Category: Goobermint

An Assault on Bill of Rights

The people of New Mexico — and, we fear, the people of the United States — owe Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina a real debt of gratitude.

Medina has stated unequivocally that his department will not enforce an unconstitutional “emergency order” by Michelle Lujan Grisham, the governor of New Mexico, to suspend the right of her constituents to lawfully carry firearms.

The governor’s order is in response to a spate of shootings in New Mexico’s largest city.

“A child is murdered, the perpetrator is still on the loose, and what does the governor do? She … targets law-abiding citizens with an unconstitutional gun order,” state Sen. Greg Baca, the ranking Republican in New Mexico’s state Senate, told the Associated Press.

“I don’t know what her thought process was that she suddenly thought she could trample the Second Amendment,” state Rep. Stefani Lord told KOAT Channel 7 of Albuquerque at a protest against the governor’s order.

The move by Grisham is excessive. It violates the Bill of Rights and it is exactly the sort of escalation that Americans who defend the Second Amendment fear and warn their friends, neighbors and family about when other measures to curtail gun owners’ rights are debated.

Even proponents of gun control, including activist David Hogg and U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., recognizes that Grisham’s order tramples Constitutional rights.

“I support gun safety laws,” Lieu said on social media, according to a Fox News report. “However, this order from the Governor of New Mexico violates the U.S. Constitution. No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution.”

We appreciate the congressman speaking out against this violation of the Second Amendment just as we appreciate the police chief’s recognition that his department has no authority to join the governor in violating the Constitution. We hope the rebukes and reprimands are swift and severe enough that this infringement does not spread from the Land of Enchantment to our other 49 states.

Now that the state has to really deal with illegals, instead of merely signaling their virtue……

NY Gov. Kathy Hochul’s migrant U-turn: Video reveals how Democrat welcomed asylum seekers ‘with open arms’ in 2021 — but today she tells them: ‘Go somewhere else.’

New York governor Kathy Hochul welcomed asylum seekers with ‘open arms’ and pledged to house them just three years before telling migrants to ‘go elsewhere’ because the city is at its limit.

The Democrat addressed the migrant crisis on Wednesday, warning that asylum seekers who arrive in New York City will not be housed in hotel rooms as they have been in the past.

‘We have to get the word out, that when you come to New York, you’re not going to have more hotel rooms, we don’t have capacity,’ Hochul said on CNN. ‘So we have to also message properly that we’re at a limit – if you’re going to leave your country, go somewhere else.’

It’s a stunning reversal from her statements in December 2021, when she promised to house and protect asylum seekers – before thousands of migrants began arriving every month from Sothern border states. More than 113,000 migrants have arrived in the city since last Spring.

‘As you know, the Statue of Liberty is inscribed. It says, give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to be free,’ Hochul previously said. ‘You’re welcome with open arms and we’ll work to keep you safe… We’ll not only house you, but we’ll protect you.’

2021: Hochul tells migrants ‘you are welcome here’

New York governor Kathy Hochul has warned that asylum seekers who arrive in New York City will not be housed in hotel rooms as they have been in the past

New York governor Hochul tells migrants to ‘go somewhere else’

The city has a legal obligation to give shelter to those who make their way there, and mayor Eric Adams has desperately turned to a variety of city landmarks such as hotels, makeshift shelters and temporary housing as short-term solutions.

Continue reading “”

Markey, Ocasio-Cortez ask Biden to create Civilian Climate Corps by executive order

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), two of Congress’ most vocal proponents for aggressive climate action, on Monday called for President Biden to establish a Civilian Climate Corps.

The CCC had been a key element in early versions of the Build Back Better Act, the sweeping environmental and infrastructure bill. It was not ultimately included in the slimmed down Inflation Reduction Act, which was nonetheless the largest climate bill in U.S. history.

Biden was a vocal backer of the Climate Corps early in his presidency, comparing it to the Civilian Conservation Corps introduced during the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The original legislation called for $10 billion to launch the new program.

In the letter, timed to the 30th anniversary of the bill that created Americorps, Ocasio-Cortez and Markey cited polling indicating the idea has more than 60 percent support. The two have also reintroduced a bill to establish a corps legislatively, although the measure will almost certainly not be given a vote in the Republican-majority House.

“A central coordinating body, overseen by the White House, will be essential to create a successful and cohesive Civilian Climate Corps,” they wrote. “Through interagency collaboration, as well as coordination with state climate corps, other state entities, and local non-profit organizations, your Administration can realize the vision of a Civilian Climate Corps that establishes a unified front in the face of climate change — one that looks like America, serves America, and puts good-paying union jobs within reach for more young adults.”

