Posted on by

Democrats really, really hate our constitutional rights! (Part 2)

We noted, just yesterday, that Democrats really, really hate our constitutional rights! The immediate point of that article was to note how Governor Michelle Cordova[1]While the Governor of New Mexico does not respect her husband enough to have taken his last name, as per The First Street Journal’s Stylebook, we do not show such disrespect to him, and always … Continue reading (D-NM) tried to ban the open or concealed carrying of firearms in the city of Albuquerque and its surrounding county, Bernalillo, including by residents who have gone through the process and obtained concealed carry permits, by executive order.

But Governor Cordova is hardly the only one who wants to take away your constitutional rights under the Second Amendment! Far-left Govenor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) wants to do the same.

Gov. Gavin Newsom Officially Calls for Convention to Change US Constitution

by Richard Moorhead • Friday, September 15, 2023 • 3:19 PM PDT

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is eyeing a change to the United States Constitution.

The state’s legislature on Thursday approved a resolution in support of Newsom’s call for a 28th Constitutional amendment, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The amendment would enshrine a list of Democratic gun-control policy priorities into federal law.

Can we tell the truth here? The “list of Democratic gun-control policy priorities” is really the bare minimum away with which the left believe that they can achieve under the Second Amendment. The left would like nothing more than to implement the New York law invalidated by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen 597 U. S. ____ (2022), laws which virtually prohibited the private ownership of firearms, even for self-defense, unless government officials judged that you had a good enough reason to be issued a permit . . . and living in a crime-ridden area wasn’t a good enough reason.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States ought to be easy to understand:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But, of course, there are always those, including those who are themselves guarded by armed men, who do not want Other People to be allowed to keep and bear arms. And thus we’ve had the Second Amendment violated for more than 200 hundred years, as various states passed laws to restrict Americans from owning firearms. In United States v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment only prohibited the federal government from banning private ownership of firearms:

The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

That the First Congress, which wrote the Second Amendment, would have thought that the right to keep and bear arms could ever be limited by governments, federal or state, when the first battle of our Revolution was fought because patriots in Massachusetts were resisting Royal Governor Thomas Gage’s firearms confiscation orders, and when many Americans were living on the frontier, needing guns to hunt for game, and to defend themselves from the Indians.

Under the ridiculous Cruikshank decision, states, counties, and municipalities could ban the private ownership of firearms. It took until District of Columbia v Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), for the Court to hold that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) incorporated the Heller decision to apply to the states. A full 219 years passed between the ratification of the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court finally applying it to the states.

Back to the originally cited article:

California is requesting a Constitutional convention to enshrine the amendment. For the amendment to be considered, two-thirds of state legislatures would have to vote in favor of a convention, according to the Times.

The proposed “Right to Safety Amendment” would limit legal gun ownership to adults 21 and older, enact universal federal background checks on gun sales, create a mandatory “reasonable waiting period” for gun purchases, and ban the purchase of many forms of semiautomatic rifles.

The article as cited here included a photo of Governor Newsom behind a podium with the heading “Gun Safety Laws Work,” but unless the gun laws include the total prohibition of firearms, they really haven’t worked. As we noted yesterday, Governor Cordova stated:

We’ve passed common-sense gun legislation, including red flag laws, domestic violence protections, a ban on straw purchases, and safe storage laws; dedicated hundreds of millions of dollars to a fund specifically to help law enforcement hire and retain officers; increased penalties for violent offenders and provided massive support to intervention programs,

yet she decided that those “common-sense” gun laws were not enough, as New Mexico, which has the third-highest firearms mortality rate in the nation. Chicago, which has strict gun control laws, is one of our nation’s leaders in homicides. And, as we have previously documented, in Pennsylvania, where the gun laws are uniform throughout the state, Philadelphia, with 12.08% of the Commonwealth’s population, had over half the homicides in the Keystone State. The numbers don’t lie.

The Democrats don’t want to look at the actual causes of violence, and have reliably informed us that criminals people only break the law — racist laws which were passed by white supremacists, I would like to point out — because they have been poor, disenfranchised, and condemned to live in disinvested-in neighborhoods segregated by redlining, and are struggling just to survive. Instead, they mostly ignore crime in the inner cities, and react only when an innocent is shot and killed, as Mrs Cordova did, as Mr Newsom did, because it is wholly politically incorrect to look into the actual causes of crime, the actual causes of shootings and killings.

