Sunday Funnies: Buffoonapooza

What a stupid week. No one could make this up. I stole the term Buffoonapooza from PowerLine because it’s perfect for the week. I thought it was going to be almost all Beto, even Biden and Corn Pop couldn’t top him, and then along comes the New York slimes and their Kavanaugh fake news, and then to top it all, here comes Justin Trudeau. I haven’t a clue what more could be in store for next week. Well, might as well get started.

The whole thing leaves you wanting to know what store sells this:

And, of course


Trying to Start a War?

So the Dimmocrats, who earn their name every day, want to confiscate your guns. Oh, they say they’ll buy them back, and if New Zealand’s recent experience is any guide, they’ll give you about a quarter of their value, and throw you in jail if you object. Ain’t tyranny wonderful?

Well confiscating the law-abiding citizen guns has been tried here before, of course. The last time was on April 19, 1775. The results weren’t promising, it started the Revolutionary War. I think that might be a bad precedent.

Maybe, just maybe, they should try enforcing the laws already on the books. If you don’t read blogs like Second City Cop, you have no idea just how frustrated the police are. What with the court putting murderers on the street on bail with an ankle monitor, and insanely short sentences if they bother to show up, it’s not hard to see why.

Then there is the evasion of their own responsibility, which we just saw with Mayor Lightfoot in Chicago and her attempt to blame Republicans in Indiana for Chicago’s self-imposed problems.

By the way, there were two, count ’em, two, mass shooting in Chicago over the Labor Day weekend. What’s that? You didn’t see that on TV? Neither did anybody else. It was black people killing black people, and thusly of no interest to the left. It never is, plantation violence is background noise. Nobody but the police even try to do anything about it, and they hamstring every effort to help.

But hey, your AR-15 will probably, all on its own, go out one night and shoot up the neighborhood. David Harsanyi at The Federalist has some thoughts as well.

And they do it without any evidence that it would curtail rare mass shootings or save lives.

While national confiscation would be unprecedented in American history, we already possess hard evidence that bans of assault rifles don’t alter gun violence trends. Gun homicides continued to drop steeply after an “assault weapons” ban expired in 2004. It’s also worth noting that in 2017, the last year of available FBI data, there was a near-historic low of 7,032 murders with handguns, and 403 by “rifles” of any kind, not only “assault weapons.”

To put that in perspective, there were 1,591 knife homicides during that same span, 467 people killed with blunt objects, and another 696 with fists and kicking. (Not every police department reports the type of gun used in homicides (3,096 of them), but it’s reasonable to believe that similar trends apply, since those murders took place in big cities where handguns are most prevalent.)

Although a number of Democrats now unequivocally support a “buyback,” no one has explained how the procedure is supposed to unfurl. What will the penalty be for ignoring the “buybacks”? Fines? Prison terms?

Will local police be tasked with opening case files on the 100 million homes of suspected gun owners who are armed with hundreds of millions of firearms, or will it be the FBI? Maybe Democrats will propose “paying back” family members and neighbors who snitch on gun owners? How else will they figure out who owns these AR-15s? There is no national tracking of sales.

And there won’t be. New Zealand, after it’s government’s stupid and panicked attempted buyback this year, has had to admit that they have no idea how many weapons there are in Kiwi land. Good, that’s how it should be.

And strangely enough, if you don’t care about legality, even in Britain, it seems not all that difficult to obtain guns, and unlike America, real military weapons, select-fire and all.

Well, they always could have listened to Churchill who commented that when you destroy a free market you create a black market.

Of course, even Churchill’s family caught the disease, I noticed yesterday that his grandson, Sir Christopher Soames, who has been in Parliament since 1983, I think, has lost the whip, and been deselected by the Conservative Party for reelection for wanting to remain a Euro-peon. Probably why you don’t hear much about the Churchills between John, first Duke of Marlborough and Lord Randolf, Sir Winston’s father. An easy and soft life doesn’t breed good leaders.

Sunday Funnies: Dodging Dorian

And so, welcome to September, and Hurricane season. As our Florida (and other southeast) readers hunker down, there are some things to laugh about. So lets.

A portrait of Dimmocraps, Lieborats, Never Trumpers, and Remoaners has emerged

Meanwhile, we should go to the beach


And, of course

All the Lies Unfit to Print

Yesterday, we talked of Howard Zinn for a reason. As much as I detest speaking of such a charlatan, his influence has had consequences, amongst them the New York Times 1619 Project. Exactly why a so-called newspaper which is unable to report the news straight thinks it should be entrusted with writing history is unclear to anybody who has a thinking mind. Well, not really, it is quite simply hubris. John Hinderaker at PowerLine had something to say about it recently.

What does it mean to be a liberal in today’s world? More than anything else, to be a liberal is to be anti-American.

Byron York describes a New York Times project of which I was unaware, but by which I am not surprised:

In the Times’ view — which it hopes to make the view of millions of Americans — the country was actually founded in 1619, when the first Africans were brought to North America, to Virginia, to be sold as slaves.

This year marks the 400th anniversary of that event, and the Times has created something called The 1619 Project. This is what the paper hopes the project will accomplish: “It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.”

Who we are is the people who killed 600,000 white men to end slavery. That the Democrats and the left never got the memo and still continue to try to enslave black people is well known. Just ask Candace Owen or Lloyd Marcus about the plantation.

But this is what happens when you let history be Zinnified. It becomes a story without facts, but with malice towards many in favor of an elite, not very different than feudal lords, who think they are owed everything they want by their ‘inferiors’ who are actually by far their superiors.

