“Like many of the most powerful people in Washington, DC, Nancy Pelosi is in her 80s and unwilling to retire gracefully.
On Friday, the former House Speaker, who is 83, officially announced she is running for reelection for the seat she has held for 36 years, explaining to a gushing Nicolle Wallace on MSNBC how San Francisco still allegedly needed her after all this time.
Incredibly, Pelosi tried to portray herself as a crime fighter, willing to go to the mat for her home city in the midst of its growing crime problems, which she boiled down to being an “isolated situation“:
The needs that our city has right now really call for me to stay another term,” Pelosi told Wallace.
“I have agreed to stay on another term in order to help meet the needs that we have now,” she said. “We’re a resilient city — we’ve had AIDS, we’ve had earthquakes, of course we’ve all had the pandemic. We intend to come out of this — resilient city that we are — even better.”
The only local issues that Pelosi addressed in her first interview since launching her re-election campaign earlier Friday were crime and homelessness — arguing that while the issues aren’t as bad as portrayed in the media, they still require action.
“We do have an isolated situation in downtown San Francisco, in the Tenderloin district and the rest,” Pelosi said. “We have just said to the people there and the rest, who are very much concerned about it, that if there is crime and there is violence and there are drugs, there will be arrests and that’s the way it is.”
Amazingly, she also insinuated that the New York Times is turning right-wing considering they’ve stepped up coverage of San Francisco’s crime and business woes as well in recent months.
“Let me just say that these attacks [on San Francisco] are not unusual from the right,” Pelosi declared. “We have the New York Times having a field day about one thing or another in San Francisco, and we wonder about them, too,” she also said in the video below.”
Who cares if it’s unconstitutional? If it saves just one life.
On Thursday, New Mexico’s Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham declared gun violence to be a public health emergency. The next day, yesterday, on the strength of Thursday’s emergency order she signed another emergency public health order that, effective immediately, prohibits citizens from carrying firearms, either open or concealed, in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County for the next 30 days, regardless of whether they have a permit.
Open and concealed carry are (normally) legal in New Mexico. They have a lot of snakes, including the human kind.
Governor Grisham said she “will either amend or remove or adjust” the order after the 30-day ban period, depending on “circumstances.” Circumstances like how her emotions are feeling that day. “I realize, it is a pinch, and then some, on responsible gun owners,” Governor Grisham explained. “It’s a sacrifice that allows everyone else to get their arms around the growing, significant problem.”
Got that? A “sacrifice.” By responsible gun owners. For the greater good.
During the press conference, Governor Grisham explained she doesn’t think that constitutional rights are absolute, especially in emergencies. And she can make an emergency whenever she wants! All social problems are potentially emergencies! It’s great!
Grisham explained it doesn’t matter at all, that there are already laws on the books against illegal guns, don’t be silly, what nonsense, because there are too many criminals and everybody knows criminals don’t follow the laws”.”
“I can’t arrest everyone . There are literally too many people to arrest! … We won’t be able to arrest all of them. If I’ve declared an emergency, I can invoke additional powers. No constitutional right, including my oath, is intended to be absolute… If I’m unsafe, who’s standing up for that right?
New Mexico Republicans were not amused. Many called her a “dictator” and other words that I can’t reproduce in this family blog. Senate Minority Leader Greg Baca (R-Belen) slammed Lujan Grisham’s order as “unconstitutional” in a statement from Senate Republicans, saying her “soft-on-crime approach has failed and put the safety of all New Mexicans in great jeopardy.”
Representative Baca has a point. The Governor just disarmed all the people who follow the law, and as she said, criminals don’t follow laws anyway. Maybe the hoodlums will go along with it since it’s a public health order.
This is just more rotten pandemic fruit. Governors who want to do unconstitutional things now think all they need to do is declare a public health emergency. It worked for covid, after all.
As I’ve said many times before, emergency executive authority is the worst, most anti-democratic idea ever, and we need to drown it in weed-killer everywhere it has sprouted up. The good news is, there are a lot of attorneys who now have plenty of practice challenging insane government overreach like this.