It’s not as though the Democrats don’t know the truth; it’s that they can’t handle the truth, the truth that most crimes, and most shootings, and most killings do not occur because the laws are lacking, but because there are cultures in our larger cities which enable crime in those areas.

References

References
↑1 While the Governor of New Mexico does not respect her husband enough to have taken his last name, as per The First Street Journal’s Stylebook, we do not show such disrespect to him, and always refer to married women by their proper names. We do not, however, change the direct quotes of others.
Posted on by

Democrats really, really hate our constitutional rights!

Vacations are wonderful, but for a blogger, they do have a downside. When I heard about the executive order by Governor Michelle Cordova[1]While the Governor of New Mexico does not respect her husband enough to have taken his last name, as per The First Street Journal’s Stylebook, we do not show such disrespect to him, and always … Continue reading (D-NM) to ban the open or concealed carrying of firearms in the city of Albuquerque and its surrounding county, Bernalillo, including by residents who have gone through the process and obtained concealed carry permits, I really, really, really wanted to write about it, but, alas!, I didn’t have my computer with me.[2]I use a desktop, not a laptop, because I hate laptops, I despise laptops, I abominate laptops.

Mrs Cordova said, from the very beginning, that she expected legal challenges, but she waxed wroth when Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen, stated that his department would not enforce her order, because it was unconstitutional.

New Mexico governor’s gun ban draws bipartisan backlash

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s suspension of concealed and open carry gun rights in the Albuquerque area ignited opposition from Democrats and Republicans alike.

By Zoë Richards | Monday, September 11, 2023 | 7:28 PM EDT

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is facing harsh criticism from both sides of the aisle over her recently issued order suspending certain gun rights in Albuquerque and its surrounding county.

Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, on Friday announced a 30-day ban on the right to carry open or concealed firearms in public in an effort to curb gun violence and illegal drug use in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. State police were tasked with enforcing the order, which carried fines for violations.

The announcement prompted a string of lawsuits and ignited opposition from Democrats and Republicans alike.

Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen, a Democrat, said Monday he would not enforce the ban, which he called “unconstitutional.”

This order will not do anything to curb gun violence other than punish law-abiding citizens from their constitutional right to self-defense,” Allen said at a news conference.

It’s unconstitutional. So there’s no way we could enforce that order,” he added.

It wasn’t just the Sheriff who saw the Governor’s order as unconstitutional; as reported by William Teach, both here and on his website, Federal District Court Judge David Urias issued a temporary restraining order:

blocking key parts of Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s executive order suspending open and concealed carry across Albuquerque and the surrounding Bernalillo County for at least 30 days.

U.S. District Court Judge David Urias issued the order on Wednesday, blocking the portion of the order that prohibits lawful gun owners from carrying their guns in public for 30 days, ruling that it’s not enforceable.

“The violation of a constitutional right, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury,” Urias said during the hearing.

State Attorney General Raul Torrez, also a Democrat, informed Governor Cordova that his office and he would not defend her order in court, saying that it was both unconstitutional, and wouldn’t have any meaningful impact on public safety. Plainly put, the Attorney General said what everyone ought to understand: the people shooting up Albuquerque aren’t the ones who go through the legal process to obtain concealed carry permits in the first place. Criminals are criminals precisely because they don’t obey the laws!

Naturally, the Governor was highly, highly upset that Sheriff Allen dared to defy her Führerbefehle:

“I don’t need a lecture on constitutionality from Sheriff Allen: what I need is action,” Lujan Grisham said in a statement in response to a request for comment.

Translation: the Governor doesn’t care if her diktat is actually constitutional, she expects the Sheriff to carry out her orders!

“We’ve passed common-sense gun legislation, including red flag laws, domestic violence protections, a ban on straw purchases, and safe storage laws; dedicated hundreds of millions of dollars to a fund specifically to help law enforcement hire and retain officers; increased penalties for violent offenders and provided massive support to intervention programs,” she added. “We’ve given you the tools, Sheriff Allen — now stop being squeamish about using them. I will not back down from doing what’s right and I will always put the safety of the people of New Mexico first.”

Translation: the Governor believes that what she claims will increase the safety of the people of the Land of Enchantment trumps their constitutional rights!

