Connect with us

Politics

DC Requires A College Degree To Watch Infants

Published

on

(Via Daily Wire)

Progressives tweet #YesAllWomen and brag that women can do anything a man can do better (in heels!), but in Washington, D.C., among the bluest of blue cities, Democrats are making it impossible for women to have their cake and eat it too.

New regulations were passed by The District of Columbia Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) this past March; beginning in 2020, they would require child care providers in D.C. to have an early childhood education degree.

Now, maybe I’m just uninformed. After all, I don’t have a college degree. But how does going to college make you more capable and competent in childcare? Have D.C. Democrats met any college students recently? They aren’t taking parenting classes in between thirsty Thursday and Sunday brunch.

This move furthers the trend of walling off occupations to people with college degrees, for no good reason, which in turn waters down the value of a college degree because everyone needs one. Most employers shouldn’t require a college degree, in terms of the skills required, because most jobs really don’t.

If you want to watch my four-month-old daughter, I don’t care if you have an MBA from Wharton or flunked out of community college. All that matters is that you’re responsible, reliable, and have good judgment. Also patience and the ability to handle a pooplosion. College doesn’t teach those things.

The new regulation not only requires preschool teachers to have a degree, but even men and women taking care of kids from zero to three years old. That’s insane, practically and economically.

As the Weekly Standard notes, citing a report from the Economic Policy Institute, “The average cost of childcare in D.C. is more than $22,600 annually, the highest of any metropolitan area in the country.”

Not to understate how difficult it can be to take care of children, but over $22,000? Come on. To watch young children who are ranging from the developmental stages of sleeping and eating to coloring and using arts and crafts? This isn’t one-on-one care. It’s in a group setting. And this is before this regulation takes effect. Just imagine how much more expensive infant care will get when everyone doing it is paying back college loans.

I am a married woman with a decent salary. My husband and I are full-time working parents with the recent help of a live-in grandparent, so we thankfully don’t need a daycare right now for our four-year-old and four-month-old daughters. It would be very expensive for us. So imagine what it is like for single mothers who don’t have a decent salary? Or who have to work three jobs to keep the bill collectors away? You know, the single mothers progressives say they care about.

As Shoshana Weissmann told The Weekly Standard, “The average D.C. family with a toddler and infant would have to spend up to 63.6 percent of their annual income to enroll their kids in childcare.”

“I appreciate D.C.’s efforts to limit the availability of childcare to the elite,” Weissmann said, “And to keep peons away from children of the few who will be able to afford it.”

As a resident of California, I’m all too familiar with Democrats making the basic stuff of life more expensive for everyone. Take California Bill 1513, which all but abolishes the traditional commission or chair-rental model that salons and spas use to pay stylists and hairdressers, in favor of an hourly rate.

This kills business because it’s forcing them to raise prices above what people are willing to pay. My own hair stylist, whom I’ve been going to for over four years, told me this herself, and I can tell you, doing my hair is expensive now. The result of California Democrats trying to “help” hairdressers? Salons lose money, so raise prices. Customers can’t afford to go to the salon as often, so the salons lose more money and fire (or stop hiring) hairdressers. And hairdressers who previously could make a percentage on the colors, cuts and sales they made are no longer able to profit in the same way for their added effort. Whom exactly does this help?

Watch for the effects of the new D.C. child care regulation to become evident once it’s implemented in 2020. I’m guessing parents will crunch the numbers and many will determine that it’s simply too expensive to send their kids to childcare in the city when there are plenty of other options in nearby Virginia and Maryland.

I’m predicting the law will also lead to higher employee turnover rates for D.C. daycares. Few young, college-educated daycare employees are aiming for a career in daycare. They want to teach or open their own business or, God-forbid, get a Masters or Ph.D in education.

So, daycares will get a lot of college-educated applicants who aren’t in it for the long run and are there because daycare is one of their last employment options.

Another progressive victory!

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

President Donald J. Trump on Israel and Iran: “Two Countries Don’t Know What the F*** They’re Doing.”

Published

on

Trump’s Blunt Rebuke of Israel and Iran: A Strategic Display of Control Amid Ceasefire Chaos

On June 24, 2025, President Donald J. Trump delivered a characteristically unfiltered assessment of the faltering ceasefire between Israel and Iran, declaring, “Two countries don’t know what the f*** they’re doing.” The comment, made to reporters as he departed for a NATO summit, underscored his frustration with both nations for violating a fragile truce brokered just a day earlier on June 23, 2025. Far from a mere outburst, Trump’s statement and the actions surrounding it reveal a calculated approach to reasserting U.S. influence over a volatile Middle East conflict, showcasing his ability to navigate and control a complex geopolitical crisis.

The Context: A Ceasefire Undermined

The ceasefire, intended to de-escalate tensions between Israel and Iran, was a significant diplomatic achievement for the Trump administration, signaling a potential pause in a conflict that has long threatened regional stability. However, within hours, Iran launched a strike that killed several people, prompting Israel to respond with a “symbolic attack” on the same day. These violations unraveled the truce, drawing global attention and risking further escalation, particularly given Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Israel’s military resolve.

