Posted on by

Are the teachers’ unions writing purportedly straight news pieces for The Washington Post?

The Washington Post got the headline wrong. The editors make it sound as though the students were the ones in the wrong for reporting a teacher who broke the law!

Her students reported her for a lesson on race. Can she trust them again?

Mary Wood’s school reprimanded her for teaching a book by Ta-Nehisi Coates. Now she hopes her bond with students can survive South Carolina’s politics.

by Hannah Natanson | Monday, September 18, 2023 | 6:00 AM EDT

CHAPIN, S.C. — As gold sunlight filtered into her kitchen, English teacher Mary Wood shouldered a worn leather bag packed with first-day-of-school items: Three lesson-planning notebooks. Two peanut butter granola bars. An extra pair of socks, just in case.

Everything was ready, but Wood didn’t leave. For the first time since she started teaching 14 years ago, she was scared to go back to school.

Six months earlier, two of Wood’s Advanced Placement English Language and Composition students had reported her to the school board for teaching about race. Wood had assigned her all-White class readings from Ta-Nehisi Coates’s “Between the World and Me,” a book that dissects what it means to be Black in America.

The students wrote in emails that the book — and accompanying videos that Wood, 47, played about systemic racism — made them ashamed to be White, violating a South Carolina proviso that forbids teachers from making students “feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress” on account of their race.

The story was originally entitled “South Carolina students reported their teacher’s lesson on Ta-Nehisa Coates,” or so I judge from the blurb that appears on the article tab using Microsoft Edge. Someone changed it to the headline you see above, which includes “Can she trust them again?” But what Mrs Satterwhite[1]While the teacher did not respect her husband, Ryan Satterwhite, enough to have taken his last name, The First Street Journal does not show similar disrespect to him, and always refers to married … Continue reading did was in blatant defiance of the law in the Palmetto State. Do the editors of the Post support teachers breaking the law?

Reading Coates’s book felt like “reading hate propaganda towards white people,” one student wrote.

Let’s be clear here: Mr Coates, who has had material published previously in the Post, something the Post article does not mention, which is a violation of standard journalistic ethics, strongly concentrates on race relations in the United States. Wikipedia’s section on Mr Coates’ views on race in the US states:

In an interview with Ezra Klein, Coates outlined his analysis that the extent of white identity expression in the United States serves as a critical factor in threat perceptions of certain European Americans and their response to political paradigm shifts related to African Americans, such as the presidency of Barack Obama.

I note here that Ezra Klein was the creator of JournoList, so the above statement concerned a left-wing “journalist” reporting about a left-wing subject. While I was obviously not present during Mrs Satterwhite’s lessons, I don’t find the student’s complaint that the book felt like “reading hate propaganda towards white people” to be improbable.

At least two parents complained, too. Within days, school administrators ordered Wood to stop teaching the lesson. They placed a formal letter of reprimand in her file. It instructed her to keep teaching “without discussing this issue with your students.”

Wood finished out the spring semester feeling defeated and betrayed — not only by her students, but by the school system that raised her. The high school Wood teaches at is the same one she attended.

Oh, she felt “defeated and betrayed” because students reported her to teaching a lesson which broke the law? People might genuinely disagree about the merits of the law in question, but it is still the law.

Here is the crux of the teacher’s problem:

Wood believes trust is fundamental to the classroom. She has to trust her students. They and their parents have to trust her. But trust, she believes, is impossible without authenticity. And for Wood, teaching authentically means assigning writers like Coates — voices unfamiliar, even disconcerting, to students in her lakeside town. Because of what happened last year, though, Wood now worried anything, from the most provocative essay to the least interesting comment about her weekend, might be resisted, recorded and reported by the children she was supposed to be teaching.

And if she couldn’t trust them, how was she supposed to make them trust her?

That trust was broken when Mrs Satterwhite began teaching her students something prohibited by law, yet she somehow sees the trust as having been broken by the students reporting her, not her teaching of a prohibited lesson. If the lessons she taught made some students feel “ashamed to be white,” how does that not violate “a South Carolina proviso that forbids teachers from making students ‘feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress’ on account of their race”?

Mrs Satterwhite was not discharged. She had a letter of reprimand placed in her file, and was admonished not to teach inappropriate lessons. Yet she has returned to the classroom this school year.

How can she trust her students? She can record her lessons herself, to prove that she has remained within the state’s and the school board’s guidelines.

And Wood believed the school district had come to accept her — respecting her students’ 80-plus percent AP exam passage rates year after year, above the national average — even if not everyone liked her methods. Chapin was her hometown. Chapin High School had been her school, the place she began to question the conservative, Christian views espoused by her classmates, friends and family.

No teacher ever assigned her someone like Coates, Wood said, but her father Mike Satterfield, a teacher and later principal at Chapin, encouraged her to pursue whatever outside reading she found interesting. That led her to left-leaning authors. By the time she graduated from University of North Carolina Wilmington, she was a self-professed liberal.

The Post reporter tried to put that innocuously, but the meaning is clear: Mrs Satterwhite is not just “a self-professed liberal,” but she was choosing to teach that liberalism to the students in a mostly conservative area. Lexington County, in which Chapin is located, gave 92,817 votes, 64.20% of the total, to President Trump in 2020, versus 49,301 votes, 34.10%, to the dummkopf from Delaware.

But amid a red sea, Chapin’s English department was a blue island. And Wood was known as the bluest of the bunch — conspicuous for decorating her classroom with posters of Malcolm X, Ruth Bader Ginsburg quotes and LGBTQ pride stickers.

Though the Post didn’t want to say it directly, the above paragraph tells us all that we need to know: Mrs Satterwhite was bringing her politics into the classroom.

As one would expect, Mrs Satterwhite attempted to use an “I know better because I am a professional” argument, the type of thing the liberal teachers’ unions try, but it didn’t work: parents have, and should have, the ultimate authority over what their children are taught.

The Post article is a very long one, and it is a left-leaning editorial, slanted to make Mrs Satterwhite a martyr, attempting to masquerade as a news piece.

References

References
↑1 While the teacher did not respect her husband, Ryan Satterwhite, enough to have taken his last name, The First Street Journal does not show similar disrespect to him, and always refers to married women by their proper names, though we do not change the direct quotes of others.
Posted on by

The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend

The Soviet Union was one of the worst things ever foisted on human beings, but when it came to World War II, the United States and United Kingdom saw the Communists as being less of a threat than Nazi Germany. Thus, in order to defeat Adolf Hitler and Germany, we sent all sorts of military aid to Josef Stalin and the USSR to defeat the Nazis.

And it worked! Though Americans frequently don’t understand this, the greater part of the defeat of Germany came from the land power advance of the Soviets, a thousand-mile march which cost Germany entire armies. British and American bombing helped to reduce Germany’s warmaking industries, but the real defeat of the Nazis came from soldiers of the Allies, primarily the Soviets, killing soldiers of Germany.

Of course, many Americans were shocked, shocked! that Comrade Stalin was not a good and noble Democrat after the war, and that the Soviets imposed their communist system on the eastern European nations they ‘liberated’ from the Third Reich. I’d note here New York Times sycophantic reporter Walter Duranty and his glowing reports about the Communists in the 1930s.

The Soviets following World War II are probably the greatest reminder that the phrase “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is pure bovine feces. The enemy of your enemy may at times be a useful ally, but that’s about it.

A Pride flag ban sparks accusations of betrayal in tiny Michigan city

By Allan Lengel | Saturday, September 16, 2023 | 7:00 AM EDT

HAMTRAMCK, Mich. — This city of 28,000 was once so Polish it was dubbed “Little Warsaw.” But in recent decades, an influx of immigrants gave Hamtramck new character. Bengali and Arabic joined English on signs at City Hall. Yemeni and Bangladeshi mosques, restaurants and shops proliferated.

And last year, a Muslim who emigrated from Yemen as a teenager became mayor — the city’s first leader in nearly a century with no Polish roots — alongside what is believed to be the nation’s only all-Muslim city council.

Many residents in this tiny enclave just north of downtown Detroit saw these changes as a sign of the Hamtramck’s progressiveness. The Muslim community that had previously experienced discrimination, including voter intimidation and resistance to mosques’ public call to prayer, had finally taken its seats at the table.

Yet the ethnic, cultural and religious diversity that made Hamtramck something of a model is being put severely to the test. In June, after divisive debate, the six-member council blocked the display of Pride flags on city property — action that has angered allies and members of the LGBTQ+ community, who feel that the support they provided the immigrant groups has been reciprocated with betrayal.

“We welcomed you,” former council member Catrina Stackpoole, a retired social worker who identifies as gay, recalls telling the council this summer. “We created nonprofits to help feed, clothe, find housing. We did everything we could to make your transition here easier, and this is how you repay us, by stabbing us in the back?”

There’s more at the original.

As I have written previously, Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev once said that the capitalists would sell the communists the rope by which the communists would hang them; in today’s left, “LGBT” groups support the Islamic groups which would, were they living under Islamic rule, throw them in jail, at the very least.

Today’s American and European left really, really hate Israel, as the Jewish state defends itself against the Muslim Arabs who have sworn to push the Jews into the sea. The left see the plight of the poor, poor Palestinians as an oppressed people, nobly fighting for their freedom, but it’s all delusional thinking. Israel is the only functioning democracy on the Middle East. Human rights? The left almost unanimously support homosexual and transgender rights, but try being homosexual in the Muslim-ruled nations: if you get caught, Da’ish will throw you to your death off a tall building, Iran will hang you, and other Islamic countries have their own punishments. Ten countries, all majority Muslim, can and sometimes have imposed the death penalty for consensual same-sex sexual acts.

Why, then, did the liberals in Hamtramck believe that the Muslims in their small town would be their allies back once they had helped them gain political power? “We did everything we could to make your transition here easier, and this is how you repay us, by stabbing us in the back?” Catrina Stackpoole whined. Had she been a bit more self-aware, she might have asked, “and this is how you repay us, by throwing us off a rooftop?”

As much as they’d never admit it, there’s a distinctly American bias in the thinking of the left. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom stated:

Under international human rights law, religion is not a legitimate justification for egregiously violating fundamental rights of individuals. As explained by the HRCttee in General Comment 22, the existence of a state or majority religion cannot result in the impairment of the rights of individuals under the ICCPR. General Comment 22 also explains that “the concept of morals derives from many social, philosophical, and religious traditions; consequently limitations … for the purpose of protecting morals must be based on principles not deriving exclusively from a single tradition.”

A great and noble statement of Western classical liberal values. Now, who here believes that this means diddly to Muslim and Arabic immigrants of the last twenty years?

The good progressives of Hamtramck were apparently unable to comprehend that the Arabic and Muslim immigrants had their own culture, and their beliefs and cultures did not get left behind in the Old Country.

The Muslim immigrants into Hamtramck saw the good, kind progressives of their city as just what they were: useful idiots.

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.