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.
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.
We’ve all seen it: Lefties, anarchists, so-called “liberals” and so on assaulting conservatives, whether on the streets, in restaurants, in gyms, whatever.
The toxicity of the resistance to President Trump has risen in recent days, with the nation’s most respected newspapers publishing rationalizations for denying Trump supporters public accommodation and for doxxing career federal employees, while a journalist found himself under physical attack from the so-called anti-fascist group Antifa, which has stepped up its violent activities since Trump’s election.
The justification for denying public accommodation came from the Washington Post in an op-ed by Stephanie Wilkinson, the owner of a farm-to-table restaurant in Lexington, Virginia. Wilkinson became famous in June of last year, when she refused to serve White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders and and told Sanders and her family to leave the restaurant. Wilkinson’s staff then followed the Sanders group in protest as they tried to find another place to eat.
Wilkinson later told the press she ejected Sanders because the Trump administration is “inhumane and unethical” and because the Red Hen “has certain standards that I feel it has to uphold, such as honesty, and compassion, and cooperation.”
Really?
“If you’re an unsavory individual,” Wilkinson concluded, “we have no legal or moral obligation to do business with you.” Better to stay home than risk the spittle. (In her new article, Wilkinson discussed the case of The Aviary, a trendy bar in Chicago where a waitress recently spat on Eric Trump, the president’s son.)
Sounds like the stakes are getting a little more serious — especially when the so-called “law enforcement” agencies are looking the other way.
But the real enablers here are the politicians and journalists who’ve championed Antifa, such as the CNN presenter Chris Cuomo, as well as the Portland authorities who have consistently turned a blind eye to the criminal behavior of the group. Indeed, Andy himself was assaulted by an Antifa activist at his gym last month and the Portland Police took no action. And he was punched in the stomach while covering an Antifa May Day protest in Portland while a police officer stood by and did nothing.
And here’s the real take:
Antifa fighters beat up and milkshaked Ngo, apparently because he was there and he was not on their side.
So “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” ? O-o-o-okay. Powerline puts it this way:
Liberals act as though they are spoiling for a civil war, or at least a slow-motion approximation thereof. Is that really what they want? Fighting in the streets? And, evidently, the restaurants? Do they have reason to think they would fare well if they actually got what they claim to want?
Just remember, assholes, when some Pantifa Pussy gets a .357 Mag bullet in the face for tossing a concrete-laced milkshake at someone — you started this bullshit, not us.
Escalation can come from both sides, after all.
That’s me, because I didn’t know about this phenomenon either:
So like anyone who is intellectually curious, I did a little research:
Now you can all be as educated as I am on the topic… no need for thanks, it’s all part of the service.
Oh, and the best thing about the bikini bridge? That fatass Kim Kardashian is never gonna have one.
Upon reading this lovely story, I was transported back to a time when advertising gave it to you straight and hard. But first, a quick excerpt:
Following outrage in the past couple of years over ads that were seen as toxic, the U.K. has responded by banning advertising that perpetuates negative stereotypes or equates physical attractiveness with social or romantic success. The elegant simplicity of this solution might leave us wondering, why hasn’t anyone thought to do this before?
Because until recently, society wasn’t in thrall to the Great Wokening, is why. So please indulge me as I hearken back to a time when everyone understood their roles in life.
Let’s not talk about the kiddies:
Not just ads, either:
…and even comics did the tongue-in-cheek thing:
And let’s hear it for product packaging and promises:
…and for energy and pick-me-ups:
And given that we’re celebrating Love-A-Homo/Trannie/Whatever Month, here’s my all-time favorite:
But let me not get nasty. One more good ‘un:
Like the title suggests: the good old days. I miss ’em. [eyecross]
Others may differ. I, however, have a sense of humor about this kind of thing.
After the Supreme Court punting on the topic of counting only U.S. citizens in the 2020 Census — what? — I was heartened to see this new development:
A high-profile conservative leader called Thursday for the impeachment of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. after he provided the crucial fifth vote in the Supreme Court decision heading off President Trump’s goal of including a question on citizenship on the 2020 census.
Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union and husband of top Trump White House aide Mercedes Schlapp, said the ruling showed the chief justice was not the conservative-minded jurist he’d been touted to be, noting his previous decision essentially preserving Obamacare.
“I’m for impeaching the chief justice for lying to all of us about his support of the Constitution,” Mr. Schlapp tweeted. “He is responsible for Robertscare and now he is angling for vast numbers of illegal residents to help Dems hold Congress. Enough Deception from GOP judges on the Constitution.”
Considering that most of the past censuses (censi, to be pedantic) in our history did in fact include the citizenship question, I guess I thought it would be a slam-dunk decision in favor of the measure.
And then came Roberts. Just as he did with fucking ObamaCare, he found some sliver of legal minutiae to enable him to vote on the side of the socialist USSC judges instead of with the traditionalist constructivists.
The hell with impeachment: warm up the tar and start plucking those geese…
