispatchable power and properly accounts for – and balances – the costs and impacts of all energy sources.”
April 19, 2024
Tensions in the Middle East have jumped the price of oil back up.
April 27, 2024
Ur Energy will reopen It's in situ uranium mine and processing plant in Shirley Basin in 2026.
The UAW has entered into a tentative deal with Daimler.
Wyoming is suing the Federal government over a methane rule.
Wyoming Sues Biden Administration Over Costly and Burdensome Methane Rule
CHEYENNE, Wyo. – Wyoming has joined the states of North Dakota, Montana and Texas in suing the U.S. Department of Interior and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over a new rule that undermines existing state regulatory programs and harms Wyoming oil and natural gas producers.
The suit was filed this week in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota. The rule – commonly known as the “methane waste prevention rule” and released last month – is an attempt by the Department of Interior to re-introduce a similar rule adopted by the Obama Administration in 2016. That rule was previously blocked by a Wyoming federal court.
The new rule requires oil and gas companies to pay royalties on flared gas, driving up costs for producers and resulting in increased costs to consumers, the Governor said.
“This rule is yet another example of the Biden Administration attempting to use rulemaking to undermine state authority and suffocate the oil and gas industry,” Governor Gordon said. “We will continue to defend Wyoming’s interests in court whenever they are under attack by the federal government.”
Governor Gordon has previously pointed out Wyoming is a national leader in regulating methane gas, with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission working cooperatively with oil and gas producers to reduce emissions. The states’ complaint explains that the new rule conflicts with state regulations and in certain instances, creates less stringent standards.
The states’ complaint may be found here.
In a major action, a new EPA rule may actually end coal-fired power plants by 2032. Tom Lubnau on that matter:
That would be an epic level change in electrical generation in the United States, although its something we've seen coming for a long time:
May 9, 2024
There has been a 20% reduction in the demand for Wyoming coal in the first quarter of the year.
May 14, 2024
The US has changed regulation to make construction of high tension lines easier.
The US has banned imports of Russian uranium.
May 16, 2024
Governor Gordon Outraged by BLM’s No Coal Leasing Selection in the Powder River Basin
CHEYENNE, Wyo. – Governor Mark Gordon responded forcefully to an announcement by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that it had selected the “No Leasing” alternative in its Buffalo Coal Resource Management Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). The BLM’s choice means it is all but determined that coal leasing in the Powder River Basin will not be permitted past 2041. The Governor’s statement follows:
“With this latest barrage in President Joe Biden’s ongoing attack on Wyoming’s coal country and all who depend upon it, he has demonstrated his lack of regard for the environment, for working people, and for reliable, dispatchable energy. This decision, compounded by the recent EPA rules, ensures President Biden’s legacy will be about blackouts and energy poverty for Wyoming’s citizens and beyond.
All the cards are on the table now. At the highest levels the Biden Administration – including Interior Secretary Haaland – have shown a complete disregard for blue-collar workers and their families; local communities and neighborhood businesses; the aspirations of local governments and economic development entities; university scientists and others diligently working on viable solutions to climate concerns; as well as the livelihoods of power plant employees and anyone who relies on dependable, affordable, and attainable electricity.
This SEIS is not about making a well-informed decision. It is about Joe Biden’s partisan, vindictive, and politically motivated war on America’s abundant, cheap, efficient, and consistent energy sources – one that holds practical and achievable goals to remove carbon dioxide from our atmosphere. This administration touts its preference for “best available science” yet only chooses to highlight the science that advances their job- and career-killing agenda.
As Governor, I am profoundly disappointed that our nation’s highest executive leadership has chosen to ignore innovation and opportunity to grovel at the feet of coastal elites. I promise that the State of Wyoming will fully utilize the opportunities available to kill or modify this Record of Decision before it is signed and final. The issues we face globally right now are too important and too urgent to dither away with incoherent policies and wrongheaded initiatives. As with the other attacks on Wyoming’s fossil fuel industries, the Attorney General is actively pursuing options to challenge these destructive decisions.”
-END-
March 17, 2024
May 21, 2024
The price of Gold has hit a new high.
May 26, 2024
May 30, 2024
Wyoming Joins 19-State Lawsuit Against California and Four Other States Whose Actions Threaten Nation’s Energy System
May 23, 2024
The State of Wyoming has joined an Alabama-led 19-state coalition asking the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional the efforts of California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island to dictate the future of American energy policy.
Those five states have brought unprecedented litigation against the nation’s most vital energy companies for an alleged “climate crisis,” and are demanding billions of dollars in damages. As litigation proceeds in their state courts, California and the other states threaten to impose ruinous penalties and coercive remedies that would affect energy and fuel consumption and production across the country, including Wyoming. The coalition raises the grave constitutional problems with California’s extraordinary tactics and asks the Supreme Court to take up a multi-state lawsuit.
“Wyoming’s core industries are under attack, not only from the federal government, but from other states that depend on the resources that we produce,” Governor Gordon said. “We will defend our industries in the courts, and guard against other states' attempts to set national energy policy outside the boundaries of their own state. The State of Wyoming strongly believes that each state has the ability to pursue their preferred policies within their own jurisdiction, but will not idly stand by when other states use their own policies to dictate energy policies in Wyoming and other states. Our Constitution prohibits that very notion.”
The Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the 19-state lawsuit against California and the other four proposed defendants. The coalition argues that traditional energy sources like oil, natural gas, and coal are essential for American prosperity. The states also argue that the matter is of utmost importance because our system of federalism gives each state no more power than any other state.
In April, Wyoming signed the Alabama-led 20-state amicus brief in the Supreme Court asking the Court to review a lawsuit filed by the City and County of Honolulu, which also seeks to impose billions of dollars in penalties on the energy industry. Honolulu claims that the companies deceived consumers about the emissions created by everyday products like gasoline. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the energy companies’ request to hear the case.
In addition to Wyoming, the Alabama-led suit was joined by Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia. A copy of the lawsuit may be found here.
Last prior edition:
.jpg)