Giving In To The Commies

Dear President Trump,

“Doing something about guns” according to the wishes of the media would be an even grosser betrayal of your 2016 supporters than not building a wall along the southern border has been.

We all — even the media — know that “doing something” in this regard means, in essence, increasing control over law-abiding gun owners which will do nothing to solve crime of any sort.

I, and most gun owners who voted for you back in 2016, know that your efforts to build a wall were undercut by the Establishment Republicans and Democrats in Congress.  More ineffectual gun control legislation and the concomitant assaults on our Constitutional rights, however, will place at risk not only your chances of reelection in 2020, it will place the electoral success of the Republican senators and House legislators in a similar situation.

We are not fooled, and we will not be fooled, by the current demands to “do something”.  Try to convince us that you won’t be fooled either.

And yes, this is a warning.

Sincerely,

Kim du Toit

Not Gonna Happen

Over at PJM, ol’ Roger thinks our presidential campaigns are too long (I agree) and wants to do something about it:

How about postponing the campaign until Thanksgiving and allowing the country and Congress to go about their real business? The British manage their campaigns in only 60 days. Maybe we could squeeze it down to, say, 180.

While he makes some excellent points about the folly of long election campaigns, Roger falls into the liberal trap of wishful thinking.  Whenever some asswipe Lefty (i.e. all of them) makes some stupid proposal, the common response from conservatives is twofold:

  • “How are you gonna pay for it?” — OR —
  • “How are you going to do that, exactly ?”

To whit:  “Free health care for everybody” gets question #1 in response;  and “We’re going to come around to your house and take away your guns!” gets question #2.

The problem with trying to limit the length of presidential (or any) electoral campaigns is that we have that pesky Constitution, in the form of the First Amendment.

If it’s (say) a week before Thanksgiving and someone says, “When I’m president, I will…”, telling someone that “You’re not allowed to say that yet” would result in you getting your pee-pee severely whacked by the courts, and deservedly so.

The Brits get away with their 60-day election campaigns by simply banning election speeches and so on before the start date.  Try doing that in the U.S. of A., and a shit-storm will ensue.  We’re a free people, and if Governor Sextoy Butt-Plug (D) of Michigan wants to announce in 2019 that she’s going to run for the presidency in 2031, she’s perfectly within her rights.

I’m irritated by  the perpetual campaigning thing myself, but at the same time, the First Amendment is more important than my irritation.  Some people are frightened by guns, but the Second Amendment is more important than their trepidation.  That’s how the whole thing works, even if it is inconvenient sometimes.

Quote Of The Day

From Bearing Arms, after the first round of Great Clown Car Debates:

“Pro tip to Democrats: If Elizabeth Freaking Warren sounds like the voice of reason, it might be time to reevaluate your life choices.”

This after she was slammed for not embracing “Australia”-type gun control.

Robbing Peter To Pay Someone Else (TBD)

Now that the dust has settled from the first of the Clown Car Debates featuring the complete (so far) slate of Socialist presidential candidates for 2020, one fact has emerged:  the Socialists want to give everything away:  education, health care, cash, transport, forty acres and a mule… I think I got it all.

To which everyone with an IQ higher than the average refrigerator setting will be asking, “But how are they going to pay for all this free stuff?”

As always, one looks across the Pond for inspiration because the entrenched socialists Over There are full of “new” ideas.  Here’s one:

The Shadow Chancellor said he was interested in replacing the current levy with a ‘lifetime gifts tax’ on cash or homes given to children.
He claimed the plan, which the Tories say would affect 10 million households, could ensure ‘wealth is more fairly distributed’. At present, the inheritance tax threshold is £475,000, or £950,000 for couples. Only 640,000 households end up paying the tax each year.
But a lifetime gifts tax (LGT) would see each child paying tax on everything their parents gave them – either during their lives or after their deaths – above £125,000. The two children in a typical family would, therefore, only be able to inherit an estate worth £250,000 tax-free.
Once an individual exceeds the threshold, any further gifts would be taxed annually at income tax rates.

And if you think our home-grown Marxists wouldn’t consider a scheme like this, think again.

And as Thomas Sowell (PBUH) just turned 89 over the past weekend, what better reason to post this:

When non-sequiturs become policy, you’ll find a Marxist.

Interesting Thought

During one of those interminable Brexit / Remainer arguments in Britishland, one of the ripostes from a young Brexiteer was this priceless gem:

“The 17 million who voted for Brexit aren’t all angry, racist, 50+ year-old men.”

Which led me to a tangential question:  what if the 17 million who voted for Brexit were all angry, racist, 50+ year-old men?

In the broader sense of the thing, what happens when an “undesirable” group of people become the majority of the voting population?

Actually, we all know what happens, because we’ve seen it since late 2016.  What happens is that the once-entrenched “elites” — especially if said elites are on the Left side of the political spectrum — will try to overturn the election results.

In Europe (and more recently in post-Brexit U.K.) the Left resorts to re-running the elections until they get the result they wanted in the first place.  Hence the endless delays and negotiations involved in the Brexit debate, with all the obfuscations about “tax union”, “backstop” and all the other smokescreen terms used essentially to slow and eventually stop the process.

In the United States, the Left over the years has resorted to all sorts of underhand and illegal methods to get their desired result, such as trying to overturn the winner’s election through multiple recounts (Bush/Gore 2000 et al.), trying to get states’ electors to vote against the wishes of their voters (Trump/Clinton 2016), trying to undermine the winner’s election by asserting foreign collusion (Trump/Clinton 2016 again), or trying to pad the electoral rolls with illegal voters (every election in living memory).

All the above are a consequence of a group of people labeled by the Left as “undesirables” (clingers, flyover country voters, deplorables, angry old White men etc.) growing in number until they achieve an electoral majority.

What’s interesting in Britain is the emergence of a single-issue political party (the Brexit Party) which is draining voters away from both the Conservative and Labour parties and which will basically serve to enforce once and for all the desire of a majority of British voters to leave the European Union.  I am reliably informed that even a large number of people who originally voted to remain in the EU have become disgusted with the EU’s arrogance and bullying of Britain’s hapless PM Theresa May, and will change their vote in favor of Brexit if the Remainers manage to arrange another referendum on the topic.

That hasn’t happened Over Here.  There has been no hint of a third (TRUMP!) party to force the political establishment to follow the MAGA principles and policies.  Instead, the Socialist Democrats of the Left have wrenched the once-dominant Democrat party into the loony extreme-Left sliver of the political spectrum, and their lunacy has managed to drive not only moderate Democrats but also a large number of one-time Never-Trumpers (excepting some egregious hardliners) to coalesce into support behind the President and his policies — aided greatly, it should be said, by the massive surge of economic growth and the concomitant reduction of unemployment since Trump’s inauguration.  When one-time Leftist hardliners like Nancy Pelosi are now seen as the “voice of reason” in Congress, you have to realize that despite all the Left’s insult and invective, the country seems to have resolved itself not into three camps like the U.K., but into a near-supermajority of moderates and conservatives drawn from all socio-economic classes on one side, and a segment of extremist Marxists in a small (and still-shrinking) minority out on the other.  (This, by the way, is why the Democrat party — what’s left of it — is grasping so firmly at the amiable but forever unelectable Joe Biden as their “centrist” white knight, despite his eternal and unshakable catastrophic awfulness as a presidential candidate.)

None of this bodes well for the Left, by the way, especially as Trump — as he promised back in 2015/2016 — is populating the courts with Constitutionally-sound judges, a policy which will deny the Left their favorite method of undermining the popular will and even laws by a sympathetic judiciary.  (Had Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts not somehow transformed himself into an Anthony Kennedy “moderate”, the effect would have been greater still.)  When even the loony and oft-overturned Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is driven to support the President’s policies on topics such as immigration, you know the writing is on the wall.

Of course, none of this is written in concrete.  British voters may decide to split their votes between Brexit and Labour — thus dooming the Conservative Party to irrelevance (a fate, it should be said, that is richly deserved) — which may even bring that foul and unrepentant Communist Jeremy Corbyn to power at the head of a Labour government.  (The wealthier Brits can see that possibility all too clearly, by the way, and are making the necessary SHTF preparations.  Always follow the money.)

On this side of The Pond, things are equally uncertain.  Moderate (traditional) Democrats may refuse to vote rather than vote for Trump in 2020, and the traditional Black- and Hispanic voter blocs may yet vote for the “interest-group” party (Democrat) instead of voting for the man whose economic policies have allowed them to climb out of poverty in greater numbers than ever before.  (I know, it makes no sense to me either, but such is life.)  And just as most Brits are quailing at the thought of Prime Minister Corbyn, most Americans should be afraid of a President [deep breath]  Biden / Harris / Booker / Buttigieg / Warren / [add your favorite Dwarf’s name here].  We should also, as a nation, be afraid of the reelection  of House Reps Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib and Omar — to name but the three most egregious socialists — but with metro New York, urban Michigan and suburban Minneapolis / St. Paul, there’s no telling.

In Britain, there used to be a political party known as the Raving Loony Party (headed by the wonderful Screaming Lord Sutch) and in Canada there likewise used to be the Rhino Party (whose party manifesto stated that if elected to power, they would immediately resign and call for new elections).  Both parties gave voters a chance to vote for “none of the above” by virtue of their absurdity.  How interesting that the modern-day Democrats are trying to create such a party in the United States — but unlike the Raving Loonies and Rhinos, they  are actually deadly serious about putting their own policies into practice.

Over at samizdata.net, Andrew Douglas had this to say in Comments about the post referendum polity in the U.K.:

The only things we certainly know more about since the referendum are that neither the Conservative or Labour parties are to be trusted, the top echelons of the civil service are staffed by quislings and traitors, and the EU is an even less desirable place to remain than it was in 2016.

Substitute “Election 2016” for referendum, Republicans and Democrats for their respective British counterparts, leave the “civil service” part alone, and you have pretty much my opinion of our own polity.