Trump’s blunt remark came in response to this rapid deterioration. He expressed particular displeasure with Israel, noting that it “unloaded” on Iran shortly after the agreement, undermining the deal he had championed. “I’m really unhappy with Israel,” he told reporters, a rare public rebuke of a key U.S. ally. Yet, his criticism extended to both parties, reflecting his view that their tit-for-tat actions lacked strategic clarity and jeopardized a cycle of violence.

Why Trump Said It: A Strategic Calculus

Trump’s choice of words was no accident. His provocative language served multiple purposes, each reinforcing his ability to steer the situation:

  1. Reasserting U.S. Authority: By publicly chastising both Israel and Iran, Trump signaled that the United States, under his leadership, remains the dominant force in Middle East diplomacy. His frustration highlighted the U.S.’s role as the ceasefire’s architect and underscored that violations would not be tolerated without consequences. This move reminded both nations of their reliance on U.S. support—militarily for Israel and diplomatically for Iran in avoiding broader sanctions or isolation.
  2. Pressuring for Compliance: Trump’s bluntness was a calculated pressure tactic. By calling out Israel’s “unloading” and Iran’s initial strike, he aimed to shame both into reconsidering further violations. His urgent appeal to Israel to avoid additional strikes against Iran, labeling such actions a “serious violation” of the ceasefire, was a direct warning to an ally accustomed to significant autonomy. Similarly, his criticism of Iran’s actions reinforced his earlier stance of giving them “chance after chance” to negotiate, signaling that his patience was not infinite.
  3. Shaping the Narrative: Trump’s colorful language ensured his message dominated global headlines, keeping the focus on his administration’s efforts to broker peace rather than the ceasefire’s collapse. By framing Israel and Iran as directionless, he positioned himself as the clear-headed leader seeking order amid chaos. This narrative was particularly critical as he headed to the NATO summit, where allies would scrutinize his handling of the crisis.
  4. Balancing Domestic and International Audiences: Domestically, Trump’s tough talk resonated with his base, who value his no-nonsense style. Internationally, it sent a message to adversaries like Iran that he was not afraid to confront allies like Israel, challenging perceptions of unchecked U.S. support for Israeli actions. This balancing act strengthened his leverage in future negotiations.

Trump’s Control: Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Beyond his rhetoric, Trump demonstrated control through decisive actions that underscored his influence over the situation:

  • Direct Diplomacy: Prior to the ceasefire, Trump had privately and publicly urged Israel to refrain from striking Iran, emphasizing his desire for a deal to prevent escalation. Despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to act, Trump’s ability to extract a ceasefire agreement in the first place showcased his diplomatic clout.
  • Public Rebuke as Leverage: By openly criticizing Israel, a move described as a “rare public rebuke of an ally,” Trump shifted the dynamic of U.S.-Israel relations. This signaled to Israel that U.S. support, while steadfast, comes with expectations of compliance with American-led initiatives. It also positioned Trump as a neutral arbiter, increasing his credibility with other regional players.
  • Pushing for De-escalation: Trump’s comments were paired with a clear call for negotiations to resume, particularly with Iran, to address its nuclear program and prevent further strikes. His insistence that both nations “don’t know what they’re doing” was a strategic jab to nudge them toward the negotiating table, where the U.S. could dictate terms.
  • Navigating NATO and Global Opinion: Departing for the NATO summit, Trump used the crisis to project strength to allies wary of U.S. foreign policy under his second term. His ability to manage the ceasefire’s fallout while engaging with global leaders demonstrated his multitasking prowess and commitment to U.S. leadership on the world stage.

The Bigger Picture: A Pattern of Control

Trump’s handling of the Israel-Iran ceasefire breach aligns with his broader foreign policy approach: bold rhetoric, strategic pressure, and a knack for keeping adversaries and allies alike off balance. His critics, such as those on X who argue he has ceded too much control to Israel, overlook the nuance of his strategy. While Israel’s actions may have tested his influence, Trump’s public frustration and diplomatic maneuvering suggest he is far from a bystander. Instead, he is actively shaping the conflict’s trajectory, using the ceasefire’s collapse as an opportunity to reinforce U.S. dominance.

Conclusion

President Trump’s June 24, 2025, statement that Israel and Iran “don’t know what the f*** they’re doing” was more than a soundbite—it was a calculated move to reassert control over a spiraling Middle East crisis. By leveraging blunt rhetoric, public rebukes, and diplomatic pressure, Trump demonstrated his ability to steer the actions of both allies and adversaries. While the ceasefire’s breach exposed the region’s volatility, Trump’s response showcased his strategic acumen, ensuring the U.S. remains the central player in the quest for stability. As he navigates this crisis, his blend of bravado and pragmatism continues to define his approach, proving that even in chaos, he knows exactly what he’s doing.

Continue Reading

Iowa

Chad Pelley Lawsuit in Shambles – Free Speech Win Relieves Bailey Symonds, Strips Injunction

Published

on

In a pivotal legal ruling issued on May 14, 2025, the Iowa District Court in Linn County struck down nearly all of the speech-restricting injunctions in the high-profile case of Chad Pelley v. Dustin Mazgaj et al. The decision significantly weakens Pelley’s attempt to silence critics through civil court orders—and raises fresh questions about where the case goes from here.

Chad Pelley Injunction Dissolved Bailey Symonds by Populist Wire


Symonds Cleared, Mazgaj Partially Restricted

At the heart of the ruling is a clear rejection of Pelley’s broad effort to restrict speech. The court fully dissolved the injunction against Bailey Symonds, stating that Pelley failed to prove she caused harm or was likely to in the future. As of now, Symonds is under no legal restrictions, restoring her full right to speak about the case, attend public meetings, and post freely online.

In the case of Dustin Mazgaj, who operates under the name Butt Crack News Network, the court issued a narrowed injunction: Mazgaj is now only prohibited from publicly referring to Chad Pelley as a:

  • “Pedophile”
  • “Drug user”
  • “Drug dealer”

All other parts of the injunction—including no-contact orders and broad bans on speech or proximity—were dissolved.


Melissa Duffield Confirmed Unrestricted

The court also clarified that Melissa Duffield, another named defendant, was never placed under an injunction at any point. Attempts by Pelley’s legal team to restrict her speech in a separate post-trial filing were also rejected, with the judge referencing potential First Amendment concerns.


BCNN Not a Company, Just a Username

In a notable clarification, the court determined that Butt Crack News Network is not a separate business or legal entity—it’s simply the name of Mazgaj’s YouTube account. As such, any restrictions on BCNN are effectively just extensions of those on Mazgaj personally.


Skylar Price Still in Limbo

One original defendant, Skylar Price, has not responded to the lawsuit and was found in default. The court did not revisit the injunction as it applies to Price, meaning the original restrictions may still technically be in effect—but without any new legal activity or defense.


Beau Bish and Flex Your Freedoms Not Bound

Though Pelley filed a second motion earlier this year to add Beau Bish and the media group Flex Your Freedoms to the injunction, the court noted that they have not yet been formally served. As a result, they remain unrestricted by the court at this time.


Where Does Pelley’s Case Go From Here?

The judge’s ruling sends a clear signal: courts will not issue broad gag orders unless the speech in question is proven to be false and harmful—and even then, only in narrowly tailored ways.

Pelley may still pursue defamation claims, but without the broad powers of a speech-restricting injunction, he faces a steeper road. The ruling emphasizes the high bar courts place on prior restraint, especially when it involves criticism of someone involved in public matters like real estate development, civic boards, and local politics.

As for the remaining claims—libel, false light, and emotional distress—they will now move toward a full trial. But the public gag orders Pelley once used to silence his critics have been largely rolled back, and the spotlight on his case is only getting brighter.

Continue Reading

Politics

President Donald Trump 45 – 47

Published

on

Donald Trump’s political journey over the last eight years has been a vivid illustration of modern populism, defying conventional political odds. Starting with his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump, a real estate mogul and reality TV star, harnessed populist sentiments to propel his candidacy. His message resonated with many Americans feeling left behind by globalization and economic shifts, promising to restore jobs, combat what he described as unfair trade deals, and prioritize American interests over international cooperation. This populist wave was marked by his direct communication style, bypassing traditional media to connect with voters through rallies and social media, where he spoke of “draining the swamp” in Washington, suggesting a deep-seated distrust in the political establishment.

The struggle of Trump supporters has mirrored this populist movement, characterized by a sense of alienation from what they perceive as a detached political and cultural elite. This group, often labeled pejoratively by some in the mainstream, found in Trump a voice for their frustrations with immigration policies, economic policies favoring global trade over local jobs, and cultural shifts they felt were imposed without their consent. The Trump family, from Melania’s fashion choices to Ivanka’s political involvement, became symbols of this populist resistance against the perceived elitism of politics. The criticism they faced only deepened the solidarity among Trump’s supporters, who saw in his family a reflection of their own battles against the establishment.

The alt-media ecosystem was instrumental in this populist surge, serving as both a battleground and a bastion. Outlets like Breitbart and Infowars, and later platforms like Parler and Truth Social, became the echo chambers where Trump’s narrative of being a victim of political witch hunts and media bias was amplified. These platforms didn’t just report news; they crafted a narrative where Trump’s every move, from policy to personal tweets, was framed as part of a larger fight against a corrupt system. This interaction between Trump, his supporters, and the alt-media has redefined political discourse, showcasing how populism can harness media, both traditional and digital, to challenge and reshape political norms. Trump’s journey has thus not only defied odds but has also redefined what political success looks like in an era where populism can sway elections and influence policy discussions at the highest levels.

Continue Reading

Trending

Donate to Populist Wire

*Note: Every donation is greatly appreciated, regardless of the amount.