Academic Whose Work Was Cited As Proof Of ‘Systemic Racism’ Is Fired For Falsifying Research.

A Florida State University professor whose work was foundational to perpetuating the false narrative that there is widespread “systemic racism” infecting American society has been fired for falsifying data in his academic research on the subject.

In a recently resurfaced report from last month, the New York Post revealed that Eric Stewart, an FSU criminology professor, had been fired by the university “on account of ‘extreme negligence’ in his research,” as well as “incompetence” and producing “false results” in his nearly 20 years of work.

“I do not see how you can teach our students to be ethical researchers or how the results of future research projects conducted by you could be deemed as trustworthy,” FSU Provost James Clark wrote in a July 13 letter formally notifying Stewart of his firing.

According to the Post, Stewart has had six studies published in major academic journals between 2003 and 2019 that were “fully retracted,” including a 2019 study claiming the historical legacy of lynchings “made whites perceive blacks as criminals, and that the problem was worse among conservatives.”

Stewart’s retracted research also included claims that racial disparities in criminal sentencing are racially motivated. In a 2015 study, for instance, Stewart suggested Americans supported tougher sentencing for Hispanics because they feared an increase in the U.S. Latino population and Latinos’ potential economic success.

Other retracted studies include a 2018 analysis which “suggested that white Americans view black and Latino people as ‘criminal threats,’ and suggested that perceived threat could lead to ‘state-sponsored social control,’” the Post added.

Clark indicated in his letter that Stewart’s other published works are “in doubt.”

Rather than own up to his actions, Stewart has since attempted to play the victim card and attacked Justin Pickett, a former FSU graduate student who reported Stewart for his unethical conduct. Following the launch of the investigation into his work in 2020, Stewart, who is black, claimed that by raising concerns about his faulty research, Pickett had “essentially lynched [him] and [his] academic character.”

In addition to his $190,000 annual salary at FSU, Stewart’s projects received millions in research grants from major groups and government agencies. According to the Post, the National Institute of Mental Health — which falls under the National Institute of Health — reportedly gave Stewart $3.2 million to research “how African Americans transition into adulthood.”

Stewart also reportedly received funds from the National Science Foundation, the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, and the National Institute of Justice, a subsidiary of the Department of Justice.

The discovery of Stewart’s falsified research and his subsequent firing is significant to understanding the left’s ongoing war on American police officers. As noted by Wilfred Reilly, an associate professor at Kentucky State University, Stewart is “[p]robably THE academic [figure] responsible” for the debunked narrative that so-called “systemic racism” plagues U.S. police departments throughout the country.

According to Google Scholar, for instance, Stewart’s questionable — and in several cases, categorically false — works have garnered more than 8,500 citations by other researchers. Stewart’s “research” has been used as a pretext by other academics, regime-approved media, and Democrat politicians to smear America’s on-the-ground law enforcement officers as inherently “racist” towards non-white Americans.

“The point [of this story] is that one of the [main] guys who built up the entire narrative of ‘wokeness’ just made it up,” Reilly told The Federalist. “Throughout the entire kind of racial reckoning, one of the things that I and others … have noticed is that these stories [about police brutality against black Americans] keep collapsing. The narrative of police genocide of African Americans turned out … to be complete nonsense.”

Reilly also referenced research conducted by the Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald, whose analyses of publicly available data have debunked leftists’ narrative that there is an epidemic of police killing unarmed black Americans. In a USA Today article published a few months after George Floyd’s death, for instance, Mac Donald noted how even data from The Washington Post’s database of fatal police shootings dispels such claims and predicted that “[r]educing police resources will ultimately result in poorer service to the law-abiding residents of high-crime areas.”

Mac Donald’s forecast ultimately came true. While the rise of Black Lives Matter and Democrat-generated attacks on police began under the Obama administration, it was Floyd’s death that ushered in a new era of the left’s war on America’s police. Democrat politicos and their legacy media allies quickly hijacked Floyd’s death to normalize street violence committed by their communist foot soldiers.

The left’s perpetuation of the false “systemic racism in policing” narrative and their subsequent actions not only killed people such as David Dorn, but countless others who suffered because their Democrat-run cities defunded local law enforcement.

Following Floyd’s death and the anti-police back it launched, there was a significant spike in overall murders, especially affecting black victims. According to Reilly, such statistics don’t interest groups like Black Lives Matter because “a focus on things that might actually correlate with a high loss of black life … [is] not what the movement was about.”

BLM “was about using outlier conflict between blacks and whites to get money,” Reilly said. “The whole idea was to take these very isolated, white cop or white vigilantes on black male cases and present them as normal. They did that for a while. It turned out not to be real and they’ve pulled back from the scene, now as the owners of some nice properties. And now we’re left to clean up the mess.”

The U.S. and Royal Navy once virtually eliminated pirates from the high seas. They hanged pirates and they went away. They gave up the practice and piracy returned.

 

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.

Homeowner needs target lessons.

Homeowner shoots intruder, and he responds, ‘You’re gonna have to kill me.’ So homeowner shoots him again

A homeowner shot a home intruder a second time after the intruder appeared to taunt the owner over the first gunshot wound he sustained, Georgia police said.

Fayette County Sheriff Barry Babb told WAGA-TV that the incident unfolded at a residence on Thursday when the homeowner called police about an intruder. At the same time, the home’s alarm company was alerting the police about an intruder.

Babb says that the homeowner confronted the intruder in the basement and gave him a warning. After that, he fired one gunshot and struck the intruder.

The homeowner then took up a position at the top of his staircase on the second story of the home.

Babb said that the suspect started going up the stairs and said to the homeowner, “You’re gonna have to kill me.”

So the homeowner reportedly shot him a second time.

Deputies arrived about that time, and Babb said they struggled with the intruder to take him into custody. The suspect was transported to a local hospital for treatment for his two gunshot wounds.

Babb told WAGA that the suspect was connect to a “string of crimes” that include a possible murder outside of the state of Georgia. Police are working with law enforcement authorities in that separate state.

Police believe that the man chose the home at random and had tried to gain entry into other homes in the upscale neighborhood.

Authorities have not released the identities of the homeowner or the suspect. They expect to release more information about the incident as their investigation continues.

Fayette County is in the northern part of the state and includes about 120,000 residents.

Here’s a local news report about the incident:

September 15

1776 – Supported by naval gunfire, causing New York Militia to retreat from the landing zone and Continental Army troops to withdraw to Harlem Heights, British forces land unopposed at Kip’s Bay on Manhattan island.

1789 – The U.S. Department of Foreign Affairs is renamed the Department of State.

1862 – Confederate forces under General Lee, capture Harpers Ferry, Virginia.

1916 – Tanks are used for the first time in battle, at the Battle of the Somme in World War I

1935 – The Nazi regime passes the Nuremberg Laws depriving German Jews of citizenship.

1940 – The Battle of Britain reaches its climax when the Luftwaffe launches its largest attack of the entire campaign.

1942 – The carrier USS Wasp is sunk by a Japanese submarine off Guadalcanal.

1944 – U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Army troops invade the island of Peleliu in the Palau archipelago to secure the right flank for the Philippine invasion.

1948 – Flying a F-86 Sabre, from Muroc Dry Lake, USAF Major Richard L. Johnson sets the world aircraft speed record at the time of 671 miles per hour.

1950 – The U.S. X Corps lands at Inchon during the Korean War.

1967 – Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson, responding to a sniper attack at the University of Texas at Austin, writes a letter to Congress urging the enactment of gun control legislation.

1981 – The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approves Sandra Day O’Connor to become the first female justice of the Supreme Court.

2008 – Lehman Brothers, the 4th largest investment bank in the United States files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy due to its involvement in the economic collapse of mortgage backed securities (MBS), the largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. history.

2020 – The Bahrain–Israel normalization agreement is signed in Washington, D.C., normalizing relations between Israel and 2 Arab nations, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.

Someone, I fail to recall who, said today that he could see Biden pardoning Hunter, then resign as POTUS. I think it only possible after Harris has been replaced as VPOTUS, which, to be frank, has been talked about quite a lot lately anyway.

Just my opinion, but be prepared to see Cali goobernor Newsom in the news more and more.

Vivek Ramaswamy
Today’s indictment of Hunter Biden is a smokescreen. Don’t fall for it. This is a fig leaf designed to deflect attention away from the real problem: the Biden family is selling out U.S. foreign policy for their own family’s private financial gain. That’s really what’s wrong, and we must hold politicians in both major political parties when they use our foreign policy to enrich their family members.
The impeachment inquiry initiated by the House against President Biden is a step in the right direction, but the public shouldn’t fall for the trick of diverting attention away from the true problem.
It’s also no accident that today’s indictment comes at a moment when President Biden’s own popularity within the Democratic Party is cratering.
I predict this is the first step for the Democrat Party managerial class to pressure Joe Biden out of the race. Biden will become a sacrificial pawn in service to the deep state that wants to keep power at all costs.

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.

Yale Law School holds panel on upcoming Second Amendment SCOTUS case

The Yale Law School community convened on Tuesday evening to discuss upcoming Supreme Court case United States v. Rahimi, which could clarify the scope of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms in the face of complicating factors.

The event, titled “Gun Violence, Domestic Violence, and the Supreme Court: Twin Threats before the Court in United States v. Rahimi,” was hosted by the Law School’s Solomon Center for Health and Policy. The talk was co-sponsored by several progressive and reproductive justice-oriented Law School organizations; it featured panelists who are legal and public health experts from institutions across the country, including Megan Ranney, Jesenia Pizarro, Eric Tirschwell and Michael Ulrich.

“We were so honored to host this event and bring together leading litigators and public health scholars to consider the potentially devastating impact of a Supreme Court decision that could nullify dozens of state laws that temporarily prevent domestic abusers from holding firearms,” Abbe Gluck ’96 LAW ’00, faculty director of the Solomon Center, wrote to the News. “Not only is gun violence one of the nation’s most serious public health problems, public health also offers some solutions.”

The case is expected to define parameters around the government’s constitutional authority to restrict the right to own a personal firearm for individuals under domestic violence-related restraining orders. The Supreme Court decided to take up the case at the conclusion of its 2022-2023 term, with oral arguments scheduled for Nov. 7.

Tirschwell, who is the executive director and chief litigation counsel of an organization that seeks to advance gun safety in the courts — Everytown Law — opened the talk by providing an overview of the case.

Tirschwell explained that the case began in a Texas parking lot in 2019 when Zackey Rahimi engaged in a heated argument with his then-girlfriend, who has chosen to remain anonymous in court filings. Rahimi violently assaulted his girlfriend before she was able to escape.

Rahimi persistently threatened to shoot his former girlfriend if she told anyone, prompting her to seek a domestic restraining order, according to court documents. In court, a judge concluded that Rahimi posed a significant threat to both his girlfriend and their shared child. Consequently, the judge ruled that Rahimi should not possess a firearm while the restraining order was in effect.

The court’s decision was later deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, as the court found that the original ruling violated Rahimi’s Constitutional rights in the Second Amendment. The case could have far-reaching effects on the safety of domestic violence victims across the nation, and it has raised questions surrounding the strength of the Second Amendment.

“Forty-eight states across the country have similar laws that either require or allow judges to order domestic abusers to be disarmed in the context of civil protective order cases,” Tirschwell said, highlighting the significance of the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision.

Tirschwell also claimed that the Fifth Circuit’s argument against the ban was originalist in nature. One of the Fifth Circuit’s key reasons for overturning the lower court’s decision was its belief that domestic violence did not exist as a concept when the Constitution was initially drafted.

Consequently, the ruling argued that the law in question did not align with the Framers’ original intent regarding the Second Amendment.

“We think that the Fifth Circuit got this dead wrong,” Tirschwell said.

Tirschwell said that he remains optimistic the Supreme Court will focus their decision on if there is any historical precedent on disarming people who are deemed to be dangerous to society.

On the panel, Megan Ranney, the newly appointed dean of the School of Public Health, addressed the public safety concerns arising from the case, emphasizing that while gun violence affects everyone, it disproportionately affects children, pregnant women and women of color.

“It is very much an epidemic,” she said. “We are seeing an increasing number of both firearm deaths and firearm injuries across the United States. Firearm injury has now become the leading cause of death for children in the United States.”

Jesenia Pizarro, a professor at Arizona State University’s School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, highlighted the criminal justice perspective surrounding the case. Pizarro specifically mentioned that allowing firearms to remain in the hands of abusers puts law enforcement and public servants in “great danger.”

Michael Ulrich, an assistant professor of Health Law, Ethics and Human Rights at Boston University, discussed the limitations of the Second Amendment during his portion of the talk.

“There is a bigger question,” he said. “To what extent is the Supreme Court willing to continue to factor in not only the constitutional right [to bear arms] but the government’s justification for limiting that right?”

Yale Law School is located at 127 Wall St.

September 14

1723 – Grand Master of the Knights Hospitaller, António Manoel de Vilhena lays down the first stone of Fort Manoel in Malta.

1741 – George Frideric Handel completes his oratorio Messiah.

1752 – The British Empire adopts the Gregorian calendar, skipping eleven days, the previous day being September 2.

1763 – Seneca warriors inflict heavy casualties at almost no cost as they defeat British forces near Niagara Gorge in New York during Pontiac’s War.

1782 – Rendering honors to French General Rochambeau as he departs with his army, General Washington forms the Continental Army for a formal Pass In Review at Verplanck’s Point, New York.

1829 – The Ottoman Empire signs the Treaty of Adrianople with Russia, ending the Russo-Turkish War.

1862 – At the end of the Battle of South Mountain, Maryland, with his troops suffering heavy casualties, General Lee is forced to withdraw his army after losing one engagement at Crampton’s Gap and nearly losing at the engagements at Turner’s and Fox gaps.

1901 – President William McKinley dies after being mortally wounded on September 6th with Theodore Roosevelt succeeding him in office.

1917 – The Russian Empire is formally replaced by the very short-lived Russian Republic.

1944 –  Maastricht becomes the first Dutch city to be liberated by allied forces in World War II

1959 – The first man made object to reach the Moon, the Soviet Luna 2 probe, crashes on the surface.

1960 – The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is founded.

1982 – Her Serene Highness Princess Grace Kelly Grimaldi of Monaco dies at Monaco Hospital, of injuries suffered in an auto accident.

1984 – Joe Kittinger becomes the first person to fly a gas balloon alone across the Atlantic Ocean.

1989 –Before committing suicide, Joseph T. Wesbecker, kills 8 and wounds 12 people at his former workplace, Standard Gravure, in Louisville, Kentucky.

1994 – The Major League Baseball season is canceled because of a strike by the players.

1998 – Telecommunications companies MCI Communications and WorldCom complete a $37 billion merger to form MCI WorldCom.

2001 – A National Prayer Service is held at the Washington National Cathedral for victims of the September 11 attacks.

2015 – Staff at the National Science Foundation’s LIGO interferometer laboratories in the U.S. collaborating with the European Gravitational Observatory’s Virgo laboratory near Pisa, Italy make the first direct observations of gravitational waves, confirming Albert Einstein’s prediction under General Relativity.

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 “”

Observation O’ The Day
Providers are moving very quickly from denying they ever did these kinds of things to sounding resentful that they’re no longer allowed to.
-Stephen Green

St Louis Children’s Hospital will no longer perform sex changes on minors.

The Washington University Transgender Center at Saint Louis Children’s Hospital will no longer prescribe puberty blockers or sex hormones to minors for purposes of gender transition, as a result of a new law in Missouri.

In a letter to staff obtained by The Post Millennial, Dr. David H Perlmutter, the executive vice chancellor for medical affairs of Washington University’s School of Medicine told staff at the center that following a review, “We have now reached a point where we can no longer continue to operate the center in the same way.”

He specifically cited “Missouri’s newly enacted law regarding transgender care” that has “created a new legal claim for patients who receive these medications as minors. This legal claim creates unsustainable liability for healthcare professionals and makes it untenable for us to continue to provide comprehensive transgender care for minor patients without subjecting the university and our providers to an unacceptable level of liability.”

“For this reason, we have made the difficult decision to no longer allow Washington University physicians to prescribe puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones to minors for purposes of gender transition.”

Pearlmutter did note that the transgender center “…will continue to offer other services including education and mental health support for all patients and medical care for patients over the age of 18.”

Earlier this year, the Republican-controlled Missouri legislature passed two bills, one which banned sex changes for minors and prohibited biological men from competing in women’s sports.

The legislation was signed into law by Republican Gov. Mike Parson and bans giving minors puberty blockers, hormones, and sex change surgery. It also blocks prisoners and inmates from receiving surgical sex changes. Additionally, the bill prevents Medicaid from covering the cost of these surgeries in the entire state.

In April, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey signed an emergency order placing restrictions on experimental sex changes following an investigation into the whistleblower accusations of malpractice at the center.