Good Question

Over There, Richard Littlejohn asks the question:

Why do Americans care more about Britain than Labour?

On everything from Net Zero and defence to immigration and crime, they make a great deal more sense than most of the Westminster Bubble’s arrogant, out-of-touch political class.

The latest was a report from the US State Department accusing Britain of backsliding on human rights – especially freedom of speech and the frightening rise in anti-Semitism.

First out of the blocks was Vance with his damning speech in February, not just about the erosion of civil liberties but the contempt for popular democracy among the political elite.

Addressing his remarks to Europe as a whole and Britain in particular, he said: ‘No one on this continent went to the ballot box to open the floodgates to millions of unvetted immigrants.

‘But you know what they did vote for? In England, they voted for Brexit. And agree or disagree, they voted for it.’

As Trump warned on his recent visit to Scotland, if we don’t get a grip on immigration we’re not going to have a country any more. Who, outside of the far-Left and the yuman rites brigade, could argue with that?

The President has also ordered the National Guard to take back control of the streets of Washington, America’s capital city.

In London, the police have withdrawn from the streets, leading to a surge in stabbings, shoplifting and violent phone thefts. How many people in our capital city would object to a few squaddies on the streets if it crushed crime and saved lives?

Trump reserves some of his harshest criticism for Britain’s suicidal Net Zero nosedive. He maintains that our War Of The Worlds windmills, as well as being a hideous blot on the landscape, are the ‘worst form of energy, the most expensive form of energy’.

And he simply can’t fathom why Labour refuses to exploit our vast reserves of oil and gas, which would produce great wealth for the country, support tens of thousands of jobs and slash energy bills.

As for the “why?” part of the question, it’s quite simple.  Despite all the efforts of Leftists on both sides of the Pond to sabotage the Special Relationship between us, I believe that many Murkins still feel some vestiges of affection to the Old Country.

And why not?  We inherited the concepts of parliamentary government and of human rights, to name but two, from Britain.  We share a common language and many cultural ties (once again, despite efforts of the Left to destroy them).  These are not small things;  they are the ties that bind.

But it pains us to see that despite that shared heritage of, say, free speech, we see British police arresting people for posting “anti-social” statements or “hate speech” on the Internet.

Of private ownership of guns, we will not speak — even though that same concept is a key part of why Americans aren’t being arrested for posting “anti-social” statements or “hate speech” on the Internet.

So, as I say so often on these pages, we look on happenings in the UK with something approaching dread, because we ask:  if the famously-tolerant Brits allow this shit to happen to themselves, why could it not happen Over Here too?

Back in the 1940s, Americans supported Britain in their war against tyranny.  Nowadays?  If Russia invaded Western Europe and the UK, I’m not so sure we’d raise a finger to help them.  Why should we, when those shared ties of freedom have been tossed aside unilaterally?

Never Justified

I see that someone in the Golden Shower State has come to their senses:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate Thursday overturning California’s “one-gun-a-month” restriction.

The Second Amendment Foundation noted the “one-gun-a-month” restriction allows law-abiding citizens to purchase only one handgun or semi-automatic centerfire rifle (or combination thereof), from a licensed dealer within a 30-day period.

Here’s the thing about this ridiculous law.

Quite apart from its prima facie  Constitutional illegality, the 30-day restriction just makes absolutely no sense — I mean, what are they trying to achieve (other than a broad restriction, of course)?  Are they trying to stop someone from arming a group or gang? (I know, nonsensical.)

As with all laws like this, it should be looked at as part of a whole.  What is intended is to make a thicket of laws like this so that the breaking thereof becomes an inevitability — and the side-benefit (to the anti-gunners) is that the people most likely to fall foul of this nonsense would be gun owners.  (We always talk about lawful or law-abiding gun owners, but what we sometimes forget is that to the anti-gun set, all gun owners are evil, and not just the criminals.)

Anyway, it’s gone away, and good riddance.  Best of all is that because of this ruling, it’s going to apply to any and all other states who have similar nonsense in their raft of laws;  and all that’s left is for the SAF guys bring suit in each of them.

Go to it, guys.


Side note:  I have more than one friend who won’t give money to any gun lobbying group like the NRA or even GOA.  But they give lots to the Second Amendment Foundation because Alan Gottlieb and his guys are doing the work where it matters most:  in the courts.

Think about it.

The “Revolution” Fails

It is, as they say, to laugh:

As predicted, the Texas Democrat legislators who fled to blue states to deny a quorum for redistricting have folded. Still, I’m not sure anyone expected them to fold this soon. 

According to ABC News, the runaways who claimed to be saving “democracy” are heading back to their home state early, claiming to have accomplished their goal of raising “awareness” about gerrymandering. That’s a very polite way of saying they failed miserably.

Yep.  This time, TXGov Abbott wasn’t messing around.

The pressure campaign put forth by Republicans was effective. That included stopping direct deposits of paychecks and promising to call multiple special sessions to keep these Texas Democrats stranded in blue states indefinitely unless they returned to provide a quorum. They were also incurring daily fines. That all started to add up for the legislators who aren’t independently wealthy, and it was just a matter of time before the donor class got tired of funding a dead end. You also have to factor in time away from family members. None of it was ever sustainable. 

But still they did it, acting like naughty little children.  And now that their beau geste  (LOL) has failed, they’re crying like little children at their failure.

Even better, the redistricting move in Texas is going to take place, was always going to take place despite all the foot-stamping and pouting.

Feckless idiots.

Self-Evident

From some guy in Arizona who gets the idea (of the Second Amendment):

Arizona state Rep. Quang Nguyen (R) used an X post to warn that an American citizenry devoid of guns would soon be a citizenry without freedom of speech and property rights too.

He noted that the Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms” is the one which upholds and protects all the other freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights. A disarmed citizenry would put in jeopardy the ability to control one’s own property, hedged in by the Third Amendment, as well the freedom to exercise rights to privacy and security, hedged in by the Fourth Amendment.

Nguyen warned that, “A disarmed populace is more vulnerable to censorship, unlawful search and seizure, and political oppression.”

Yup, we all know that, but thankee for re-stating the point, sir.

Now here’s a graphic illustration of a non-Second Amendment society:

Never confront burglars. They could be armed. They could be high on drugs. You don’t know anything about them, except that they are in your home. And you want them out.

But don’t just lie there terrified, praying that they won’t come into your bedroom.

The law allows a householder to act in self-defense. But prowling the house is not self-defense. And keeping a weapon by your bed implies premeditated intention to commit assault.

Burglars are not looking for a fight. They just want your valuables, probably so they can sell them to get money for drugs or drink. These days, with so many young people carrying knives or machetes, it’s increasingly likely that an intruder will be armed. But even so, if you go on the attack, the law will label you as the assailant.

Well, maybe.  Maybe the burglar just wants to get your stuff.  On the other hand, maybe your stuff is not what he’s after;  he’s after your life, your wife’s life (or body), your daughter’s life (or body) or your son’s life (or body).  We can debate the point forever, but the plain fact is that the criminal’s motives are unknown to everyone except him.

We — that is, our politicians as well as the public — are aware of that fact, but it appears the British have willfully chosen to bury their heads in the sand.

And the reason that their law is more on the side of the criminal than the victim is, quite simply, because the people have been systematically disarmed by the government, so the government gets to make the decisions on behalf of the public, with the result that the nation of once-Great Britain has been turned into a nation of victims.

Thanks, but no thanks.  We’ve seen what’s happened Over There, and we want no part of it.

We uncultured rubes on this side of The Pond prefer to turn criminals into victims.  And we have the law on our side.

Moron Move

Published: August 4, 2025 2:10pm

Trump to withhold disaster aid from cities, states that boycott Israel

Published: August 4, 2025 5:59pm

Trump admin drops Israel boycott conditions from disaster aid guidance after intense backlash

I should hope so.

It would be difficult to find a more staunch supporter of Eretz Israel than I am.  But here’s a pro tip for all politicians — and in this case, especially for The Donald:

Disaster aid is not a fucking bargaining chip.

When a flood strikes a small town in Tennessee or Arkansas, the very last thing that these wretched people should have to think about as they’re sitting on their rooftop about is their state government’s attitude towards a country on the other side of the Earth.

This was a moron move, reflected by how quickly the idea was reversed.

And as for POTUS:  start thinking before you open your yap.  We did not elect you to do this kind of bullshit.  America first;  all other countries (including Israel) can fall second, or third, or fourth.

Tricksies & Accomplices

From Reader Mike S., news of this little reindeer game:

Well, yes… except:

Attorney General Ken Paxton has also called for fleeing Democrats to be arrested and offered his office’s services in “hunting down and compelling the attendance of anyone who abandons their office” by breaking quorum.

And as Reader Mike points out, the last time these assholes tried this, they were tracked down in their little out-of-state hidey-holes by the Texas Rangers, arrested and brought back to Austin.

Maybe they could go to Cuba.  They’d fit right in, especially that Commie bitch Crockett — and by the way:  that “war chest” of hers?  It’s against the law to use campaign funds in this manner.

Should be fun.  And the gerrymandered districts are going to be redrawn eventually, anyway.

Idiots.