The letter is also signed by members of Democratic congressional leadership like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).

Also on Monday, a coalition of more than 50 progressive and environmentalist groups sent a separate letter calling on Biden to establish the CCC, citing its popularity among younger voters in particular.

“While previous Executive Orders and legislation under your administration demonstrate tremendous progress toward meeting our Paris climate goals and your campaign promises, this summer has made clear that we must be as ambitious as possible in tackling the great crisis of our time,” they wrote.

“We encourage your administration to create a Civilian Climate Corps through existing authorities, with existing climate funding, that can coordinate across relevant federal agencies.”

Michelle Lujan Grisham tries to revive Democrats’ “Massive Resistance” to civil rights

Just off the main drag in Farmville, Virginia there’s an unassuming brick building next to a brightly painted tarpaper structure. The unobtrusive sign out front identifies the building at the Robert Russa Moton Museum; a largely unknown place that was the site of one of the most significant events in the civil rights movement. The museum was once R.R. Moton High School, the black public high school in Prince Edward County. In 1951, then 15-year-old Barbara Johns led her fellow students on a walkout in protest of the deplorable conditions of the building and the education they received.

After years of frustration with Prince Edward County school which she describes (later in a memoir) as having inadequacies such as poor facilities, shabby equipment and no science laboratories or separate gymnasium, Barbara took her concerns to a teacher who responded by asking, “Why don’t you do something about it?” Barbara describes feeling as though her teacher’s comments were dismissive, and as a result she was somewhat discouraged. However, after months of contemplation and imagination she began to formulate a plan. As Barbara describes it,

“the plan I felt was divinely inspired because I hadn’t been able to think of anything until then. The plan was to assemble together the student council members…. From this, we would formulate plans to go on strike. We would make signs and I would give a speech stating our dissatisfaction and we would march out [of] the school and people would hear us and see us and understand our difficulty and would sympathize with our plight and would grant us our new school building and our teachers would be proud and the students would learn more and it would be grand….”

Seizing the moment, on April 23, 1951, Barbara Johns, a 16 year-old high school girl in Prince Edward County, Virginia, led her classmates in a strike to protest the substandard conditions at Robert Russa Moton High School. Her idealism, planning, and persistence ultimately garnered the support of NAACP lawyers Spottswood Robinson and Oliver Hill to take up her cause and the cause of more equitable conditions for Moton High School.

After meeting with the students and the community, lawyers Spottswood Robinson and Oliver Hill filed suit at the federal courthouse in Richmond, Virginia. The case was called Davis v. Prince Edward. In 1954, the Farmville case became one of five cases that the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka when it declared segregation unconstitutional.

While Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954, public schools weren’t integrated in Prince Edward County for another decade. The school system dragged out any attempt to abide by the decision for years, and when that became untenable the county decided to shut down the public schools entirely rather than integrate. The “Massive Resistance” movement eventually resulted in several communities shuttering their schools, though none for as long as Prince Edward County. It took another Supreme Court decision in 1964 to re-open the schools, this time to both black and white students.

When I first moved to the Farmville area a decade ago I met a man who’d spent several years being taught in a church basement and in the living rooms of family and friends by parents and other adults who refused to let kids go unschooled. In fact, he was the one who told me about this shameful history in the first place.

Both Farmville and the nation at large have come a long way since 1951. Sadly, Massive Resistance to a Supreme Court decision is making a comeback among Democrats, and New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham seems intent on becoming the standard bearer for the movement.

Grisham made it clear when she first announced she was unilaterally suspending the right to carry in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County that she didn’t care what the Constitution says, much less the Supreme Court. Even after the police chief and sheriff said they wouldn’t enforce her order because of constitutional concerns she insisted that curbing violent crime required disarming lawful gun owners and rendering them defenseless in public.

During the court hearing that led to her original order being put on ice, the governor’s attorney repeatedly argued that there was no difference between a “good guy with a gun” and a bad guy, that every concealed carry holder was a murderer waiting to happen, and bemoaned the Bruen decision for it supposedly taking away the governor’s ability to “try” to effectively fight violent crime.

If Grisham truly thinks that the only way to do that is to prohibit the right to carry, then there’s no way she would have let her initial order expire after its 30-day period was up. She would have extended it for as long as she got away with it, just like Prince Edward County did with the public schools in the 1960s.

Unlike the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, the bigots engaged in Massive Resistance today aren’t doing so on the basis of race (though there’s a strong argument that racial minorities are still suffering a disproportionate amount of harm from gun control laws). Instead, it’s the mere exercise of a constitutional right that causes Grisham and others to view their friends, neighbors, and constituents as dangerous “others” who must be suppressed in the name of public safety. Black, white, gay, straight… it doesn’t matter. If you’re a gun owner, and certainly if you’re a gun owner who wants to carry your gun in public, you’re the problem. You must be “fixed”. You must be put in your proper place, and your right must be deemed a wrong.

I don’t know if Michelle Lujan Grisham is smart enough to have realized this, but the Massive Resistance movement failed. In Farmville the worst fears of the segregationists have been realized. Black and white kids are going to school, becoming friends, getting married, having kids, and living their lives in a community that is much changed for the better.

Like her fellow civil rights suppressors in the 1950s and 60s, Grisham is ultimately lashing out because she’s losing. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and there’s a portion of the gun control movement that believes it’s time to start lobbing Hail Marys through executive orders and tossing verbal hand grenades at the Supreme Court over Bruen, while the more institutional wing seems intent on taking a more traditional incrementalist approach.

If Grisham thought she was acting in a position of strength in proclaiming a constitutional right suspended because of a self-proclaimed public health emergency (at a time when homicides are actually trending down in Albuquerque, by the way), the backlash from many of her fellow Democrats and the refusal to enforce her order by local and state officials should have disabused her of her delusions. I think she was well aware of the weakness of her position before she made her announcement. She just decided if she was going to “do something”, she might as well do something big.

Grisham has backed down slightly from her original order, a decision I suspect that is almost entirely based on the unwillingness of police and prosecutors to go along. Massive Resistance implies mass, after all, and in Grisham’s case she (so far, anyway) hasn’t had the institutional backing she needs to pull off her unconstitutional scheme. That may have even factored into her decision to revise her original order instead of bringing lawmakers back to Santa Fe for a special session to address this “emergency”; she knows that she doesn’t have the political capital at the moment to control the outcome and ensure that her desired gun control bills get passed.

Lately, it seems like the governor’s been more interested in burning bridges with her fellow Democrats than building them, but that could easily change over the next few months. The self-proclaimed “emergency” in Albuquerque was her first attempt at massive resistance to the Bruen decision but I doubt it will be the last, and if she (or her handlers) have an ounce of political acumen they’ll be looking for buy-in and political cover from the Democratic majority before she unveils her next terrible and tyrannical idea.

 

‘Battle of Sacred Cow Groups’ Begins in MI After All-Muslim City Council Bans Pride Flag on City Property.

BLUF:
“We welcomed you. 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?”

Though Democrats have blamed conservative Republicans for the growing outcry from the Muslim community over the radical LGBTQ agenda being forced on children in public schools, the belief still exists among woke leftists that if they continue to play nice they can coexist with—and win over—devoutly religious, socially conservative Muslims who have become disaffected with Democratic Party.

It’s almost an understatement to say that theory has been put to the test in one city in Michigan, which saw an all-Muslim city council and mayor unanimously vote to ban the Pride flag and some other flags from being displayed on city property, a vote they held during ‘Pride Month’:

 

From the Washington Post‘s report:

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?”

The only flags that can be displayed on city property, per the WaPo‘s report, are “U.S., state, city and POW/MIA banners.”

My first thought when I read this was “What the heck did they expect?” My second was to remind myself that the far left always expects mindless subservience from their core voting blocs.

Though there seemed to be general agreement from Twitter conservatives with the vote to only allow the American flag and related flags on city property, some other observations were made about the widening political rift in Hamtramck which ranged from serious to downright hilarious:

Continue reading “”

AFTER NEGOTIATION WITH ANJRPC,
NJ ISSUES REVISED CARRY TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

Joisey Goobermint; Loser O’ The Day

25-Yard Target Distance – Dropped!
Tactical Maneuvers – Dropped!
Timed Fire – Dropped!
Requalification Deadline – Extended!

September 17, 2023. After extensive discussions with ANJRPC, the State of New Jersey has issued revised carry training requirements addressing nearly all gun owner objections and concerns. The newly revised requirements eliminated any demonstration of tactical maneuvers, eliminated a demonstration of shooting proficiency at 25 yards, significantly extended the compliance date for current permit holders to requalify, and eliminated inappropriate content from the use of force instructional materials.

Click HERE,  HERE,  HERE and HERE to see the newly updated training requirements, which were negotiated by ANJRPC attorney Dan Schmutter, with input from attorney Evan Nappen.

Specifically, New Jersey eliminated any testing requirements for kneeling, one handed shooting, timed fire, and retention drills. Additionally, New Jersey has completely eliminated any demonstration of shooting proficiency at 25 yards, instead requiring shooting from 3, 5, 7, 10, and 15 yards. Also, New Jersey has extended the deadline for current permit holders to requalify from October 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023. New Jersey also eliminated from the “use of force” instructional materials content unrelated to right to carry, including provisions related to citizen’s arrest and use of handcuffs.

This development represents another extremely significant moment for New Jersey gun owners. The State of New Jersey has, for the second time this summer, explicitly taken steps to limit the harsh unintended consequences of erroneous rules for gun owners. It is a testimony to the newly found influence gun owners have attained in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen, and ANJRPC is pleased to have been able to deliver this result.

If you want to contribute to the carry-killer lawsuit click here to make a donation.

If you are not already subscribed to these free email alerts, click here to sign up — there will be critical updates and alerts coming in the near future.

Your God-Given Rights vs. Their Power-Driven Rules

‘Turning into Jello’: Glenn Greenwald says some Dems are looking to ‘sabotage’ Biden

Journalist Glenn Greenwald said Wednesday some Democrats were looking to sabotage President Joe Biden due to his age and mounting scandals surrounding his family’s business dealings.

Biden came under fire from reporters after he falsely claimed that he was at Ground Zero the day after the Sept. 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center. Biden’s aides hastily cut off a press conference during his trip to Vietnam after he randomly said he was going to go to bed.

WATCH:

“If they ramp up these impeachment inquiries and they start airing this dirty laundry everywhere, the voicemails, the text, the emails, the phone calls, it is a disaster for the entire Washington establishment and everybody that’s been lying about this and covering it up,” Fox News host Jesse Watters said. “Do you think this is a way for them to say, you know what, let’s not make all of us look bad?”

Continue reading “”

The ghost of Saul Alinsky smiles:
“Make opponents live up to their own book of rules”.

LA mayor ‘fearful’ that planes of illegal aliens might arrive in city that ‘welcomes immigrants.’

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said she is “fearful that any day” planes filled with illegal immigrants will be flown into the city.<

During an event hosted by Axios on Thursday, Bass said, “We live in a city that welcomes immigrants, and so I think we have been able to handle it, but I am fearful that any day, planes could start coming.”
She added that the transportation of immigrants from border states and Florida to “sanctuary” jurisdictions “is just setting the stage for the presidential election next year.”

The liberal city mayor’s comments come as governors overrun by illegal immigration have sent busloads of migrants to cities like New York City, Chicago and Washington, D.C. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has already sent 13 busloads of migrants to Los Angeles — which touts itself as a sanctuary city — as part of Operation Lone Star.  Abbott continued to send buses as the city was hit by Tropical Storm Hilary, which Bass called “evil.”

“Our border communities are on the frontlines of President Biden’s border crisis, and Texas will continue providing this much-needed relief until he steps up to do his job and secure the border,” Abbott said in a statement.

In June, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis transported batches of migrants from border states to Sacramento. In the preceding fall, Florida also facilitated the travel of 49 Venezuelans to Martha’s Vineyard, a wealthy Massachusetts island.

Bass called the effort by Republican governors an attempt to “destabilize cities.”

“It’s the narrative that these are Democratic-run cities and that we don’t know how to govern and that everything is chaotic here,” Bass said during the event, Axios reported.

Illegal immigrants entering Los Angeles are reportedly coming from Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras and Venezuela.

According to the Migration Policy Institute, in 2019, it was estimated that there were approximately 951,000 illegal immigrants residing in Los Angeles County, nearly 10% of the county’s total population, marking the highest concentration of migrants in any U.S. county.

“What’s maddening is the fact that in New York and Chicago, in D.C. and LA, and other places, they put out policies self-proclaiming that they’re sanctuary cities, and they love to promote these liberal ideologies until they have to actually live up and apply them,” Abbott said recently on Fox News’ Jesse Watters Primetime. “It was clear that the policies of sanctuary cities and letting everybody live for free simply do not work. This is a day of reckoning for all of the United States, realizing that the liberal policies of open borders will not work in this country.”

