Category: Politics

Trying not to start the public floggings

AWOL

Politics

It’s bad enough that FJB was a drooling idiot for what seems like his entire presidency, but when it’s one of our Texas gals… WTF is going on in Washington?

Rep. Kay Granger, the first Republican woman to represent a Texas district in the U.S. House of Representatives, has been found in a nursing home that specializes in memory care after having been missing from Congress for about six months.

Granger, 81, who was first elected to the House in 1996, and before that was the mayor of Fort Worth, has not cast a vote in Washington since July. Her absence had generated concern in her district, which is the Dallas-Ft. Worth metropolitan area, according to the New York Post.

She was found when a reporter at The Dallas Express got a tip that she had been staying at a memory care facility after being found wandering through her neighborhood while seemingly lost and confused.

FFS, and we could have elected someone errr fresher toot sweet if we’d learned about this back in July…

Somebody in the Republican party — Texas or Washington D.C. — needs to get their ass severely kicked, and it’s not Kay Granger.

Bad Dads, BAD Dads

Anti-Gun Nannies

Apparently, CNN (who?  I dunno, never heard of them either) seems to have a problem with Dads buying their kids guns for Christmas:

CNN began the article with a story of an Oregon dad, Paul Kemp, who bought a hunting rifle for his son, Nathan, when he turned 16 years old. Nathan had been hunting with his dad since he was 7 years old.

CNN then stated, “Parents looking to purchase a firearm for their child for the holidays have to balance their hopes for the gift with the risks that come with such a purchase, such as an accidental shooting, suicide or the gun being used in a crime.”

In an attempt to bolster their position, CNN said, “For example, the teenage school shooting suspects in Oxford, Michigan, and Winder, Georgia, allegedly used firearms they had received as Christmas gifts from their parents, and those parents have faced criminal charges.”

I don’t want to get into dueling statistics here, but I just wonder how many deaths have been caused by teenagers getting into road accidents with cars given them by their parents?

Never mind;  giving guns to our kids for Christmas is a tradition that goes back generations, as these few ads prove:

Of course, as the Left hates the very concepts of both tradition and the family with a passion, these would be seen as pure evil.

Me, I just wish we could see more of them, updated for today’s market.

And I absolutely love this one:

…because as any fule kno, every man should have owned at least one Mauser in his lifetime.

The Impossible Dream

Communication, Politics

Like many people, I’ve been amused by Leftists all over the U.S. squealing about how they need to combat “right-wing” podcasters like Joe Rogan by setting up competitive podcasts which express those views of the Left (as though the New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune,CNN, CSNBC, CBS, ABC and NBC weren’t sufficient outlets for Leftist agitprop  already).

Clifton Duncan has one such take on this silliness:

They can never build “their own Joe Rogan.” The notion is ridiculous–not just because it evinces their tendency toward top-down control, but because their cult renders intellectual, political and philosophical exploration outside of narrow ideological parameters impossible. These people have psychotic meltdowns, blacklist peers, and cut off relatives over politics. They’re incapable of empathizing with anyone outside their congregation. For all their fetishizing of credentials, their masturbatory exaltation of their educations, they’re violently allergic to intellectual curiosity–how on earth COULD they “build” their own Rogan, or a Lex Fridman, whose curiosity and openness are part of their brand?

Well, yes;  all that’s true, and more besides.

But beyond their genetic inability to create a competitive “voice” lies one inescapable truth:  they can create all the podcasts they want, but they’ll only ever generate an audience of a few hundred thousand people (roughly, the equivalent of the NYT subscription base and/or CNN’s viewership).

I remember when Rush Limbaugh died, the Left was ecstatic because, they thought, the field was now open for radio shows like the leftist Pacifica to capture the radio audience for the Left.

Never happened, did it?  Because most Americans don’t buy into their shit.  Want proof?  Of the top dozen or so talk radio shows in the U.S., Sean Hannity alone has just over 14 million weekly listeners, and a huge percentage of the talk show audience listens to the likes of Dan Bongino, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, Dana Loesch, Mike Gallagher, Glen Beck, Brian Kilmeade and Mike Berry at their various time slots during the day and night.  (You can’t combine them because there is considerable overlap in the conservative audience, who might listen to four, five or more shows during any given week.

The sole Left-wing radio host in the top dozen is Tom Hartmann (of Pacifica) whose midday show attracts some 7 million listeners per week, compared to his midday conservative competitors Dana Loesch and Dan Bongino, whose combined audience is more than double that, at nearly 17 million.

And just to be clear on the numbers:  Nielsen/Arbitron admits candidly that their numbers severely understate rural listenership, and always have.

Somehow, I suspect that farmers and country folk (mostly conservative) greatly outnumber any hippie communes out in the sticks.

So yeah, while the Left may have a systemic problem in putting together a non-traditional media voice, the principal reason they’re always going to fail is that Leftism per se  is hugely disliked by and abhorrent to the vast majority of Americans, FJB’s 81 million “voters” notwithstanding.  And the social adjuncts to Leftism (high taxes, gun control, uncontrolled illegal immigration, LGBTOSTFU and Big Government, to name but some) are each individually just as unpopular as Socialist government in toto.

Long may it ever be so.

Man-Crush

Anti-Gun Nannies, The Gun Thing

Could I love ArgyPres Milei any more already?  After setting about his benighted country’s entrenched bureaucracy with a chainsaw and getting their sclerotic economy to move in the upwards direction, we now have this:

The president of Argentina, Javier Milei, signed a decree this week lowering the minimum age required to purchase a firearm from 21 to 18 years old.  The decree asserts that the minimum age required for the acquisition and possession of firearms should coincide with the age of majority established by Argentine law of 18 years old.
…
“For years, no one was encouraged to make this decision. We did not hesitate. While we disarm narco-terrorist gangs and organized crime, we celebrate that good citizens can have access to weapons being Legitimate Users,” she continued. “Empty speeches are a thing of the past. In this Government, we are making the right of Argentines to protect themselves and live in freedom a reality.”

Of course, the Argies have a long way to go before they enjoy anything like our Second Amendment freedoms (see the article for details) but all journeys begin with a single step, or something.

Dumping The Heritage

Diplomacy, Internationalism, Politics

Here’s a rather bad-tempered article (kinda like the ones I sometimes write) about letting go of the past:

Events over the past months have exposed a very stark divide between the globalist, collectivist, “woke” authorities of Europe and the Make America Great Again (MAGA) patriot movement here in the United States. To be frank, it is almost as if the snide, effete elitists who control the nations of the European continent want to rub our noses in their horror show.

Let’s be frank. Europe would be a total basket case without American taxpayers, American troops, and American subservience to their ever more bizarre “culture.” Since Woodrow Wilson first fell for the globalist-line that somehow “the better people” could build a world government free of popular input, the citizens of the United States have been played as fools. Churchill’s constant pushing and cajoling led to the so-called “special relationship” that has come to mean Uncle Sucker picks up the tab, does the dirty work and then allows others to make decisions.
…
All of this was made clear when a recent article by Giovanna De Maio and Célia Belin in the publication, Foreign Affairs, appeared entitled Europe’s America Problem. To set the record straight, the magazine is owned and operated by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). CFR has been the leading voice for globalist ambitions since its founding in 1921. It is the voice of the very people the MAGA movement has identified as those working to destroy American sovereignty and submerge us into a swamp.

Europe as advanced by the globalists at CRF, NATO, the Atlantic Council and the European Union (EU) is unalterably opposed to the core principles of the United States.  Even a cursory review shows them to outright enemies of liberty.

And then Wilson catalogues the list of atrocities:  (non-)freedom of speech;  extra-national prosecution of those daring to exercise such;  preventing the U.S. from supporting its own economic interests, yea even though that might affect those of other nations (gasp!);   preventing the U.S. from ignoring the utter fraud of “climate change” and its baleful bastard child Net Zero, and so on.  (Of their position on right of citizens to keep and bear arms, of course, we will not speak.)

Wilson asks the question, quite reasonably, that if the Euros are doing all this despite being essentially a welfare state propped up by U.S. taxpayers’ dollars, why should the U.S. play ball?

I think the answer is going to manifest itself, certainly over the next few years and maybe even longer as the next U.S. Administration and Congress take a long hard look at a cost : benefit analysis of our relationship with the Mother Country, so to speak.  And I don’t think the Euros are going to like the results of that analysis, and the actions that follow.

There was a time when the U.S. might have been prepared to bail the Euros out of the crap they got themselves in — two world wars and a cold one being good examples thereof — but that doesn’t mean the commitment is eternal:  not much is, in the realm of global politics.

And if the Euros seem intent as they are to drag us down with them, it would be foolish to go along with them because of such anachronisms like a “Special Relationship” or even historical ties.  I think that by now we have amply paid back our debt to France for the 1776 business, for one thing, and we sure as shit owe nothing to the Germans and other assorted malcontents.

I do expect, however, that we might well continue to do good business with countries such as Poland and Hungary, because they seem to be as skeptical as we are about the intentions of the EU.  Others might follow suit, of course, but not as long as they subscribe to the internationalist bullshit coming out of the WCC, UN, EU and similar institutions.

Yes, our fabled patience, forbearance and tolerance is wearing thin right now, and the Euros would do well not to make things worse with empty threats.

Alliances And Such

Politics

I see that the French government has collapsed, for what seems the umpteenth time.  Coming hard on the heels of the German government’s problems, there is of course a common thread:  both were coalition governments, where two (of the many) political parties — some with diametrically-opposed platforms — decided to create an alliance to govern the country.  Both, of course, were doomed to fail, especially, as in the case with the Frogs, that the opposition party, the much-reviled Front National (or National Front, in English) was almost as large as either of the two melded parties, so the non-confidence vote brought by the FN needed only the support of one of the coalition parties to topple the government.  (The fact that the coalition, cobbled together simply to prevent the FN from assuming power, was always doomed to fail except in the minds of the idiots with the anti-FN mindset.)

I’ve often spoken with Americans who think that our two-party system is flawed, in that each party is often riven by various key issues which actually find favor with a small (or large) proportion of the other one.  Abortion, for example, is one such issue:  where there may be a small minority of pro-abortion politicians in the Republican Party whose ideology thereof is closer to a majority of abortion supporters over on the Evil Side of the room.  The problem, of course, is that these are generally single issues, around which it would be impossible to form, say, a Pro-Abortion Party to be pitted against an Anti-Abortion Party.  Ditto the Greens, ditto guns, ditto Trump, etc. etc.

Honestly, while our current two-party system is not ideal, it sure is better than the European multi-party.  Small, contained chaos around single issues is, I think, far preferable to the systemic instability of a multi-party system, almost without regard to the relative merits of their various  positions.

I should also point out that a fragmented polity is generally vulnerable to external threats or danger — witness the chaos of the French Third Republic in the 1930s, which in no small part enabled France’s crushing defeat by Nazi Germany in 1940.  (A sizeable proportion of Frenchmen, and their parties, actually welcomed the prospect of a strong national government on the lines of Hitler’s Nazi Germany or Mussolini’s Fascist Italy, simply because they were sick of dealing with the decades-long chaos of multi-party politics and weakness.)

In passing, imagine there was a single-issue party named, oh, the Anyone But Trump Party in our polity (composed of both Democrats and Republicans), and toss that into the standard Democrat/Republican mix.

Ugh.  If you can see only chaos resulting from that little political soup, then you’ll understand the European situation.