Is Mrs Cordova saying that Sheriff Allen is not enforcing the “red flag laws, domestic violence protections, a ban on straw purchases, and safe storage laws,” as violations come to his attention? Have there been ‘red flag’ warnings in which law enforcement did not investigate and take action is warranted under that law? Have ‘domestic violence’ violations not led to arrests or prosecutions?

If there’s one thing the Democrats really hate, it’s the Constitution of the United States, and the enumeration of our rights. Benjamin Franklin, a man who dared to sign his name to our Declaration of Independence, said, “We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately,” had something to say about people giving up their rights for a little bit of temporary safety, but, in reality, what Governor Cordova and many other Democratic politicians want to do, to Do Something about crime, will do virtually nothing about crime. Governor Cordova stated that New Mexico had “passed common-sense gun legislation, including red flag laws, domestic violence protections, a ban on straw purchases, and safe storage laws”, yet she also claimed that those things had simply not done enough. I have previously noted how a Lexington man didn’t care about an “emergency protection order/domestic violence order, and possession of a handgun by a previously convicted felon,” obtained one anyway, and wound up shooting and killing his estranged wife. The gang bangers in foul, fetid, fuming, foggy, filthy Philadelphia, about whom I’ve expended a significant amount of bandwidth, haven’t been stopped from getting guns and shooting people by laws banning minors and previously convicted felons from having firearms, or people without permits from carrying them on the city’s mean streets.

Safe storage laws? When people buy firearms because they fear for their own safety, the last thing that they want is to have to unlock their firearms when bad guys are breaking into their homes!

But the Democrats don’t care about any of that! They want to be seen as Doing Something, even if it is unreasonable. When even the left-wing e-zine Slate says that she’s doing it wholly wrong, you know it’s bad:

Last week, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham declared a public health emergency over gun violence in her state and imposed a 30-day ban on public carry in Albuquerque. Lujan Grisham’s diagnosis of the problem is surely correct; her proposed solution, however, is astoundingly misguided. The governor has leveraged an emergency health law to suspend a right protected by state statute, the state constitution, and Supreme Court precedent. Whether that right should exist is beside the point; it does exist in New Mexico today, pursuant not only to court decisions but also democratically enacted laws. By suspending it unilaterally, Lujan Grisham has claimed an alarming new power to revoke well-established individual rights by executive order. And she has done so in the most blundering way possible, ensuring a backlash that will only empower citizens, activists, and politicians who view all firearm restrictions as an existential threat to personal liberty.

The population of Albuquerque, according to the Census Bureau’s July 1, 2022 guesstimate, is 561,008, of whom 49.8% are Hispanic, of all races, 37.4% are non-Hispanic white, 14.1% are biracial, 4.8% are American Indians, and 3.2% are black. Yet, when the Albuquerque Police Department released their 2023 homicide statistics as of July 2nd, they showed 54% of identified suspects as being Hispanic, 23% being black, 7% being Indians, and 16% as being white. If the problem is the gun laws, shouldn’t the problem affect every demographic group at least roughly equally?

The problem in Albuquerque is the culture in Albuquerque, just like it is in Philly, in St Louis, in Chicago, and everywhere else in the United States, but the Democrats can’s say that, now can they? Governor Cordova certainly seems unwilling to say that, so she goes after the people who are not the problem, the law-abiding citizens of the city. She’s rather attack people’s constitutional rights than actually identify and address the problems.

References

References
↑1 While the Governor of New Mexico does not respect her husband enough to have taken his last name, as per The First Street Journal’s Stylebook, we do not show such disrespect to him, and always refer to married women by their proper names.
↑2 I use a desktop, not a laptop, because I hate laptops, I despise laptops, I abominate laptops.
Posted on by

Poll: Most Trust Trump To Fix Inflation Over Biden

Considering the bang-up job Biden has done on inflation, they probably trust the intern who sends all Biden’s tweets over Biden

Inflation is weighing down Americans. Many trust Trump, more than Biden, to fix it

Linda Muñoz is scared about the economy. She dipped into her emergency savings this year. And she doesn’t believe President Joe Biden feels her pain.

The retired teacher from Channelview, Texas, worries about paying $4 for cereal and $3.38 for gasoline in her state.

“According to him, everything’s perfect,” said Muñoz, a Republican. “He just doesn’t live in reality.”

That is a constant refrain, like voters having doubt on Bidenomics.

As Biden tries to sell Americans on an economic rebound, most Americans aren’t buying it, according to an exclusive poll from the Suffolk University Sawyer Business School and USA TODAY that reveals major concerns about the state of the economy and little hope of people’s outlook improving. What’s worse for the incumbent president, Americans say they trust Donald Trump − not Biden − to fix it.

Groceries. Housing. Gas. All of these are pushing people further and further into debt, they say.

Nearly 70% of Americans said the economy is getting worse, according to the poll, while only 22% said the economy is improving. Eighty-four percent of Americans said their cost of living is rising, and nearly half of Americans, 49%, blamed food and grocery prices as the main driver. (snip)

Yet only 34% of Americans said they approve of Biden’s handling of the economy, compared with 59% who disapprove, according to the poll. (snip)

More Americans said they trust Trump, the 2024 Republican primary front-runner, than Biden to improve the economy by a 47%-36% margin. The spread is 46%-26% in Trump’s favor among independent voters.

Here’s the big question: will it make a difference in voting if the economy is still in the doldrums next year at this time? If prices, particularly food and gas, are high? I had an article sitting in my Pocket account till the other day about the 2024 election being about the economy and personal finances, but, will it? Or will it come down to something like “sure, Joe is old, incompetent, a buffoon, and his policies are hurting me, but, I despise Donald Trump, so, I’ll vote Biden or sit the election out” when it comes to Independents, moderate Dems, and the squishy Republicans? Because, if that’s the case, then Biden wins the White House, because Dems will come out in droves no matter what, no matter how bad Brandon is for their pocketbooks, and the GOP will have no shot in retaking the Senate, will lose the House, and may well lose lots of state elections.

But 74% of Americans described the economy negatively in one word − either “horrible/terrible,” “bad/poor,” “struggling” or “chaotic” − compared with 18% who said the economy is “excellent/good” or “growing/improving.” Another 4% said the economy is “fair/average.”

Can people set aside their Trump Derangement Syndrome for better policies? Do they enjoy driving by a gas station and seeing high gas prices? Do they like paying all that extra for food? Though, is it even possible to bring those food prices back down? How about housing costs? For all the caterwauling about Trump, the economy was doing well till the Chinese coronavirus hit. Unfortunately, he liked to battle with, well, everyone, instead of telling people that his policies were working.

Posted on by

He’s ba-aaack!

Ocracoke Island Lighthouse, photo by D R Pico

My thanks to William Teach, a “modern day pirate (of ice cream),” and the distinguished host of The Pirate’s Cove, for filling in for me while Mrs Pico and I went vacationating on Ocracoke Island, in the Outer Banks of North Carolina.

I had been unaware that the Dread Pirate Blackbeard was really named Edward Teach, until I saw it on a banner in one of the tourist-trap souvenir shops in Ocracoke. The elder Mr Teach had been killed off of Ocracoke, something commemorated with an historical marker near the old Coast Guard station in Silver Lake Harbor, by Lt Robert Maynard and the crew of the HMS Pearl on November 22, 1718.

The present-day Mr Teach is a graduate of East Carolina University, the athletic teams of which are the Pirates! Thus, we must consider, and accept, that the host of The Pirate’s Cove is indeed the worthy successor to his ancestor(?) of twelve generations past!

Finally, East Carolina’s colors are purple and gold, which speaks to me, as my alma mater, Mt Sterling High School had the same colors during its distinguished history!

Posted on by

Federal Judge Temporarily Suspends New Mexico Gov’s Gun Order

Her attorney general refused to support the order. The head of the state police said he wouldn’t enforce it, as did the county sheriff and local Albuquerque PD

New Mexico Democrat governor’s sweeping gun order hits major temporary roadblock

A federal judge in Albuquerque, New Mexico, has issued a temporary restraining order blocking key parts of Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s executive order suspending open and concealed carry across Albuquerque and the surrounding Bernalillo County for at least 30 days.

U.S. District Court Judge David Urias issued the order on Wednesday, blocking the portion of the order that prohibits lawful gun owners from carrying their guns in public for 30 days, ruling that it’s not enforceable.

“The violation of a constitutional right, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury,” Urias said during the hearing.

The temporary restraining order will remain in effect until at least Oct. 3, when the next hearing is scheduled.

The judge was appointed by Biden, so, that should tell you how bad Grisham went over the line. Of course, she’s refusing to back down

Lujan Grisham said in a statement on the temporary restraining order, stating that “I refuse to be resigned to the status quo.”

“Today a judge temporarily blocked sections of our public health order but recognized the significant problem of gun violence in this state, particularly involving the deaths of children,” she wrote. “As governor, I see the pain of families who lost their loved ones to gun violence every single day, and I will never stop fighting to prevent other families from enduring these tragedies.”

She wants the legislature to Do Something, and said she intends to “update the public health order with additional measures to address public safety and health shortly.” Well, she won’t be able to appeal, unless she can get a private lawyer, since the AG stated he would not defend the measure. The question here, will Grisham pay a price for her blatant abuse of the US and New Mexico Constitutions? Of denying law abiding citizens their rights? Most likely not, because the Democrats pretty much have a 2-1 margin in the House and Senate. So, unless they see their constituents really having a problem with Grisham, she’s safe. And that’s a big problem: elected officials, and bureaucrats, can so often abuse their office and nothing happens.

Who paid the price for COVID tyranny? Most were re-elected. One of the worst was Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan. People bitched, but, voted her back in.

Continue reading →

Posted on by

SCNY Mayor Plans Cuts To City Agencies To Pay For Illegal Aliens

It’s not quite as fun to support unfettered illegal immigration and declare yourself a sanctuary city when the fallout actually hits your city and your services are going to get cut to pay for it, eh?

Mayor Adams announces cuts as high as 15% for all NYC agencies amid ballooning migrant costs

Mayor Adams announced Saturday there would be cuts as high as 15% to all city agencies by next spring — including NYPD and health department — in response to the costly migrant crisis, which could further impact the delivery of city services.

The mayor made a surprise speech over the weekend telling New Yorkers that the lack of substantial support from the federal and state government regarding the crisis — at a time when COVID aid is drying up — has forced the city to impose austerity cuts.

“We are in the middle of a humanitarian crisis involving asylum seekers, a crisis that will cost our city $12 billion over three fiscal years,” Adams said. “While our compassion is limitless our resources are not.”

Those cuts, the administration said, intend to “minimize disruption to programs and services, and there will not be layoffs,” according to a press release on the announcement. The current budget stands at $107 billion.

So, if no layoffs, that means something else will bear the burden, which means services to citizens. Residents of Sanctuary City New York thought they were voting for this to happen Somewhere Else. If there’s a 15% cut to the NYPD’s funding, what is cut if not officers and all the admin folks? Cars? Patrols? Weapons and rounds? Bulletproof vests?

And in Sanctuary City Chicago

Chicago mayor faces pushback from local leaders for plan to house migrants in tents: ‘Help your people first’

Democrat Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson is facing opposition from local leaders after he asked that “all 50 city council members” find space in their wards to help house “more than 200 migrants” in tents, according to a new report.

But some aldermen are pushing back on Johnson’s plans.

“I’ve looked in my ward. I just don’t have any available space. I have one of the most dense wards in the city,” Alderman Brian Hopkins said, according to ABC7 Chicago.

Alderman David Moore of the 17th Ward called on Chicago to help its own community first.

“I’m a believer in help your people first, help yourselves first, help your community first. Then reach out and help others,” Moore said.

Johnson wants to put up massive, winterized tents all over the city, meaning in the poorer wards. You can bet there won’t be any in the rich areas, like Obama’s rich and toney Hyde Park area. Sure, some alderman support the plan. Probably right up to Johnson putting tents up in their areas.

Residents clash over migrant shelter at Quincy community meeting

Tensions flared Tuesday evening at a community meeting, where more than 500 residents packed into Central Middle School to pepper city and state officials with questions about a recently opened migrant shelter at a local private college.

For more than two hours, people shared their support for migrant families, but also their frustration over not knowing enough about the “Family Welcome Center” located on the campus of Eastern Nazarene College. (snip)

Outside the middle school on Tuesday, colorful signs reading “We WELCOME you!” were propped inches from posters that said “NOT HERE.” (snip)

“Have you ever brought a refugee family to your own home?” Yan He, speaking through a Mandarin translator, asked Augustus.

William Doyle, another resident, called for the state to amend the state’s right-to-shelter law to limit the number of migrants it is required to care for.

“We cannot sustain this many people in our city,” he said, urging residents to call Governor Maura Healey’s office and tell her to “amend this law, otherwise we’re going to kick you out of office!”