Other cities with incoming migrants include Chicago and New York. On Friday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and other Democrats were shouted down at a press conference in New York City regarding the illegal migrant crisis there.

The Democrats, who spoke outside the Roosevelt Hotel in Manhattan, which has become a relief center for more than 100,000 asylum seekers in the past year, were drowned out by shouting protesters chanting, “Send them back!” and “Close the border!”

California passes call for constitutional convention on guns

California Gov. Gavin Newsom floated his idea for a 28th Amendment that would codify certain gun control measures into the Constitution and called for a constitutional convention to pass it.

It’s kind of hilarious because gun control advocates can’t get these things passed as actual laws at the federal level, but they’re sure getting them in as a constitutional amendment would be easier.

Apparently, none of them ever took civics.

Regardless, Newsom’s effort required the state legislature to actually pass a call for a constitutional convention. On Thursday, the legislature did just that.

California lawmakers on Thursday approved Gov. Gavin Newsom’s resolution calling for a constitutional convention of the states to consider a new amendment on gun control, a politically astute yet seemingly unattainable proposal from the Democratic leader.

The governor introduced the proposal on national television over the summer, boosting his profile in the culture wars between Democrats and Republicans at a time when many voters feel increasingly frustrated over the lack of action in Washington to address mass shootings that have anguished communities all over the country. But constitutional scholars have warned that Newsom’s plan could be risky by opening the door for other changes to the U.S. Constitution if a convention took place.

Newsom’s resolution asks Congress to call a constitutional convention to allow states to approve an amendment that imposes new laws requiring universal background checks on gun purchases, raises the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21, institutes a “reasonable waiting” period for all gun purchases and prohibits the sale of assault weapons to the public. The resolution also calls for states to be able to approve an amendment to affirm that federal, state and local governments may adopt safety regulations limiting firearm sales, possession and carrying guns in public.

For Newsom’s proposed 28th Amendment to be considered, legislatures in two-thirds of the states must vote in favor of a constitutional convention.

And, to be fair, according to Common Cause 28 states have already called for a convention, with California being the 29th.

So it would really just take a few more to reach that threshold.

Continue reading “”

Wants to appear ‘tough on crime’

Newsom Announces $267 Million Program to Combat Organized Retail Theft.

In another effort to be perceived as “doing something about the problem,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a $267 million initiative to combat organized retail crime.

“Enough with these brazen smash-and-grabs,” Newsom said. “With an unprecedented $267 million investment, Californians will soon see more takedowns, more police, more arrests, and more felony prosecutions. When shameless criminals walk out of stores with stolen goods, they’ll walk straight into jail cells.”

To put it delicately, that’s a load of crap.

First of all, police have to catch the criminals. While they apprehend some of them, most get away. And even when arrests are made, good luck seeing many of these criminals at trial when their bail is a joke or even non-existent.

As far as prosecutions are concerned, you have to have state’s attorneys willing to enforce the law and put these people in prison. But we know that’s not going to happen. So even if they’re convicted, the chances of the thieves going to prison are small. Instead, the criminals will be back on the streets preparing for their next payday.

The Messenger:

Individual sheriffs offices and police department will be awarded over $23 million each in funding to be used for creating “fully staffed retail theft investigative units, increase arrests, install advanced surveillance technology, train loss prevention officers, create new task forces, increase cooperation with businesses and the community, target criminals in blitz operations, as well as crack down on vehicle and catalytic converter theft.”

The Organized Retail Theft Prevention Grant Program will partner with law enforcement agencies in seven counties and 34 cities across the Golden State.

Is organized retail theft — or shoplifting — really that much of a problem? Popular Information doesn’t think it is.

2023 data from most major California cities, however, does not reflect a significant increase in shoplifting or organized retail crime. In San Francisco, larceny-theft, which includes shoplifting, is down 5.6% year-to-date. Burglary in San Francisco is down 6.8% year-to-date. In San Jose, burglary and larceny are both down nearly 20% year-to-date. In Los Angeles, burglary has decreased 2.7% year-to-date, but theft has increased 14.1% year-to-date.

Taken as a whole, the available data suggests organized retail crime does not appear to be a growing problem in the nation or California. So is combating organized retail crime the best use of $267 million in taxpayer dollars?

What matters far more than dollars and cents on this issue is the perception that retail smash-and-grab thefts are out of control and something needs to be done.

The videos of these robberies are terrifying. Shoppers are thinking twice about going into a brick-and-mortar retail store. Hence, Newsom’s totally useless program that looks good on the nightly news but doesn’t do a darn thing to change the situation.

Robberies won’t stop until store owners make it too difficult for the thugs to steal from them. Whether its armed guards or putting merchandise under lock and key, store owners will figure it out eventually.

The Tool Who Governs New Mexico Has Handed Patriots a Potent New Tool

I want to thank the versatile governor of New Mexico, whose name I don’t care about, for being a communist and a fascist all at once. Now that may seem strange, coming from somebody who actually believes in freedom and actually defended it for 27 years, but I want you to hear me out. She may be an aspiring dictator and a mid-wit Karen brimming over with Xanax wishes and Chardonnay dreams, but she’s providing us with a valuable opportunity that we should take full advantage of. She has decreed that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms must yield to what she unilaterally decided is a “public health emergency.” Cool. Now, I’ve got some decrees of our own.

I’ve long said that there are three ways things can go. Option One is a free society where there are norms and rules that we all abide by and our Constitutional rights are protected and everybody has a right to participate in their own governance. This is my favorite option. It’s the one that I grew up in back when America was a free country and not a pronoun-fixated banana republic. Option Two is an authoritarian dictatorship where guys like me are in charge. Not my first choice, but I can live with it. Finally, Option Three is a communist dictatorship, and then it’s basically break out the rifles, boys. I was never good at kneeling, and at my age, my knees just won’t tolerate it any better than my attitude will.

Well, Governor Paula Pot has made it clear that Option One is now off the table, so I guess we have to go with Option Two – ironically, during the week of the 50th anniversary of Augusto Pinochet overthrowing the communist dictator of Chile. Now, I think it’s a bad idea and I’m still pushing for Option One, but it’s pretty clear that freedom no longer an option. So Option Two it is.

Let’s start decreeing stuff, Republicans!

The first thing red states need to decree is a ban on the teaching, advocacy, or practice of socialism in any of its putrid forms. Those who care nothing about the children will immediately pipe up about the alleged right to speak freely, but they refuse to acknowledge the harm this poisonous ideology does. Harm trumps rights, as colleges and the regime media have taught us. And boy, is socialism harmful. It’s violence – literally. Marxism is responsible for over 100 million deaths in the last century. That’s more deaths than net neutrality, Republican Medicare cuts, and dead-naming combined!

From the killing fields of Russia and Ukraine, to those of Red China and Cambodia, Marxism is murder. We must prioritize safety, for the children, and there is no safe space when an ideology of death like socialism is able to be articulated and advocated in public. Free speech is nice, I guess, but it is officially known that no right is absolute. Socialism is clearly hate speech, which is totally a thing in our Constitution, according to sources and experts who you can watch on MSNBC anytime you want – well, not after we ban socialism! Because socialism is hate speech, not only can we ban it, but we must ban it as the public health menace that it is.

And when we retake the White House, it won’t just be red governors doing it. As a nation, we will be able to scratch “Destroying Socialism” off our to-do list. It will be totally illegal and we can get right on enforcing the ban with the reconstituted FBI, the reformed Department of Justice, and the United States Army helicopter corps.

The next public health decree? No trans insanity! We’ve got a public health crisis where children are being mutilated with chemicals and scalpels to conform their God-given bodies to the delusions of their Chardonnay-sodden Munchhausen mommies. This must stop. I know it’s weird that I have to say it, but castrating a boy so he can more effectively pretend to be a girl causes harm. And it is unsafe. And therefore it should be subject to being banned by a decree issued by a caring chief executive. And if you disagree, you clearly don’t care about the children – wait, that’s actually not sarcasm.

But why stop at kids? The decree should include outlawing mutilation as a treatment for mental illness in adults as well. I know that there are some well-meaning libertarianish folks out there who buy the idea that after age 18, we as a society have no interest in what you do to yourself. Well, we don’t let people walk into a hospital and say “Chop off my arm” because they feel like it, and what’s good for the arm is good for the penis.

If you want to cut up your body because you think you’re the other gender, you have a mental problem and not a physical one that can be cured by some quack surgeon slicing you into pieces. Some people will say this isn’t tolerant, and that’s fine with me. We tried tolerance, and we ended up with men dressed like Charo twerking their be-thonged butts in the faces of our kindergartners.

