Am I Doing This Right? Lessons On Fatherhood From Great Dads
Any success I’ve had in daddom is greatly attributable to a couple of fantastic dads in my life — my old man and my father-in-law.
People have been anxiously awaiting Donald Trump’s VP candidate list, and now they finally have their wish.
“Donald Trump discussed a short list of potential VP candidates during [a recent] town hall meeting,” says Sara Gonzales.
“So it's, of course, Governor Ron DeSantis from Florida, Vivek Ramaswamy, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, Florida Republican Byron Donalds … and Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard.”
To gauge her followers’ feelings regarding the list of potential candidates, Sara posted the following poll on her Twitter page:
Unfortunately, “they only allow you to pick four choices, so I couldn't include all of them,” she says.
“Vivek’s running away with it at 50%, but Tulsi Gabbard at 20%, more than DeSantis?” she asks in disbelief.
“We are in such a cult-of-personality era in politics, where policy doesn't really matter,” says Glenn Beck chief researcher Jason Buttrill, adding that “Tulsi Gabbard [getting] 20% over an actual conservative with a proven track record like Ron DeSantis is terrifying.”
If you’re voting based on “the ability to destroy the left and track record, you vote 100% for Ron DeSantis; if you're voting for the smartest man in the room who’s got amazing ideas … you would vote for Vivek,” he continues, noting that Tulsi Gabbard may work well in a Trump administration as a member of the “State Department” or the “[Department of Defense]” but as far as policy goes, she’d be a terrible choice.
“She was a Bernie bro,” says Sara in agreement.
To hear more of the conversation, watch the video below.
To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
A Canadian judge ruled Friday that junkies cannot be prevented from shooting up in playgrounds and in other children's areas.
According to Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson of the British Columbia Supreme Court, forbidding junkies to do so would impose "irreparable" harm. After all, reasoned the judge, "public consumption and consuming drugs in the company of others is oftentimes the safest" — apparently even if the company sought is that of strangers' children.
The Trudeau government decriminalized hard drugs in British Columbia last year in concert with the province's socialist NDP regime as part of a pilot program set to run until 2026. The program provides junkies in the province — 2,300 of whom overdosed in 2021 — with an exemption from federal law to possess up to 2.5 grams of various illicit substances including fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, meth, and ecstasy.
Of course, this initiative immediately proved problematic for all the obvious reasons.
Deputy Chief Fiona Wilson, vice president of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, noted law enforcement officials "heard feedback from our communities about the need to ensure police have appropriate tools to address areas of concern, which prompted the BC Association of Chiefs of Police to advocate Health Canada to add additional exceptions to the exemption."
The "areas of concern" were largely those frequented by children.
B.C.'s socialist premier, David Eby, also acknowledged there had been significant concerns that decriminalization had led to a spike in the use of illicit drugs in schoolyards, reported North Shore News.
The province ultimately pressed the federal government for an amendment to the decriminalization policy to ensure that junkies couldn't abuse their newfound liberty within 49 feet of playgrounds, spray pools, wading pools, and skate parks. B.C. indicated in September that it had received approval to allow police to enforce federal drug law in "child-focused spaces."
"We requested this amendment from Health Canada to ensure that families feel safe in their community while continuing to use every tool available to fight the toxic-drug crisis and save lives," said Jennifer Whiteside, B.C's NDP minister of mental health and addictions.
The resultant provincial legislation, Bill 34, would enable police to tell junkies to stop consuming an illegal substance or to relocate to another place. Noncompliance could be punished with a maximum fine of $2,000 and/or a prison term of up to six months.
Activists figured that that notwithstanding the roughly 364,764 square miles whereupon junkies could shoot up in B.C., it was essential that the province's playgrounds in particular remained for them a viable option.
The Harm Reduction Nurses Association challenged Bill 34 in November, alleging it violated sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the "rights of People Who Use Drugs ('PWUD'), the ... rights of the plaintiff and its members, and the ... rights of Indigenous people."
The group said in a statement, "Bill 34 will drive drug use further into the shadows and put the lives of our clients and community at risk," adding that keeping junkies off of children's playgrounds would "disproportionately target and harm Indigenous peoples in BC."
Caitlin Shane, a lawyer for the Harm Reduction Nurses Association, told the Tyee, "The vast majority of communities in B.C. don't have places to safely use drugs, and when you ban people from using in public when you know there is nowhere else for them to go further pushes people into the margins and towards isolated drug use."
Corey Ranger, head of the HRNA, said Bill 34 was a "reactive, regressive, not evidence-based, not based in harm reduction" law that "poses immense amounts of harm for those already at higher risk of death."
The HRNA activists, like Shane, appear to presume it a forgone conclusion that society must accept that junkies need to continue using.
Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson, appointed to his role by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, acknowledged in his Dec. 29 ruling that "the social harms associated with public illegal drug use range from the loss of public space due to open drug use, to discarded needles and other drug paraphernalia, to drug-related criminal activity and decreases in real and perceived public safety."
Hinskson also indicated that he accepted "that the attendant public safety risks are particularly concerning given that many of the restricted areas and places in the Act are frequented by seniors, people with disabilities, and families with young children."
Despite noting these downsides and the government's indication that the HRNA's "evidence [was] composed almost entirely of affidavits prepared by administrators of public interest groups that are replete with anecdotal evidence, unsubstantiated conclusory statements, layers of unattributed hearsay, ... and policy recommendations," Hinskon nevertheless concluded both that the legislation "will cause irreparable harm" and that its suspension "can be properly characterized as a substantial public benefit."
It appears Hinkson was swayed in part by the argument that shooting up in the company of others, in this case in front of families and children, "is oftentimes the safest, healthiest, and/or only available option for an individual."
The National Post indicated that Hinkson intimated restrictions on where junkies could use drugs amounted to a violation of "the right to life, liberty and security of the person," though the court did not explicitly say so.
The court indicated the province can pursue other legislative and policy alternatives should Bill 34 ultimately be struck down.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The White House cocaine culprit has escaped unscathed after the Secret Service reportedly completed its investigation with zero answers.
Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi revealed that the owner of the drug remains unidentified because agents did not want to infringe on anyone's civil rights.
The Secret Service did not interview the first family’s well-known drug enthusiast, Hunter Biden, on the matter.
“I guess we’re never going to know that it was in fact Hunter’s cocaine,” Sara Gonzales jokes, implying that that's exactly whose cocaine it was.
Eric July believes they know exactly who’s cocaine it is.
“You’re dealing with the freaking White House, which I’d imagine it’s supposed to be like the most secure place in the world, perhaps,” Eric July adds, continuing, “They know who did it. There’s no reason to pretend. They know whose it was, they just don’t want to tell anybody else because of course, that would then incriminate them.”
July, like Gonzales, is convinced the cocaine belonged to Hunter Biden.
“On the July 4 date, he was blitzed out of his mind,” July recalls.
He also mentions that this kind of shoddy investigation is simply how the government chooses to operate.
“It’s just unfortunately how the government operates, particularly the federal government. It’s like, ‘We’re going to do what we want, and yeah, it doesn’t make sense but what are you going to do about it?’”
To enjoy more roundtable rundowns of the top stories of the day, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
The Promiscuous Quail | 10/14/21