Some supported this plan, some do not. Some feel more secure, because there is a ton of security at the school. It’s apparently needed to protect the residents from all these migrants. It’s a shame when Democrats have to live the life they voted for.

Posted on by

California Legislature Passes More Gun Restrictions On Law Abiding Citizens

Funny how none of these measures passed by hardcore Democrats ever restricts their own security, nor goes after actual criminals

Concealed carry gun rules passed by California Democrats. Gavin Newsom is ready to make it law

California Democrats passed new rules Tuesday restricting who can carry loaded weapons in public, successfully reviving a failed attempt to strengthen the state’s concealed carry gun laws.

Senate Bill 2, authored by Sen. Anthony Portantino, D-Burbank, will update the concealed carry licensing process, add new age restrictions, impose strict storage mandates and limit where permit holders can carry in public. After a vote of 28-8 in the state Senate on Tuesday, the legislation is headed to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk for his signature.

“I think the impact is going to be significant,” Portantino told The Sacramento Bee just after the Senate floor vote. “Having a gun is a responsibility and what we’re doing is defining who should have that responsibility and who shouldn’t.”

In a statement released Monday, Newsom commended the legislature for its support and said that there was a reason why people were “less likely to die from bullets in California.”

“We’re using every tool we can to make our streets and neighborhoods safer from gun violence,” he added in the statement.

Yet, it’s rarely those who lawfully own a firearm, and virtually never for anyone with concealed carry permit, to be involved in crime. It’s usually those who illegally possess, but, Democrats do not care, this is about making it harder for law abiding citizens.

Once signed by Newsom, SB 2 requires those who want to carry firearms in public to be 21 or older and have at least 16 hours of training. It will also prohibit permit holders from carrying their guns into a wide array of settings such as schools, courts, government buildings, prisons, hospitals, airports and bars.

This law is pretty damned big for a state law, and isn’t just about guns, but, bb guns, paint guns, short knives, personal gas protection, and more, and has so much information that it will make it tough for anyone to know what is and isn’t against the law. It also gives the California DOJ the power to determine the fees for licenses, rather than setting them in the bill. And it really ramps up the criminal violations. It’s all to make sure law abiding citizens are too scared/unsure to carry their legally purchased firearm.

Gun rights groups are prepared to file a lawsuit challenging the bill the same day that Newsom signs it into law, according to Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California.

“We know what we have to do and we’re ready to do it,” Paredes said in an interview. “Ultimately, this bill will never see the light of day as a statute in the state of California.”

The bill is supposedly attempting to comply with the Supreme Court ruling last year but it will simply make it harder.

Posted on by

NY Times Says Ukraine Aid Benefits GOP Districts, So It’s A Shame Many Republicans Are Against It

How long do they expect this war to last?

As Ukraine Aid Benefits Their Districts, Some House Republicans Oppose It

By early next year, this city best known for being the rodeo capital of Texas is on track to become a centerpiece of the U.S. effort to increase artillery production vital to the war in Ukraine.

A hulking new plant going up next to a highway exchange not far from downtown Mesquite promises to nearly double current U.S. output, replenishing stockpiles and preparing more ammunition to beat back the Russian invasion.

For a city in the midst of engineering an economic renaissance, the General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems factory is a major boon. It is expected to employ at least 125 people; bring business opportunities to local suppliers, retailers and restaurants; and, city officials hope, potentially help turn the area into an industrial hotbed of well-paying jobs.

None of that appears to have persuaded Rep. Lance Gooden, the Republican whose district will house the new plant, to support continuing U.S. aid to Ukraine. Over the summer, he joined dozens of his GOP House colleagues in calling for an end to American support for Ukraine’s fight, voting for measures to strip $300 million in security assistance for the war-torn country from next year’s defense budget and prohibit Congress from approving any more funds for the conflict.

His opposition and that of many others in his party has imperiled President Joe Biden’s request for $24 billion in additional funding for the war, threatening to derail an emergency spending bill that lawmakers in both parties are working to push through Congress this month.

The war started on February 24, 2022, and we’re fast approaching the 2nd year, with little change all around. Ukraine’s spring offensive didn’t end up doing a whole lot, and Biden wants to continue showering Ukraine with billions, holding aid to Maui hostage. But, consider what the NY Times is saying: that artillery plant won’t go into operation till next year. At that point, it will take time to start production of the shells and shipping them. How freaking long is this war supposed to go on? How long will the U.S. be funding and supplying Ukraine?

It reflects how the “America First” mentality popularized by former President Donald Trump has spread and intensified among Republicans, prompting increasing numbers of lawmakers — including some whose constituents benefit directly from continued U.S. aid to Ukraine — to refuse to keep supporting it. And it is one major driver of the spending showdowns to come this fall as lawmakers toil to reach agreement on both the routine annual spending bills and an extra package of aid for crises at home and abroad.

Of course there’s some Trump Derangement Syndrome included. This is not about “America First”, it’s about not spending money we don’t have on a war that has little consequences to the U.S. when our own people need that money.

“We’re proud that they’re made in Ohio’s 4th District,” Rep. Jim Jordan, the Republican whose district includes the Lima Army Tank Plant, said of the Abrams tanks, “but our constituents have great concerns about seemingly unlimited taxpayer money being used to fund the war in Ukraine, especially when Americans are struggling at home with rising inflation and places like East Palestine and Maui continue to be ignored by the Biden administration.”

There are lots of Democrats and Independents who are wondering why we’re funding Ukraine, with much of the money going to pay the lawmakers and rich folks in Ukraine. They’re wondering when this will end. And wondering why our citizens are suffering.

Posted on by

Good Grief: Biden Gives Iran $6 Billion Of Frozen Funds On 9/11 For Five Prisoners

Of all the days to take care of avowed enemies, a government, and many of the people, who chant “death to America” and actually mean it. A country attempting to get nuclear weapons, which would destabilize the Middle East, and could cause Israel, and even Saudi Arabia, to strike first

President Joe Biden Bows to Iran on 9/11: Pays $6 Billion for Five Prisoners

The Biden administration has reportedly approved a deal with Iran to pay the rogue regime $6 billion in exchange for five detained American citizens.

The deal, according to the Associated Press (AP), entailed the Biden administration issuing a blanket waiver for international banks to transfer $6 billion in frozen Iranian money from South Korea to Qatar without U.S. sanctions. The money would then be held in Qatar’s central bank for Iran to use, reportedly for the purchase of humanitarian goods.

In addition, the Biden administration agreed to release five Iranian citizens held in the U.S.

According to the AP, Secretary of State Antony Blinken signed off on the deal late last week, but Congress was not notified of the deal until Monday, which was also 9/11, the 22nd anniversary of the U.S. suffering terrorist attacks by Islamic fundamentalists.

The deal appears to go against the U.S. policy of not paying countries to release American prisoners so as not to incentivize the behavior.

This will very much help the unhinged terrorists running Iran. Good job, Joe! Though, of course, Credentialed Media outlets like the Washington Post can only lightly chide Biden despite

The deal marks a major breakthrough for the longtime adversaries who remain at loggerheads over a range of issues, including the rapid expansion of Tehran’s nuclear program, its ongoing military support for Russia and Iran’s harsh crackdown on dissent. Though it remains unclear when the two sides could complete the prisoner transfer, Monday’s announcement comes as President Biden and Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi each prepare to travel to New York for the annual U.N. General Assembly next week.

In other words, this is a huge win for Iran, and the WP would be lambasting Trump if he did this. It’s not like Iranian proxies have directly threatened the US recently or something.

Meanwhile, as Biden gave a little, barely coherent speech in Alaska (because AF1 typically stops in Alaska to refuel, so, Biden stepped out for a brief appearance, so he didn’t have to do anything when he got back to DC)

(Fox News) President Biden claimed Monday, without evidence, that he stood at Ground Zero in New York City viewing the damage from the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks just one day later, despite records showing he was in Washington, D.C. that day.

“Ground Zero in New York — I remember standing there the next day and looking at the building. I felt like I was looking through the gates of Hell, it looked so devastating because the way you could — from where you could stand,” Biden said during his speech at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska marking the devastating acts of terrorism 22 years ago.

However, according to C-SPAN coverage of U.S. Senate proceedings on September 12, 2001, Biden was in Washington, D.C. and gave a speech on the floor of the Senate. Records show the Senate met in the morning, and a classified briefing was held for all senators that afternoon at 2:00 p.m. ET.

Typical Biden lying. Oh, and AF1 landed at the aforementioned AF base, which is the norm, so, he didn’t really have to travel far.

Who had a WWIII watch including Iran on the bingo card?