I would bet she is a good buddy of Gov Polis..he is invoking “executive orders” lately…Biden must be sending out memos to the gang….
Her order is meaningless. The 2nd Amendment is a federal law, so she has no authority here. The courts have allowed reasonable restrictions in some cases, but hers effectively bans all guns, which isn’t a reasonable restriction. She’s overstepped big time, and it won’t hold up in court. That’s why she did it this way, so that by the time she’s challenged it will expire and the matter will be moot. Then she plans to just do a similar order when this expires. She is attempting to game the courts.
For political purposes this is GOLD. Her political views can be extended to Dem. Govs across the country. There can't be any fence-sitters any longer on 2nd Amendment issues. The Dems have just shown you they think they can simply suspend constitutional rights on political… https://t.co/lKOoalpjmX
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
The proper response from law enforcement should be to ignore her unlawful order.
Under this mayor, Albuquerque gave a quarter of a million $ to Planned Parenthood while telling businesses that they had to pay more if they wanted more police protection against the crime wave Ds helped create. https://t.co/MsxlkGGur0
“Elon Musk is back in court again, or at least his attorneys are. But this time the case doesn’t involve someone suing Musk over whatever has annoyed the liberals this week. It’s Musk who is suing the state of California in an effort to block a new law known as AB587 from taking effect next year. The somewhat vague law would force social media outlets like Twitter (or “X” if you insist on using that dumb name) to publish their content moderation policies and define how they plan to keep “harmful content” off of their platforms. Musk is describing this as an invasion of privacy and a violation of the free speech rights of social media companies under both the federal and California state constitutions. Even after reading through this a couple of times, this lawsuit doesn’t look like a cut-and-dried, easy call to make. (Politico)
Elon Musk’s X Corp. is asking a federal court to overturn a California law that attempts to control toxic online discourse by requiring social media platforms to disclose their content moderation policies.
X Corp., previously known as Twitter, filed the suit Friday in federal court in Sacramento arguing that the law set to take effect next year violates the free speech rights of social media companies under the U.S. and California constitutions.
Lawmakers portray the law, which passed easily last year as AB587, as promoting transparency but X Corp. argues that it goes beyond simple disclosure and requires companies to provide detailed information about how they evaluate and regulate ill-defined categories of political speech.
The response from the bill’s authors thus far sounds more like something out of a grade school argument than a legal brief. One of them said that if Twitter “has nothing to hide” then Musk shouldn’t object to the bill. But the question is obviously a lot more complicated than that. The key factor is precisely what they want the platforms to disclose, which isn’t entirely clear.
If they want Musk to give up the source code for how the automated content moderation algorithms work, that should be a non-starter. That would just be an invitation to competitors to steal his code and for hackers to find workarounds. But it really doesn’t sound as if that’s what AB587 is demanding.
The state seems to want the companies to reveal the rules or even the “thought process” surrounding decisions as to what user content will be allowed and what will be removed. Or, in the case of some of them, the content that will be “limited” or shadowbanned. There’s one part of me that would probably be receptive to that idea. I too would like to know who is establishing the guardrails and precisely what topics are covered and where the limits are.”
“Crews of migrants have been using children as decoys to pickpocket unsuspecting tourists in Times Square, The Post has learned.
The area — from Sixth to Eighth Avenues between West 42nd and West 49th Streets — has seen the number of pickpocket complaints skyrocket 222% — to 187 so far this year from 58 in the same span in 2022, NYPD data show.
“You can’t have this,” NYPD Chief of Patrol John Chell said. “People are going to go back to wherever they came from and say, ‘I spent half my trip canceling my credit cards.’”
When they are arrested, the pickpockets tell cops they are from Central and South America, police said.
It’s not clear if they are among 110,000 or so asylum seekers who have arrived in the city over the past year because cops are barred from seeking immigration status.
The squad recently collared a mother who was pickpocketing while pushing her baby in a stroller, he said.
“We had the baby back at the precinct and had to go the whole [child services] route,” Soldano said.
Often a pickpocketing parent steers a child to a tourist and has the child “go in front of them, stop short or go to the side of them, bump them by accident,” he said. “And the father goes into the pocket.”
In one recent case, Soldano collared a father who boosted a tourist’s wallet.
“I grabbed him with the wallet in his hand . . . I apprehended him and the kid took off,” he said.”
—
But remember kids, according to Dems illegal immigration is a victimless crime.
“New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham on Friday suspended laws that allow open and concealed carry of firearms in Albuquerque for 30 days after declaring a public health emergency. The order, in my view, is flagrantly unconstitutional under existing Second Amendment precedent. It could also be a calculated effort to evade a ruling by making the period of suspension so short that it becomes moot before any final decision is reached by a court.
The order cites recent cases of gun-related violence in and around the city, including the killing of an 11-year-old boy dead and the wounding of a woman in their vehicle in an apparent road rage incident after a baseball game.
Grisham declared that “as I said yesterday, the time for standard measures has passed. And when New Mexicans are afraid to be in crowds, to take their kids to school, to leave a baseball game—when their very right to exist is threatened by the prospect of violence at every turn—something is very wrong.”
Democratic leaders have increasingly turned to a claim used successfully during the pandemic in declaring a health emergency to maximize unilateral authority of governors. There have also been calls to declare racism a public health emergency, supported by groups like the American Public Health Association. Transgender programs have also been declared a public health emergency by some groups. The motivation behind many of these calls is not to negate constitutional rights, but the question is whether such declarations allow governors discretion to suspend or curtail individual rights.
As the list of claimed health emergencies grow, even state Democratic judges may begin to balk at the obvious end run around constitutional rights.
The order allows for an expansion to other cities that meet the threshold for violent crime if 1,000 or more violent crimes per 100,000 residents have occurred per year since 2021. It also sets a threshold of 90 firearms-related emergency room visits per 100,000 residents have occurred between July 2022 and June of this year.
The taking away of individual rights as an emergency measure is hardly new. For centuries, governments have claimed that the suspension of individual rights is necessary for the good of citizens.
What is striking about this effort is the short specified period. By setting a 30-day period, the Governor makes it difficult to secure a final decision. She could face a preliminary injunction in that time. However, if she gets a sympathetic trial judge, the time could run out before a final ruling can be secured on appeal. In any case, it makes it less likely that the case can be taken to the Supreme Court or even through the federal court system.
Yet, challengers could argue that the matter is not moot when the order can be and is likely to be repeated in the future. That is always a challenging claim to make, but it is clearly true in this case. What is clear is that this is unambiguously and undeniably unconstitutional under existing precedent.”
However, given the constraints of age….it’s time to retire. And that goes for quite a few Democrats and Republicans. Pelosi, Feinstien, McConnnell, Trump etc.
Crime in San Francisco and the housing crisis is no reason to run again. I may be wrong but crime and housing are state and local concerns. And crime in San Francisco is fairly similar to most places in the US.
She is right in her characterisation of NYT as right wing. More accurately its centre to centre right; like the vast majority of the American media.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – attributed to Franklin.
All gov’ts justify an extension of their authority by citing security or a crisis. In fact, some gov’ts will create a crisis to justify policy. The Patriot Act was passed in the aftermath of 9/11 in the name of security. Its highly unlikely it stopped any acts of terrorism but it did allow for a temporary suspension of rights, greater gov’t intrusion, etc. Label violence as terrorism and enhanced sentencing protocols kick in – much to the chagrin of J6 rioters. Moral panics like to cite children (“think about the children”) to justify limitations to free press, free expression and medical rights. This is nothing new. The moral panic of the 1920s led to censorship in Hollywood, decriminalisation of marijuana, etc. The crime and crack panic of the 1990s led to the Clinton Crime bill and an increase in incarceration. The US now has more prisoners per capita than China. However, it’s doubtful America is safer and drugs are less prevalent.
In this context, the New Mexico’s governor’s actions are fairly minor. Temporary banning open and concealed carry is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment; unless Florida’s is also violating the 2nd. It has a permanent ban on open carry along with New York, Illinois and parts of California. She’s not coming for their guns, just asking people to leave them alone.
The argument this will only leave criminals is interesting because it admits the police will now have an easier time judging whether an armed person is a threat.
California is only asking Twitter what Congress asked Zuckerburg and Meta a few years back. What is the criteria for moderation? The algorithm may be protected as a trade secret but the state has an interest in the criteria used to control information; given the oligopoly that is social media.
The current reach of Musk’s ability to influence events and ideas should worry people who have the same fear of Schwab, Gates, and Soros. Recently, Musk cut Starlink service to the Ukraine military to prevent what he thought was an unnecessary attack on Crimea. He restored it when Ukraine turned back the drones. No matter your opinion of the conflict, a single person answerable to no one should not have that power.
Pickpockets are common in every tourist site. Don’t carry a wallet – use your phone for credit or debit purchases. Leave your passport or ID at the hotel, bnb, etc. Take pictures of your essential ID. Put your phone in an inaccessible location. Lock your phone; use an old damaged android phone. Increased pickpocket activity could be for a number of reasons – more tourists, greater poverty, more police reporting, etc. Use children is a classic move. Without data, blaming immigrants is a political or social statement without evidence.
The ze/zir is only a minor part of the complaint – the tweet characterised the actual allegations. The over the top reaction to some of the over the top trans identities makes for amusing reading for someone who doesn’t get either.
It appears he was just trolling the system. The shop teacher was an employee of the Hamilton board for over 10 years when he took a year off and worked for the Halton board. And it was there, he became trans. And now back from his one year leave of absence, he looks like your typical male shop teacher.
Wandering Views 
Oh sure….
The woman who’s represented her district, but mostly her own pocketbook, for 36 years while it turned to crap will now save it, for sure…. 🙄
“Nancy Pelosi Announces Reelection Campaign, Declares Crime in SF an ‘Isolated Situation’”
https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/09/nancy-pelosi-announces-reelection-campaign-declares-crime-in-sf-an-isolated-situation/
“Like many of the most powerful people in Washington, DC, Nancy Pelosi is in her 80s and unwilling to retire gracefully.
On Friday, the former House Speaker, who is 83, officially announced she is running for reelection for the seat she has held for 36 years, explaining to a gushing Nicolle Wallace on MSNBC how San Francisco still allegedly needed her after all this time.
Incredibly, Pelosi tried to portray herself as a crime fighter, willing to go to the mat for her home city in the midst of its growing crime problems, which she boiled down to being an “isolated situation“:
The needs that our city has right now really call for me to stay another term,” Pelosi told Wallace.
“I have agreed to stay on another term in order to help meet the needs that we have now,” she said. “We’re a resilient city — we’ve had AIDS, we’ve had earthquakes, of course we’ve all had the pandemic. We intend to come out of this — resilient city that we are — even better.”
The only local issues that Pelosi addressed in her first interview since launching her re-election campaign earlier Friday were crime and homelessness — arguing that while the issues aren’t as bad as portrayed in the media, they still require action.
“We do have an isolated situation in downtown San Francisco, in the Tenderloin district and the rest,” Pelosi said. “We have just said to the people there and the rest, who are very much concerned about it, that if there is crime and there is violence and there are drugs, there will be arrests and that’s the way it is.”
Amazingly, she also insinuated that the New York Times is turning right-wing considering they’ve stepped up coverage of San Francisco’s crime and business woes as well in recent months.
“Let me just say that these attacks [on San Francisco] are not unusual from the right,” Pelosi declared. “We have the New York Times having a field day about one thing or another in San Francisco, and we wonder about them, too,” she also said in the video below.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Who cares if it’s unconstitutional? If it saves just one life.
On Thursday, New Mexico’s Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham declared gun violence to be a public health emergency. The next day, yesterday, on the strength of Thursday’s emergency order she signed another emergency public health order that, effective immediately, prohibits citizens from carrying firearms, either open or concealed, in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County for the next 30 days, regardless of whether they have a permit.
Open and concealed carry are (normally) legal in New Mexico. They have a lot of snakes, including the human kind.
Governor Grisham said she “will either amend or remove or adjust” the order after the 30-day ban period, depending on “circumstances.” Circumstances like how her emotions are feeling that day. “I realize, it is a pinch, and then some, on responsible gun owners,” Governor Grisham explained. “It’s a sacrifice that allows everyone else to get their arms around the growing, significant problem.”
Got that? A “sacrifice.” By responsible gun owners. For the greater good.
During the press conference, Governor Grisham explained she doesn’t think that constitutional rights are absolute, especially in emergencies. And she can make an emergency whenever she wants! All social problems are potentially emergencies! It’s great!
Grisham explained it doesn’t matter at all, that there are already laws on the books against illegal guns, don’t be silly, what nonsense, because there are too many criminals and everybody knows criminals don’t follow the laws”.”
“I can’t arrest everyone . There are literally too many people to arrest! … We won’t be able to arrest all of them. If I’ve declared an emergency, I can invoke additional powers. No constitutional right, including my oath, is intended to be absolute… If I’m unsafe, who’s standing up for that right?
New Mexico Republicans were not amused. Many called her a “dictator” and other words that I can’t reproduce in this family blog. Senate Minority Leader Greg Baca (R-Belen) slammed Lujan Grisham’s order as “unconstitutional” in a statement from Senate Republicans, saying her “soft-on-crime approach has failed and put the safety of all New Mexicans in great jeopardy.”
Representative Baca has a point. The Governor just disarmed all the people who follow the law, and as she said, criminals don’t follow laws anyway. Maybe the hoodlums will go along with it since it’s a public health order.
This is just more rotten pandemic fruit. Governors who want to do unconstitutional things now think all they need to do is declare a public health emergency. It worked for covid, after all.
As I’ve said many times before, emergency executive authority is the worst, most anti-democratic idea ever, and we need to drown it in weed-killer everywhere it has sprouted up. The good news is, there are a lot of attorneys who now have plenty of practice challenging insane government overreach like this.
I would bet she is a good buddy of Gov Polis..he is invoking “executive orders” lately…Biden must be sending out memos to the gang….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Her order is meaningless. The 2nd Amendment is a federal law, so she has no authority here. The courts have allowed reasonable restrictions in some cases, but hers effectively bans all guns, which isn’t a reasonable restriction. She’s overstepped big time, and it won’t hold up in court. That’s why she did it this way, so that by the time she’s challenged it will expire and the matter will be moot. Then she plans to just do a similar order when this expires. She is attempting to game the courts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
More….
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson
Smart man. He got it right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Impeach her.
The proper response from law enforcement should be to ignore her unlawful order.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Stand up to the tyrants.
“Musk sues California over content moderation”
https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2023/09/09/musk-sues-california-over-content-moderation-n576801
“Elon Musk is back in court again, or at least his attorneys are. But this time the case doesn’t involve someone suing Musk over whatever has annoyed the liberals this week. It’s Musk who is suing the state of California in an effort to block a new law known as AB587 from taking effect next year. The somewhat vague law would force social media outlets like Twitter (or “X” if you insist on using that dumb name) to publish their content moderation policies and define how they plan to keep “harmful content” off of their platforms. Musk is describing this as an invasion of privacy and a violation of the free speech rights of social media companies under both the federal and California state constitutions. Even after reading through this a couple of times, this lawsuit doesn’t look like a cut-and-dried, easy call to make. (Politico)
Elon Musk’s X Corp. is asking a federal court to overturn a California law that attempts to control toxic online discourse by requiring social media platforms to disclose their content moderation policies.
X Corp., previously known as Twitter, filed the suit Friday in federal court in Sacramento arguing that the law set to take effect next year violates the free speech rights of social media companies under the U.S. and California constitutions.
Lawmakers portray the law, which passed easily last year as AB587, as promoting transparency but X Corp. argues that it goes beyond simple disclosure and requires companies to provide detailed information about how they evaluate and regulate ill-defined categories of political speech.
The response from the bill’s authors thus far sounds more like something out of a grade school argument than a legal brief. One of them said that if Twitter “has nothing to hide” then Musk shouldn’t object to the bill. But the question is obviously a lot more complicated than that. The key factor is precisely what they want the platforms to disclose, which isn’t entirely clear.
If they want Musk to give up the source code for how the automated content moderation algorithms work, that should be a non-starter. That would just be an invitation to competitors to steal his code and for hackers to find workarounds. But it really doesn’t sound as if that’s what AB587 is demanding.
The state seems to want the companies to reveal the rules or even the “thought process” surrounding decisions as to what user content will be allowed and what will be removed. Or, in the case of some of them, the content that will be “limited” or shadowbanned. There’s one part of me that would probably be receptive to that idea. I too would like to know who is establishing the guardrails and precisely what topics are covered and where the limits are.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just seeking a better life, and better victims.
“Pickpockets from Central, South America using kids to target unsuspecting tourists in Times Square”
https://nypost.com/2023/09/09/nypd-squad-combats-migrant-pickpockets-nypd/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=nypost_metro
“Crews of migrants have been using children as decoys to pickpocket unsuspecting tourists in Times Square, The Post has learned.
The area — from Sixth to Eighth Avenues between West 42nd and West 49th Streets — has seen the number of pickpocket complaints skyrocket 222% — to 187 so far this year from 58 in the same span in 2022, NYPD data show.
“You can’t have this,” NYPD Chief of Patrol John Chell said. “People are going to go back to wherever they came from and say, ‘I spent half my trip canceling my credit cards.’”
When they are arrested, the pickpockets tell cops they are from Central and South America, police said.
It’s not clear if they are among 110,000 or so asylum seekers who have arrived in the city over the past year because cops are barred from seeking immigration status.
The squad recently collared a mother who was pickpocketing while pushing her baby in a stroller, he said.
“We had the baby back at the precinct and had to go the whole [child services] route,” Soldano said.
Often a pickpocketing parent steers a child to a tourist and has the child “go in front of them, stop short or go to the side of them, bump them by accident,” he said. “And the father goes into the pocket.”
In one recent case, Soldano collared a father who boosted a tourist’s wallet.
“I grabbed him with the wallet in his hand . . . I apprehended him and the kid took off,” he said.”
—
But remember kids, according to Dems illegal immigration is a victimless crime.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Like I said, trying to game the courts.
“New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham on Friday suspended laws that allow open and concealed carry of firearms in Albuquerque for 30 days after declaring a public health emergency. The order, in my view, is flagrantly unconstitutional under existing Second Amendment precedent. It could also be a calculated effort to evade a ruling by making the period of suspension so short that it becomes moot before any final decision is reached by a court.
The order cites recent cases of gun-related violence in and around the city, including the killing of an 11-year-old boy dead and the wounding of a woman in their vehicle in an apparent road rage incident after a baseball game.
Grisham declared that “as I said yesterday, the time for standard measures has passed. And when New Mexicans are afraid to be in crowds, to take their kids to school, to leave a baseball game—when their very right to exist is threatened by the prospect of violence at every turn—something is very wrong.”
Democratic leaders have increasingly turned to a claim used successfully during the pandemic in declaring a health emergency to maximize unilateral authority of governors. There have also been calls to declare racism a public health emergency, supported by groups like the American Public Health Association. Transgender programs have also been declared a public health emergency by some groups. The motivation behind many of these calls is not to negate constitutional rights, but the question is whether such declarations allow governors discretion to suspend or curtail individual rights.
As the list of claimed health emergencies grow, even state Democratic judges may begin to balk at the obvious end run around constitutional rights.
The order allows for an expansion to other cities that meet the threshold for violent crime if 1,000 or more violent crimes per 100,000 residents have occurred per year since 2021. It also sets a threshold of 90 firearms-related emergency room visits per 100,000 residents have occurred between July 2022 and June of this year.
The taking away of individual rights as an emergency measure is hardly new. For centuries, governments have claimed that the suspension of individual rights is necessary for the good of citizens.
What is striking about this effort is the short specified period. By setting a 30-day period, the Governor makes it difficult to secure a final decision. She could face a preliminary injunction in that time. However, if she gets a sympathetic trial judge, the time could run out before a final ruling can be secured on appeal. In any case, it makes it less likely that the case can be taken to the Supreme Court or even through the federal court system.
Yet, challengers could argue that the matter is not moot when the order can be and is likely to be repeated in the future. That is always a challenging claim to make, but it is clearly true in this case. What is clear is that this is unambiguously and undeniably unconstitutional under existing precedent.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Idiocy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve always been a fan of Biden (more than Obama, etc), but this column takes it to a new level
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/08/joe-biden-presidency-progressives-donald-trump
However, given the constraints of age….it’s time to retire. And that goes for quite a few Democrats and Republicans. Pelosi, Feinstien, McConnnell, Trump etc.
Crime in San Francisco and the housing crisis is no reason to run again. I may be wrong but crime and housing are state and local concerns. And crime in San Francisco is fairly similar to most places in the US.
She is right in her characterisation of NYT as right wing. More accurately its centre to centre right; like the vast majority of the American media.
LikeLike
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – attributed to Franklin.
All gov’ts justify an extension of their authority by citing security or a crisis. In fact, some gov’ts will create a crisis to justify policy. The Patriot Act was passed in the aftermath of 9/11 in the name of security. Its highly unlikely it stopped any acts of terrorism but it did allow for a temporary suspension of rights, greater gov’t intrusion, etc. Label violence as terrorism and enhanced sentencing protocols kick in – much to the chagrin of J6 rioters. Moral panics like to cite children (“think about the children”) to justify limitations to free press, free expression and medical rights. This is nothing new. The moral panic of the 1920s led to censorship in Hollywood, decriminalisation of marijuana, etc. The crime and crack panic of the 1990s led to the Clinton Crime bill and an increase in incarceration. The US now has more prisoners per capita than China. However, it’s doubtful America is safer and drugs are less prevalent.
In this context, the New Mexico’s governor’s actions are fairly minor. Temporary banning open and concealed carry is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment; unless Florida’s is also violating the 2nd. It has a permanent ban on open carry along with New York, Illinois and parts of California. She’s not coming for their guns, just asking people to leave them alone.
The argument this will only leave criminals is interesting because it admits the police will now have an easier time judging whether an armed person is a threat.
LikeLike
oops that should be “leave them at home”
LikeLike
California is only asking Twitter what Congress asked Zuckerburg and Meta a few years back. What is the criteria for moderation? The algorithm may be protected as a trade secret but the state has an interest in the criteria used to control information; given the oligopoly that is social media.
The current reach of Musk’s ability to influence events and ideas should worry people who have the same fear of Schwab, Gates, and Soros. Recently, Musk cut Starlink service to the Ukraine military to prevent what he thought was an unnecessary attack on Crimea. He restored it when Ukraine turned back the drones. No matter your opinion of the conflict, a single person answerable to no one should not have that power.
Pickpockets are common in every tourist site. Don’t carry a wallet – use your phone for credit or debit purchases. Leave your passport or ID at the hotel, bnb, etc. Take pictures of your essential ID. Put your phone in an inaccessible location. Lock your phone; use an old damaged android phone. Increased pickpocket activity could be for a number of reasons – more tourists, greater poverty, more police reporting, etc. Use children is a classic move. Without data, blaming immigrants is a political or social statement without evidence.
LikeLike
The ze/zir is only a minor part of the complaint – the tweet characterised the actual allegations. The over the top reaction to some of the over the top trans identities makes for amusing reading for someone who doesn’t get either.
Which reminds me of a certain shop teacher……..
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jamie-sarkonak-and-just-like-that-the-ludicrous-sex-prop-is-gone-from-the-classroom
https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/warmington-new-school-year-new-look-as-teacher-shelves-z-cup-prosthetics
It appears he was just trolling the system. The shop teacher was an employee of the Hamilton board for over 10 years when he took a year off and worked for the Halton board. And it was there, he became trans. And now back from his one year leave of absence, he looks like your typical male shop teacher.
LikeLike
Cuckoo for Coco Pufs…
LikeLiked by 1 person