The next decree should address a massive public health crisis among children, because it’s always about the children, who are failing to learn and be educated in unionized schools. That’s public healthish, right? Clearly, teachers unions must be outlawed, and those running them prosecuted and punished for the lasting harm they have inflicted on a generation of kids. Now, some might argue that this is the kind of policy that should go through the normal legislative process, but I beg to differ. It’s a public health emergency when children are failing to learn to read and write because I said so, and if you disagree that’s violence, and if you oppose this common sense measure, you clearly hate the children. There’s blood on your hands. You should be deplatformed. You’re also racist and probably a transphobe or something.

Remember, we must protect Our Democracy, which is why those in power – us – must be able to rule by decree. Now these decrees may represent an expansive reading of “public health emergency,” but that’s OK. As currently understood, laws should be read expansively if that’s what’s required to, say, get the result a politicized prosecutor wants. Once again, it’s not the paradigm that I support – I think this is all a terrible idea – but it is the operative New Rule, and I know that because I see a governor of a miserable desert state issuing decrees that the Second Amendment is no longer in effect, and I watch a senile, corrupt, desiccated old pervert’s Department of Justice (sic) being sicced on a man who will very likely be his opponent in the next presidential election.

Again, I don’t like any of this, but you know what I like even less? Taking this crap without hitting back. Leftist jerks, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – I told you so.

Grisham responds to backlash, ruling blocking her order

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham had to know that she’d get pushback with her declaration of a “public health emergency” regarding violent crime in Albuquerque and the subsequent order banning the lawful carry of firearms there.

I mean, it’s a gun order. There’s literally no way that she could be oblivious to the fact that a lot of people weren’t going to like it.

However, Grisham got a lot more than she likely bargained for.

I mean, members of her own party pushed back. Then, on top of everything, a court issued a restraining order stopping enforcement of the rule.

But Grisham isn’t taking her lumps and learning from them. No, she’s trying to push back.

The governor told “GMA3” earlier Wednesday she has the “courage” to take a stand against gun violence in response to backlash over her emergency public health order.

“Everyone is terrified of the backlash for all of these political reactions,” Lujan Grisham told Eva Pilgrim on “GMA3” Wednesday. “None of those individuals or groups focused on the actual injuries or deaths of the public.”

“They aren’t dealing with this as the crisis that it is,” she continued.…

“How would you feel in a city or a community if people had handguns in their belts, on parks, near schools, on public trails, at the grocery store?” Lujan Grisham told “GMA3.” “It’s outrageous and it must stop. And I will keep doing everything that’s based in science and fact and public safety efforts to clean up our cities to make this the safest state in America. And I will not stop until that’s done.”

The thing is, it’s not the bad guys walking around openly carrying. Criminals never open carry so far as I’ve seen.

If this is what Grisham is pushing then it’s about theater, not safety. It’s about giving the illusion of making things better. What’s more, she knows it.

Of course, much of this is about responding to the pushback to her order.

She also had this to say following the restraining order being issued.

“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,” Lujan Grisham said in the written statement.

“Over the past four days, I’ve seen more attention on resolving the crisis of gun violence than I have in the past four years,” she said.

No, she hasn’t.

What she’s seen is her entire party–at least those who spoke out–calling her out for this blatantly unconstitutional action. Everyone has been telling her that she can’t do what she’s tried to do and now a federal court has done the same.

Grisham’s problem is that she can’t see beyond her own partisan blinders. She can’t comprehend that there might possibly be ways to address violent crime in cities like Albuquerque that don’t involve restricting people’s rights.

Which is funny, because this whole “public health crisis” isn’t just about restricting guns. Among other things, it calls for state police to go to Albuquerque to help crack down on violent crime in the city. It actually does do a few things that might well help all on its own, and they’re far less controversial than trying to unilaterally restrict someone’s basic, constitutionally protected rights.

Then again, so many anti-gun Democrats can’t think beyond gun control for solutions to such issues.

And that’s a problem since gun control doesn’t really solve those issues.

SAF SUES CALIFORNIA OVER ‘SENSITIVE PLACES’ LEGISLATION

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit in California seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the freshly inked Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), which makes nearly every public place in the state a “sensitive place” and forbids the carrying of firearms even by citizens who have gone through the lengthy and expensive process of obtaining a concealed handgun license.

SAF is joined by Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, the California Rifle & Pistol Association and eleven private citizens. Named as Defendant is California Attorney General Rob Bonta. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys C.D. Michel, Sean A. Brady and Konstadinos T. Moros at Michel & Associates in Long Beach, and Donald Kilmer, Law Offices of Don Kilmer, Caldwell, Idaho.

“SB 2 is designed to frustrate and ultimately discourage individuals from exercising their right to bear arms by creating a patchwork of locations where Second Amendment rights may, or may not, be exercised,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “That is not how constitutional rights work. SAF is happy to add California to the list of states that we have sued for adopting so-called ‘Bruen Response Bills’ that make it impractical, if not impossible for people to exercise their rights by essentially making carry permits useless.”

“Under SB 2,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “legally armed California citizens might be able to carry on some streets and sidewalks, and in a few private businesses that post signs allowing legal carry on their premises. Overall, however, SB 2 is a massive prohibition on legal carry throughout the Golden State, which runs counter to what the U.S. Supreme Court said in its Bruen ruling last year, and which Gov. Gavin Newsom and anti-gun-rights state lawmakers are desperately trying to get around.”

“The right to keep and especially bear arms is under direct attack via SB 2,” Kraut observed. “California continues its trend of ignoring rights safeguarded by the Constitution. Such disregard cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.”

Question O’ The Day

 

BLUF
If you want people to believe that the government is going to attempt to ignore the Constitution, seize their weapons, and forcibly subjugate them, you do exactly what Michelle Lujan Grisham chose to do here. You ignore the U.S. and state constitutions, you ignore your state legislature, you ignore the need to build consensus before you make a dramatic change in the law, and you accuse law-enforcement officials who object to the change, citing the Constitution, of being “squeamish.”

Gun Order and New Mexico: Michelle Lujan Grisham Breaks Badly.

On the menu today: New Mexico governor Michelle Lujan Grisham declares war on her own state’s constitution and mocks her state’s police for being “squeamish,” and a new book reveals how much the U.S. government and its contractors deliberately hindered the Afghan military’s ability to protect itself as the Taliban approached Kabul in the spring and summer of 2021.

Gun Order Backfires

Let us begin by being clear: The governor of a state does not have the right to unilaterally suspend laws or portions of the state or U.S. constitutions by an emergency declaration, absent an actual indisputable emergency and justification that will hold up under judicial review. The National Conference of State Legislatures summarizes:

In times of war, disease or other extraordinary conditions, each state authorizes its governor to declare a state of emergency. Once an emergency has been declared, executive powers expand until the emergency ends. These powers include authority normally reserved for legislatures, such as the ability to suspend existing statutes or effectively create new laws — albeit temporarily and only as needed to respond to the emergency situation.

Although governors need to be able to respond to emergencies quickly, legislatures have an important role in making sure these powers are not abused and that they do not undermine the separation of powers vital to our democratic system of government.

What is at stake in these circumstances is nothing less than whether the U.S. remains a country with a government “of the people, by the people, for the people,” as Abraham Lincoln described in the Gettysburg Address.

Continue reading “”

Comment O’ The Day
Let’s call this what it is: The sex groomer Stasi.

BLUF
Make no mistake: This bill does involve training teachers to profile parents based on the likelihood that they may secretly harbor heresy against the transgender state religion

California Bills Headed to Newsom’s Desk Will Launch a Transgender Inquisition Targeting Parents.

“We’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children” might as well become the new slogan of the Golden State.

California’s Legislature has passed—or is about to pass—a slew of bills aimed at undermining the rights of parents (and potential foster parents) who disagree with the transgender worldview.

What would the state need to launch a transgender inquisition? It would need inquisitors to identify and hunt down parents who dared to dissent from gender ideology. It would need an apparatus to induct kids into its cult while keeping parents in the dark. It would need institutions to screen potential foster parents to block heretics from fostering or adopting kids who might convert to the state religion. Most importantly, it would need a legal way to pry kids from the arms of their apostate progenitors.

These legislative proposals foot that bill. One of them would train teachers to profile these hated “anti-LGBTQ” parents, another would train psychotherapists to prepare to hide gender “treatments” from parents at a minor’s request, a third would prevent school districts from removing sexually explicit books if they contain transgender themes, a fourth would prevent Californians from becoming foster parents if they dissent from gender ideology, and the fifth would expand the definition of child abuse to include “non-affirmation” of a child’s claimed transgender identity.

In a supreme Orwellian irony, each of these California bills claims to uphold the virtues of “diversity” and “inclusion,” while forcing down parents’ throats a constricting worldview at odds with reality and seeking to exclude moms and dads from raising their own children if they dare to disagree.

Continue reading “”