Read John’s article  (linked above), read one by Lloyd Marcus. And here is John Daniel Davidson on why this is simply pandering to John C. Calhoun and the rest of the unreconstructed Confederates.

But there is something worth celebrating this year.  A round hundred years before 1619 in 1519, one of the most bloodthirsty regimes in the history of the world was destroyed. It was so bad that to read its history is to think Hitler and Stalin were beneficent rulers, and that Mao was misunderstood. We don’t celebrate this 1519 project much, because the guy running it was rather flawed. He was greedy, a womanizer, nor was he really interested in liberating anybody, he wanted to rule.

Who was this non-paragon who did some fine work in spite of himself? Don Hernán Cortés de Monroy y Pizarro Altamirano, Marquis of the Valley of Oaxaca, the man who after a desperate battle, overthrew (with indigenous help) the Aztec Empire, which sacrificed something like 50,000 people per year, and ate a fair number of them. Was the rule of the Spanish Empire anywhere near as good for people as the British which developed the entire modern world? No. It was a brutal, hierarchical, scheme much like the one that Slim’s Slimes is advocating above. That said, it was an order of magnitude better than the Aztecs. Something we should remember.

Good article on that here in The Federalist. Worth your time.

And an aside. Guido reminds us that market forces matter. And that is also connected with what we’ve said today.

The First Master of the Tweet

This came across my screen yesterday, from J.R. Dunn at American Thinker.

We have all seen no end of pieces criticizing, condemning and apologizing for Trump’s use of the tweet as his major weapon for undermining the left-wing media monopoly, driving his opponents into a frenzy, and striking fear and confusion into the left. In truth, seldom if ever are Trump’s tweets mentioned in any context at all without the writer shuffling his feet, dropping his head in shame and whimpering, “Maybe he shouldn’t do that… uh, right?”

Not all these people are #NeverTrumpers. Many of them mean well, and are sincerely concerned with the impression that Trump makes and the unintended consequences that may result. But all of it, no matter what the intent, is without exception an exercise in missing the point.

I admit it, I used to, but I’m a practical man, nobody is going to stop the President of the US from Tweeting if he wants to. Then I paid attention and I saw how effective it is.

So Trump blithely continues tweeting, at his leisure and in his own time, on topics of his choosing and expressing them in his own unique style. Each tweet is utterly unpredictable, and all of them seem to strike at a weak spot in the American left’s defenses, like cruise missiles coming out of nowhere, striking their target and leaving the enemy with no means of counterstriking. The wails, shrieks, and gibbering arise from the left, and Trump moves on without even bothering to answer. With his tweets, which cost him nothing and require almost no effort, Trump has done more damage to the left than the last half-dozen Republican presidents.

And that’s the beauty, nobody has found a way to effectively counterattack.

The same can be said of Trump’s latest violation of Twitter good taste against Elijah Cummings, who has for decades posed as a champion of civil rights while doing absolutely nothing for his miserable Baltimore constituents living in what amounts to the American Somalia. Trump immediately put Cummings – and the left – on the defensive, rendering Cummings’ border machinations irrelevant and shifting the argument to territory where Cummings is most vulnerable – his actual record in Congress. The left’s response was less than impressive. One left-wing critic on CNN burst into tears as he bemoaned Trump’s use of the term “infested” to describe Baltimore’s slums. A political movement that has been reduced to tears is one that not much can be expected from.

It’s true, it’s not overly tasteful (or Presidential, whatever that is). But you know, I think the reason so many say that is that he is effective, very effective, like a rapier against a hunting knife. He draws a bit of blood, and then the opposition always makes it worse, widening the wound. Is there an effective counter? With Donald Trump, I doubt it. He’s pitch-perfect.

I think if we of the right have any sense at all (I often do question that!), we’ll quite whingeing about unpresidential things and realize that with Trump, we have made more progress certainly since Reagan, and quite possibly since Coolidge.

And we have laughed more than we ever have, and at our opponents, not ourselves for once.

Most of you know, I’m one of those geeks who thinks the Declaration and the Constitution have the answers, and they do, but only if they are read, understood, and applied. They have no meaning if they are systematically ignored. And that is what the left does. Remember Obama’s pen and phone? That’s what that meant, nothing less than the Divine Right of Kings, just like Charles the First, although Barmy got off easy, getting rich instead of a head shorter.

So sit back, relax, and enjoy as the American conservatives laugh, and smile, and discomfit, and leave the left in disarray. With the President and his phone leading the charge, we are finally winning, and it’s great.

Suppressing Votes, Google Style

So, you think Google is harmless? I don’t care if you are conservative, liberal, or don’t know up from down, this is frightening stuff.

Now, remember, if Google was simply reminding people to vote, it would be mo big deal, it might even be a public service. But this is not what this is. This is a partisan get out the vote effort. That is bad enough, but that is not all.


Google (and most likely all the rest of these lowlifes) is also suppressing speech, but only that of right of center people as part of an intentional scheme to change votes.

We don’t usually get too excited about companies telling us what they think about the candidates, how an election can affect businesses is a valid consideration. But this is more like the phone company arbitrarily deciding that conservatives cannot dial out. See the difference? It’s a major one, and it is corrupting the process.

Here’s the whole hearing, even if you don’t watch the whole for almost two hours (which you should) at least watch Senator Cruz’s opening statement.

And do notice as the Google executive is sworn in, how the revolving door works, it’s a pretty neat treadmill if you can get on it.


%d bloggers like this: