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

 

Video Thursday, Anglosphere Edition

Apropos of nothing much else I will say today, this is former Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, holder of the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart from his time as a Second Lieutenant in the 10th Mountain Division in the Second World War. Senator Dole was wounded badly by machine gun fire in Italy in April 1945 and now at 95 years old is unable to get out of his wheelchair, but he did, to salute his comrade, and his friend, President George H.W. Bush, in the Capitol Rotunda the other night. President Bush who was a Naval Lieutenant, and an aviator who flew 58 missions against the Japanese, and is a holder of the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Air Medal, and a Presidential Unit Citation.

https://www.mrctv.org/embed/535349

Whatever your politics, these men are great Americans, who need to be honored. Indeed it is men like Lieutenants Dole and Bush (and millions more) who earned their generation the title of ‘The Greatest Generation’.

And it also ends the presidents who served in that now distant war, George H.W. Bush, who was a Lieutenant, who enlisted on his 18th birthday will be the last of a line that started with General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953. All good men and true, whatever their politics. We are already missing them.


We damned well don’t do PC here, which you know, and so we will not be told what songs to listen to. From Neptune’s Daughter the original version of Baby, It’s Cold Out There. Enjoy

Then there is the UN Migrant Compact. The US and Australia, having a decent respect for their citizens have said that they will not sign it. The Canadian and British governments, who do not, say they will. Not much surprise, both are globalists nonentities, who apparently are merely in politics for themselves. In truth, my British patriot friends use much, much stronger language. I agree with them.

Sometimes we forget, the Canadians are some of the best and bravest people on earth. But they do elect the most detestable people sometimes.


Mark Levin, Heather MacDonald, do I really need to say more?

Well, I try to remember that the world has been going to hell in a handcart since the year 00, sometimes it doesn’t help much.

Allies and Protectorates

Carolyn Glick has an article up on her site, comparing how Netanyahu and Trudeau deal with Trump. It’s, as usual for her, factual and thought-provoking.

She starts by debunking the obviously flawed comparison of Kim Jong-un and Trudeau. One is obviously an enemy and the other an ally, however tense at the moment.

A much more apt, and enlightening, analysis would be to consider Trump’s disparate treatment of two allies — for instance, Trudeau and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Both Trudeau and Netanyahu lead U.S. allies. But whereas Trump and his advisors sharply rebuked Trudeau for his angry assault following the G-7 summit last week, Netanyahu and Trump enjoy close, intense, and mutually supportive ties. Far from attacking one another, Trump and Netanyahu consistently back one another up in their public statements.

What accounts for the disparity? More broadly, what does the disparity in treatment tell us about Trump’s expectations from foreign leaders? What does it teach us about his foreign policy outlook more generally? […]

Rather than side with Israel in its war against the Hamas terror regime, as all of his predecessors had done to varying degrees, Obama sided with Hamas and its state sponsors, Qatar and Turkey, against Israel.

Obama insisted that Netanyahu accept Hamas’s ceasefire conditions and walk away with no guarantee that Hamas would end its rocket and missile offensive against Israel.

Obama’s embrace of Iran and effective alliance with Hamas through Turkey and Qatar were the last straws for Israel.

But Obama’s behavior had not come as a surprise. Sensing, earlier on, where the wind was blowing, Netanyahu had already been working to sidestep Obama by developing an alliance with America’s other spurned Middle Eastern allies: Egypt, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia. Like Israel, these three regimes were mortally threatened by Iran. Like Israel —  indeed, to an even greater degree than Israel — these regimes viewed the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies and offshoots, including Hamas, as existential threats.

Like many (most probably) Americans I support Israel, which is no surprise to anyone here, nor will anyone here be surprised that his opposition to Israel had a considerable amount to do with my disgust for Obama. My support for KSA and Egypt is not on that level, but they are much preferable to the Moslem Brotherhood and Iran. Continuing:

As Obama insisted Israel accept the Turkish-Qatari ceasefire offer – that is, Hamas’s ceasefire conditions — Egypt, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia all sided with Israel against Hamas – and Obama. They rejected Hamas’s ceasefire conditions and embraced Israel’s positions entirely. Their stunning public support for Israel compelled Obama to walk back his pressure on Israel.

As for Iran, the Israel-Sunni operational alliance was important for two reasons. First, it empowered Netanyahu to defy openly Obama on the Iran nuclear deal. That defiance was expressed most powerfully when Netanyahu detailed the problems with the nuclear deal in an address to a special joint session of Congress in March 2015. Second, the operational ties between Israel and the Sunni Gulf states facilitated Mossad and other operations against Iranian plans and capabilities.

As Entous notes, in Netanyahu’s first meeting with Trump, which took place in September 2016 at the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meeting in New York, Netanyahu and Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer presented then-candidate Trump with Netanyahu’s vision of a new U.S. regional posture in the Middle East. Such a U.S. posture could be based on the U.S. leading the operational alliance that Netanyahu had developed with the Sunnis.

Entous writes that Trump’s campaign CEO, Steve Bannon, was “blown away” by their presentation. A former Trump advisor told Entous that the two Israelis “had thought this through – this wasn’t half-baked. This was well articulated and it dovetailed exactly with our thinking.”

According to Entous, the “advisor credited Netanyahu and Dermer with inspiring the new administration’s approach to the Middle East.”[…]

Trump’s close relationship with Netanyahu owes, then, to two things. First, by developing Israel’s ties with the Sunni Arab states, Netanyahu demonstrated that he is capable of acting to defend Israel and shared U.S.-Israeli interests, even without U.S. assistance. That showed Trump that Israel is an ally, not a protectorate of the U.S. — and that Netanyahu is a partner, not a burden, for the U.S. in the post-Obama Middle East.

Look what we have here; an American ally, actually several of them, taking the lead on a local problem, committing themselves to a solution, that they think acceptable to America, and asking us to help and perhaps lead while contributing substantially to their solution. And so they present a solution to Trump, which is not free of danger but is clearly thought through, workable, and a reasonable risk for America. That is a good ally.

Then there is Trudeau.

During the 2016 campaign, although Trump made abandoning Obama’s Iran nuclear deal and moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem key foreign policy goals, updating international trade deals was a much more significant campaign issue. And one of Trump’s central pledges to his voters was his vow to improve, or walk away from, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which President Bill Clinton had signed with Canada and Mexico. […]

Instead of seeking compromises that could advance the interests of both countries, or at a minimum limit the damage that new U.S. trade policies would cause the Canadian economy, Trudeau pretended away the issue — hoping, apparently, that Trump would disappear if Trudeau just ignored him.

Consequently, rather than engaging seriously with American negotiators — as the Mexicans are — Trudeau has added insult to injury by slapping progressive social engineering provisions regarding indigenous, gender, and worker rights onto Canada’s trade policies. Trudeau is apparently attempting to use bilateral trade to dictate the Trump administration’s social policy.

In other words, Trudeau has embraced posturing over substantive policymaking. Rather than presenting Trump with a deal that could make sense for the U.S. and Canada, Trudeau has presented himself as a progressive hero, standing up to the Left’s greatest enemy.

Given Trudeau’s behavior, it was just a matter of time before trade talks between Washington and Ottowa blew up. Canada’s leader offered Trump no alternative to confrontation.

The disparity between Trump’s treatment of Israel and Canada tells us two important things.

First, when Trump criticizes American allies for expecting the United States to defend them and pay for the privilege, he isn’t doing it to blow off steam. Trump believes that for alliances to be meaningful, they have to be alliances between independent states that come together to pursue common interests.

Yep, and quite a few American allies, including the UK, would be very wise to take heed of what is said here. This is a good read on Trump’s policy, and it is one backed by just about all of red state America. We are practical down-to-earth people. We have built the world’s most powerful economy backed by the world’s most powerful military in about 200 years, and we are proud of both and are unwilling to see our work undone.

I’d guess that if things do not change soon, America’s emphasis in Europe will change to the Visegrad countries and the Balts, to the detriment of western Europe and possibly NATO itself. Americans don’t really believe in the welfare state, still less do we believe we owe Europe much of anything. If anything, we resent that three times in the last hundred years, we’ve had to help save Europe from enemies of their own creation. “The Long War” some (not inaccurately) call it.

As long as the EU and Germany want to posture like world leaders while antagonizing we who pay the bills that allow them to do so, well, they can expect chilly weather in Washington, just like Trudeau can.

We like allies, we’re not that fond of unruly protectorates.

Carolyn sums up with this:

Trump’s actual doctrine is that the U.S. will help its allies and foes when they pursue goals the U.S. shares. And the U.S. will spurn allies – and enemies — who expect America to do their bidding as they mistake posturing for policymaking, and attitude for work.

Yep.

Do read her article at Unlike Netanyahu, Trudeau expects America to work for him. There is much that I didn’t cover.

 

 

Another Week Gone!

Another week that we’ll never have to live again.

From Ace.

 

 

I want need one of these!

Well, OK, I guess, if you say so.

 

The answer to controversial speech has always been more speech, not less. As Vince Herron writes in the Southern California Law Review, censoring speech is “as ineffective as fighting a fire by spraying water on the tips of the flame while allowing the house to continue to burn.” The fire will never cease to burn. When colleges censor certain viewpoints that are problematic, more harm than good comes from it. Silencing provoking speech does not address bigotry at the root; rather, it is pushed underground and excluded from a robust and uninhibited political discourse that could have occurred. Bhargavi Garimella

Wish I had been that smart in High School!

No wonder Americans are fat, those kute, korner krack dealers are back!

And the highlight of the week!

Mostly from PowerLine this week. Have a good one.

Canada Day and Judicial Murder (Not connected)

Today is the traditional Canada Day when our neighbors celebrate their nation, and we’re damned glad they’re there. Even if their loopy PM wears Ramadan socks to a Gay Pride Parade. Not sure what you Canucks were thinking when you elected him, but it’s your country, eh.

But they are good neighbors and good friends, and General Eisenhower said they were the best troops under his command, and I’m certainly not going to argue with him. And, a few weeks ago they got a world record, which may stand for a long time. From The Daily Mail:

Canadian sniper has beat the record for the longest confirmed kill in military history by picking off an ISIS fighter from a staggering 11,319 feet.

The bullet was fired from a McMillan TAC-50 rifle set on a high-rise tower and took 10 seconds to travel the 2.14 miles towards the fighter, who was attacking Iraqi soldiers.

This smashed the last record set by a Briton Craig Harrison, who killed a Taliban soldier with a 338 Lapua Magnum rifle at a range of 8,120 feet(1.54 miles) in 2009.

A military source told The Globe and Mail the kill was verified by video, adding: ‘This is an incredible feat. It is a world record that might never be equalled.’

The third longest kill was by Canadian Corporal Rob Furlong, who shot down an Afghan insurgent from 7,972 feet(1.51 miles) in 2002 during Operation Anaconda.

And prior to that, Master Corporal Arron Perry hit a terrorist from 7579 feet. He was also Canadian and serving in the same operation.

The longest kill from a US sniper was done by sergeant Bryan Kremer, who hit an Iraqi insurgent at 7,546 feet(1.42 miles) with his Barrett M82A1 rifle in 2004.

McMillan no longer produces the Tac-50, now making the Tac-50 A1: 

If you are an American and have lots of money, you can buy that rifle, but you can’t buy the skill of that Canadian soldier, such men only fight for people like us. We, all of us in the west, have some problems in our leadership, but our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are the envy of the world. And they should be!

Like great societies before us, we may destroy ourselves, but it is moments like that achieved on the battlefield that define us, that tell our enemies just who they’re fighting, and keep them awake at night.

Mike’s Home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor, but he wrote about this at WOW Magazine.

Simply the best friends and neighbours, ever.


Then there is this, and it is one of the most disturbing stories I’ve read lately from The Right Scoop:

Europe sentences sick child TO DEATH rather than get treatment in the U.S.!

Here’s another face of socialized medicine that liberals don’t want you to see. A couple wanted to bring their sick child to the United States for a longshot treatment, but European authorities said, ‘NOPE, we’re just gonna pull the plug on the kid!’

From the Daily Mail:

The parents of terminally-ill baby Charlie Gard are ‘utterly distraught’ and facing fresh heartbreak after losing their final appeal in the European Court of Human Rights.

Chris Gard, 32, and Connie Yates, 31, wanted to take their 10-month-old son – who suffers from a rare genetic condition and has brain damage – to the US to undergo a therapy trial.

Doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children in London, where Charlie is being cared for, said they wanted him to be able to ‘die with dignity’.

But the couple, from Bedfont, west London, raised almost £1.4million so they could take their son to America but a series of courts ruled in favour of the British doctors.

How horrific is that? How is that “dignity” when the parents want to try to save him and they have the money?!

And yet the Europeans just love to brag about how great their health care is. 

It comes after specialists at Great Ormond Street said therapy in the US is experimental and will not help and added that life support should stop.

And after losing legal battles in the UK, Charlie’s parents were hoping judges in Strasbourg, France, would come to their aid.

But on Tuesday afternoon, the ECHR rejected a last-ditch plea and their ‘final’ decision means the baby’s life support machine will be switched off.

The ECHR announced the application to the court by the parents was ‘inadmissible’ and added that their decision was ‘final’.

Think about that for a while. This kid is brain damaged but we here in the US have a treatment that might allow him to live. It might fail, of course, but that is a risk the parents are willing to take, and they raised the money to make it happen. But a bunch of NHS doctors backed up by the British and European courts said “NO”. And so he will die. There’s more at the link, but as far as I’m concerned it’s simply one more person that the NHS is willfully murdering, and a fair indication of why Americans are so opposed to socialized medicine. Eugenics is never far behind.

May Charlie rest in peace and give his parents what comfort He can.

Excuse me while I go vomit through my tears.

[And an Update:] Daniel Payne wrote in The Federalist on the Roman Catholic Church’s statement on this matter. He was not impressed, nor was I. It was a waffle, contrived to let the secular authorities do as they want, disregarding the rights of Charlie and his family, something the Church professes to care about. And it always has. Part of the original attraction of Christianity back when it was known as The Way was that it didn’t kill unwanted infants. It is an outstanding article, do read it, for me, the money quote is this:

John Paul II was well aware of the ways in which governments can steal the legitimate authority of parents and families: in “Familiaris Consortio” he affirmed that “the church openly and strongly defends the rights of the family against the intolerable usurpations of society and the state.” One would imagine that one such “intolerable usurpation” would be a government denying two parents the right to try to save their baby boy’s life. And one would imagine that an institution entitled “the Pontifical Academy for Life” would recognize that.

The angels of death threaten the sanctity of human life

nilsson_rm_photo_of_20_week_fetusThis is something we see more overtly, in Europe than here, but we have the same forces here. And if we don’t keep guard, they will become even more overt, and to be honest, if we don’t hold the line, who will? By Niall McCrae writing in The Conservative Woman.

A compromise between individual rights and ethical safeguards, said Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau of forthcoming legislation to legalise assisted suicide. From a liberal stance, overturning time-honoured beliefs is inherently progressive, and while no political leader could afford to overlook the latent conservatism of the electorate, the direction of travel seems set.

Maybe that’s why, maybe it’s because I’m an American, where we wrote things down, long ago, that I don’t believe there is any, not any, room to compromise individual rights. We have always believed they came from God, even if European believe they come from the state, we know better than that. But many of our liberal friends don’t see it that way. Often it seems if they believe ‘the collective over all’.

From foetus to centenarian, existence is being determined not by grace but by instrumentalism: Most people are not callous, but the prevailing secular relativism and narcissistic culture have licensed people to put their own needs to the forefront:  the woman whose career may be disrupted by an unwanted child; the son who sees his frail father’s assets disappearing into the coffers of a private care home. The vulnerable are protected by the State and its systems of health and social care, one might think. But attitudes are changing, and influential voices have swayed opinion in the health professions, which have abandoned a clear position on preservation of life.  The long march through the institutions continues apace, and dark forces will surely triumph if good women do nothing.

Think of the fully-formed boy or girl, nestling in the womb. Cathy Warwick, leader of the Royal College of Midwives, has pledged the support of her association to the ‘We trust women’ campaign of Britain’s most prolific abortionist. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service wants decriminalisation of abortion at any stage of pregnancy. In response to the furore, Warwick asserted the purpose of the RCM as ‘advocate for women’. Yet as observed by Ann Widdecombe, this obfuscates the role and responsibility of midwives, whose dual concern is for the pregnant woman and her baby. Midwifery serves humanity, not a feminist campaign. […]

At the other end of life, older people are imperilled by the euthanasia lobby. Although Lord Falconer’s Bill was defeated in Parliament, there is certainly momentum towards legalising medically-assisted suicide, and many among the health professions support this. Such thinking is informed not only by widely reported cases of severe neurological disability, from which a fully cognisant sufferer seeks final relief. Some doctors and nurses are openly doubting the value of patient’s lives, particularly those of older people with terminal conditions (which could include everybody in their later years).

via Niall McCrae: The angels of death threaten the sanctity of human life – The Conservative Woman

Incidentally, one of the many reasons I opposed and still oppose Obamacare is on display here because I suspect it infects the thinking of medical personnel in Britain. It is undoubtedly cheaper to abort babies than to care for them, especially if they are likely to have what we euphemistically call, birth defects. It is also cheaper to quit feeding patients who seem unlikely to us to recover, or even where we cannot see what, if any, quality of life remains. I fail to see how that can possibly be something for us to judge.

The Hippocratic Oath has traditionally enjoined doctors to above all, “do no harm”, indisputably doctors have done harm over the years, but as we have learned, so have they, so they do less inadvertently. It would be a shame if they offset that by doing harm to people intentionally.

Niall mentioned Mathew Arnold’s poem Dover Beach, and its one of my favorites, so let’s end on a beautiful if still sad note.

The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth’s shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.
Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.
%d bloggers like this: