Category Archives: Politics

Welcome Zuckerberg to the Fight and Watch Your Back

Posted on by
7

Quote of the Day

In his exclusive interview with Fox News on Tuesday, Meta’s chief global affairs officer, Joel Kaplan, admitted that the Trump election changed the situation for the technology company: “We have a new administration coming in that is far from pressuring companies to censor and [is more] a huge supporter of free expression.”

It is a chilling statement if one thinks of what might have happened if Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, arguably the most anti-free speech ticket in history, had won. The suggestion is that the new spring at Meta would have turned into a frozen tundra for free speech.

Around the world, free speech is in a free fall. Speech crimes and censorship have become the norm in the West. A new industry of “disinformation” experts has commoditized censorship, making millions in the targeting and silencing of others. An anti-free speech culture has taken root in government, higher education, and the media. 

We will either hold the line now or lose this indispensable right for future generations. Zuckerberg could make this a truly transformative moment but it will take more than a passing meta-culpas.

We need Zuckerberg now more than ever. 

So, with that off my chest, I can get to what I have longed to say: Mr. Zuckerberg, welcome to the fight.

Jonathan Turley
January 7, 2025
Meta’s Zuckerberg makes a free speech move that could be truly transformational

The whole DEI industry has essentially collapsed. Gun laws changes seem painfully slow. But in reality, they are falling in numbers and speed not experienced in at least the last 100 years. Free speech may be experiencing a resurrection as well.

I welcome Zuckerberg to the fight too. But I’m also going to watch my back.

They, in the Form of the State, are God.

Posted on by
3

Quote of the Day

The claim leftists make that their policies work for the ‘greater good’ requires a godlike perspective that views all ends and weighs all outcomes.

It’s a claim to divinity that the left are very comfortable with.

They, in the form of the State, are God.

Alice Smith (@TheAliceSmith)
Tweeted on September 23, 2022

You can see the truth of this in the actions of Stalin and other communist dictators. But you don’t need to look that deep into history or to other continents. This is Bill Clinton:

In a post-State of the Union speech in Buffalo, NY on January 20, 1999, Bill Clinton was asked why not a tax cut if we have a surplus. Clinton’s response:
“We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right… But … if you don’t spend it right, here’s what’s going to happen. In 2013 — that’s just 14 years away — taxes people pay on their payroll for Social Security will no longer cover the monthly checks… I want every parent here to look at the young people here, and ask yourself, ‘Do you really want to run the risk of squandering this surplus?’ “
Source: Washington Times, January 21, 1999

They sincerely believe they know how to spend your money better than you do. You see it not only in the banning of the most popular type of guns in this country. You see it in the regulation of healthcare, transportation, industry, and even the toys of your children.

Also, FYI, I can find enough material in one day of Smith’s X feed to supply my QOTD posts for a week.

Liberty and Equality are Mutually Exclusive

Posted on by
2

Quote of the Day

Liberty and equality are mutually exclusive, even hostile concepts. Liberty, by its very nature, undermines social equality, and equality suppresses liberty – for how else could it be attained?

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn @AI_Solzhenitsyn
January 8, 2025
Posted on X

Those advocating for equality of outcomes are advocating for the destruction of liberty. And as I have said before:

Full equality can only be approximated by everyone being in extreme poverty. Full equality comes with death. And it should come as no surprise the political left is well acquainted with death on a very large scale.

We Need to Raise Awareness and Respect

Posted on by
4

Quote of the Day

The prohibited person’s access to the firearm was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken.

HOUSE BILL 1152
State of Washington 69th Legislature, 2025 Regular Session
January 2, 2025

See also: Gun owners could be charged with felonies if firearm gets stolen under new proposed bill.

These criminals* are trying to remove the above “does not apply if” clause from the safe storage law. The safe storage law is already bad enough and probably going to be struck down as being unconstitutional. But now, if a prohibited person unlawfully enters your home or vehicle, steals your firearm(s), then you become a criminal. You have committed a misdemeanor as soon as the criminal gains access. If they use them in a felon crime, you can also be changed with a felony.

If you have the firearm(s) “properly” stored in your vehicle then that does not apply. But “properly stored” means:

(a) A person shall not store or leave a pistol in any vehicle unless (i) the pistol is stored unloaded in a container that is opaque, locked, hard-sided, and affixed within the vehicle, (ii) the container is concealed from view from outside the vehicle, and (iii) the vehicle is locked.

(b) A person shall not store or leave a rifle or shotgun in any vehicle unless (i) the rifle or shotgun is stored unloaded in a container that is opaque, locked, hard-sided or soft-sided, and affixed within the vehicle, (ii) the container is concealed from view from outside the vehicle, and (iii) the vehicle is locked.

(c) A rifle or shotgun stored in a soft-sided container in a vehicle in accordance with this subsection must also have a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm installed on the rifle or shotgun while the firearm is stored in a soft-sided container.

(d) For the purpose of this subsection, a hard-sided container excludes a glove compartment or center console but includes a console vault or other container specifically designed to securely store firearms.

So, they want to make is so you must have handgun and long gun cases affixed in your vehicles. Otherwise, you could not stop to pick up some ammo as you left town on a hunting trip. And unless you carry your competition gun into the store to grab a case of water on your way to a match you risk becoming a criminal.

They have zero concern for this blatant violation of the Second Amendment. We need some prosecutions to raise awareness and respect.

I look forward to their trials.

* Representatives Doglio, Walen, Ryu, Ramel, Farivar, Berry, Leavitt, Alvarado, Mena, Duerr, Reed, Parshley, Fitzgibbon, Callan, Macri, Cortes, Obras, Gregerson, Simmons, Peterson, Rule, Street, Goodman, Wylie, Pollet, Nance, Berg, Davis, Ormsby, Lekanoff, Fosse, Salahuddin, Hill, and Tharinge.

A Cure for My Nightmares

Posted on by
4

Quote of the Day

Despite Congress not funding removal of disabilities for over three decades, ATF’s regulation (27 C.F.R. § 478.144) remains on the books with the procedure for filing and processing a petition to remove disabilities. (The regulation states that relief will not be granted if the applicant is prohibited from gun possession by the state law where he resides, but that is invalid because § 925(c) imposes no such condition for relief from the federal disability.) If the petition is denied, § 925(c) entitles the applicant to file a petition for judicial review in which new evidence may be admitted. That provides a check on abusive agency action.

The ball is in Congress’s court to restore funding. Otherwise, given the circuit split, it is likely that the Supreme Court will step in to resolve this issue soon.

Stephen Halbrook
January 13, 2025
Second Amendment Roundup: Circuit Conflict in Felon Gun Ban Cases

Having a path for convicted felons to regain their gun rights is not something I consistently advocate for. But it is important. Three Felonies a Day comes to mind.

Beyond that is the GCA 68 definition of a prohibited person includes those, “.. Under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” This includes people were convicted as a juvenile.

One of my nightmare scenarios is that small children are convicted of a “felony.” This happens routinely. It could occur for crying in public or some such thing. Then, because everyone is a convicted felon, the Second Amendment does not have be repealed. A total ban on individual gun ownership is achieved without infringing the Second Amendment.

Yes, it is ridiculous, but nightmares are not constrained to reality. And then look at the “Red Flag” laws and domestic abuse restraining orders being used to nullify Second Amendment rights. Reality and nightmares are not that divergent.

The Range v. Attorney General case is a good first step to eliminating a large set of my bad dreams.

A Sporting Purpose Baby Step

Posted on by
18

Quote of the Day

U.S. Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho) today introduced the Sporting Firearms Access Act to stop the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) from arbitrarily blocking imports of firearms and ammunition.

The Sporting Firearms Access Act clarifies the definition of “sporting purposes” used by the ATF to regulate import of firearms into the U.S. The new definition would recognize firearms and ammunitions used for activities such as hunting, target shooting, and competitions. Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, firearms and ammunition can only be imported if the ATF recognizes it as being suitable for “sporting purposes.” Ambiguity in the law has allowed the ATF to arbitrarily deny imports of firearms by U.S. customers and businesses.

James E. Risch
January 4, 2025
Risch Leads Bill to Block ATF’s Ability to Deny Firearm, Ammunition Imports – Press Releases – James E Risch, U.S. Senator for Idaho

While I think this bill does not go nearly far enough, it is an unexpected gift.

What I want to know, is where does the 2nd Amendment say only sporting firearms are protected? At a minimum, firearms used for self-defense should be protected. And the real threshold for protection should be, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!“

Yes, the ATF have been running roughshod over imports. Their absurd definition of “sporting” means little more than hunting rifles and shotguns. So, this is an improvement. I’ll clench my teeth a little. Nonetheless, I will thank Senator Risch for a baby step in the correct direction.

Progressive Currency: Violence and Sex

Posted on by
7

Quote of the Day

Progressives fixate on genitalia and sex because that’s the only currency they have. No matter how diseased or obese a progressive is, there’s someone out there willing to copulate with it.

regular guy @regularguyguns
Posted on X, January 25, 2024

A little something different for Markley’s Law Monday.

This was in the context of a now deleted post on X of a Markley’s Law example. While it is not an example of Markley’s Law, he asserts he knows why they use penis insults. I think that, at best, he is only partially correct.

First, I would not say that is the only currency they have. They also have violence.

Violence is even more widely “traded” by their ilk than the sex. Nearly all mass shooters are democrats/liberals/progressives. And then there was Comrade Stalin – Leader of Progressive Mankind.

I further assert their “trade” in violence is a major reason they want to ban guns for ordinary people. They want to freely “trade” in this preferred currency of theirs. Gun owners impose a rather high “tax” on its use.

I also assert there are multiple reasons for the sexual insults. But the main reason is because these insults would be particularly hard hitting to them.

Equity Via the Los Angeles Fires

Posted on by
9

Quote of the Day

Amidst all of the condemnation of Gavin Newsom, Karen Bass and the rest of California’s Democrat/DEI leadership, we need to give credit where credit is due.

They succeeded brilliantly in bringing equity to Los Angeles.

Now, billionaire movie stars enjoy the same living conditions as the rest of California’s homeless population.

Good job guys, you have achieved “equity”! Yay!

Cynical Publius @CynicalPublius
Posted on X, January 11, 2025

While this is worth a smile and probably a laugh, they have not really achieved equity.

At last count I read, there were only 11 people that achieved total equity. It has been a good try. However, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and other communists set the bars for lifetime achievement awards much higher.

Conservatives are Not Human

Posted on by
6

Quote of the Day

This is the attitude that lost the election. They will not compromise they will not convert they will not be human. They must be defeated – and any chance to bruise or batter them psychologically must be exploited

Keith Olbermann
Posted on X, January 8, 2025

This is the X post Olbermann was replying to:

See also: Keith Olbermann Sinks to a New Low, Says Conservatives Suffering in Wildfire Disaster are Not ‘Human’

I know someone who hosted a party to celebrate the death of Rush Limbaugh. I also know someone who told me they would celebrate the death of President Trump.

This is what they think of you. They want you dead.

Try to heal the division, but prepare appropriately.

Change of Character or Political Wind?

Posted on by
9

Quote of the Day

After Trump first got elected in 2016, the legacy media wrote nonstop about how misinformation was a threat to democracy.

…

We tried in good faith to address those concerns without becoming the arbiters of truth, but the fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created, especially in the U.S.

Mark Zuckerberg
January 7, 2025
Zuck Finds His Spine

See also Mark Zuckerberg was right to fire Facebook’s rogue fact-checkers:

These changes are wildly positive. It’s also heartening that Zuckerberg seems to understand precisely what had gone wrong, and why: The company made attempts to satisfy both mainstream media institutions and even government agencies, particularly when it came to controversial political topics like COVID-19. What moderators soon discovered is that this is impossible; there is no end to the amount of speech suppression that is desired by censorship-inclined entities. Politicians in both parties dragged Zuckerberg before the U.S. Congress to answer for a vast array of alleged sins—the end of democracy, the abuse of children, tensions with Russia, and more.

What unites legacy media institutions with politically motivated speech hunters in government is growing frustration over their own loss of control with respect to guardrails of acceptable speech. Thanks to social media, these guardrails scarcely exist; by inveighing constantly against Facebook, the old guard hoped to re-install them.

I read a thread someplace. Perhaps it was on X. It seemed that both Democrats and Republicans were throwing “rotten vegetables” at him over this announcement. Those on the political left are saying he is a sellout. He is just doing this to avoid being on the wrong side of Hitler. People on the right were saying they don’t trust him and the change comes much too late.

I am cautiously optimistic. But I won’t give them any significant trust until we are a couple years into a Democrat presidency. I need to see them on good behavior regardless of which direction the political winds are blowing.

A Step Toward Machine Gun Competitions in High Schools

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Mr. Burlison is also introducing legislation to repeal the 1934 National Firearms Act, which taxes, registers, and restricts gun owners.

Kerry Picket
January 7, 2025
GOP lawmakers introduce legislation to abolish ATF – Washington Times

See also GOP Congress Targets ATF, Even Introduces Legislation to Make Machine Gun Ownership Legal Without Special Paperwork.

The headline is concerned with abolishing the ATF. Slinking into view with a single low-key sentence is a WMD against Federal gun laws.

I think it is unlikely to pass on its own this year and or even the foreseeable future. But if Musk and Ramaswamy trim two trillion from the budget via the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), then I could see the ATF and the NFA as part of the eliminated waste.

This would result in my vision of seeing machine gun competitions in high schools by 2032 being realized.

Practice Being a Non-Conformist.

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Often it’s perfectly fine to blindly follow rules and guidelines, but sometimes, every once in a while, it can permit atrocities to happen: from cruel conspiracies against that one person in your friend group who’s a little different all the way up the scale to genocidal actions. So it’s absolutely vital to be able to think about the norms we follow, and, from time to time, to break the less useful ones just to make sure we still can. We need to practice non-conformity to make sure we can do it when we need to. It’s always wise to take a minute to think, ‘Do I really agree with this, and could it harm anyone?’ before acting. 

Marie Snyder
January 2, 2025
Stand Out: How to Prevent Obeying in Advance – 3 Quarks Daily

Via email from Chris M.

Following this advice is tougher than you think. This behavior extends from seemly insignificant curiosities to the mind boggling horrific.

For example. Turn off all the lights in a room and shine a light through a pin hole in a wall. Ask the group of people in the room to report which direction the light is moving. After discussing it, they will agree the stationary light is moving and the direction of that movement.

We have examples from the other end of the scale as well. Virtually no one in a group will use their shovel to attack their murderers. This is true even if they are knowingly digging their own graves. Everyone else is digging, so the individual conforms to the norm.

Practice being a non-conformist. It may save your life and/or the lives of thousands or even millions of others.

Interesting Perspective

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

As I witnessed the despair and incomprehension of liberals worldwide after Donald Trump’s victory in November’s U.S. presidential election, I had a sinking feeling that I had been through this before. The moment took me back to 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down, signaling the beginning of the end of Soviet Communism and the lifting of the Iron Curtain that had divided Europe since the end of World War II. The difference was that the world that collapsed in 1989 was theirs, the Communists’. Now it is ours, the liberals’.

…

 Living through such moments in history teaches one many things, but the most important is the sheer speed of change: People can totally alter their views and political identity overnight; what only yesterday was considered unthinkable seems self-evident today. The shift is so profound that people soon find their old assumptions and choices unfathomable.

…

Trump captured the public imagination not because he had a better plan for how to win the war in Ukraine or manage globalization, but because he understood that the world of yesterday could be no more. The United States’ postwar political identity has vanished into the abyss of the ballot box. This Trump administration may succeed or fail on its own terms, but the old world will not return. Even most liberals do not want it back.

Ivan Krastev
January 3, 2025
Why Liberals Struggle to Cope With Epochal Change

I found this very interesting. I’m not sure I agree with it. I’m not even sure I understand it. But it certainly gives me some food for thought.

During the first quick reading, I was seeing the collapse of Marxism as being inevitable. The U.S. version was less deadly than the Soviet version and the collapse less disruptive. The replacement with a freer society is inevitable.

On the second, more careful reading, Krastev sees a darker future for the U.S. This is the part I don’t really buy. But prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future*. So, who really knows?

* Quote Origin: It’s Difficult to Make Predictions, Especially About the Future – Quote Investigator®

Ninth Circuit Court Scolded by One of its Own

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

And to paraphrase James Madison, if judges were angels, nothing further would need be said. But unfortunately, however else it might be described, our court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence can hardly be labeled angelic. Possessed maybe—by a single-minded focus on ensuring that any panel opinions actually enforcing the Second Amendment are quickly reversed. The majority of our court distrusts gun owners and thinks the Second Amendment is a vestigial organ of their living constitution. Those views drive this circuit’s caselaw ignoring the original meaning of the Second Amendment and fully exploiting the discretion inherent in the Supreme Court’s cases to make certain that no government regulation ever fails our laughably “heightened” Second Amendment scrutiny.

…

Until the Supreme Court forces our court to do something different than balance our view of the utility of some firearm product or usage against the government’s claimed harm from its misuse, the Second Amendment will remain essentially an ink blot in this circuit.

Lawrence VanDyke
Ninth Circuit US Circuit Judge
November 30, 2021
DUNCAN V. BONTA No. 19-55376

Via Chuck Petras @Chuck_Petras -> Kostas Moros @MorosKostas -> Google…

SCOTUS needs to exercise force.

Their Goal is not Public Safety.

Posted on by

The slim ball politicians in Washington State are continuing their assault on gun owners and dealers with HOUSE BILL 1132 which reads in part:

A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:
(1)(a) A dealer may not deliver more than one firearm to a purchaser or transferee within any 30-day period.

(b) A dealer may not deliver more than 100 rounds of .50 caliber ammunition or more than 1,000 rounds of any other caliber of ammunition to a purchaser or transferee within any 30-day period.

(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to any of the following:

(a) Any general authority Washington law enforcement agency or limited authority Washington law enforcement agency as those terms are defined in RCW 10.93.020;

(b) Any correctional facility as defined in RCW 72.09.015;

(c) Any private security company as defined in RCW 18.170.010;

(d) Any federal peace officer, general authority Washington peace officer, or limited authority Washington peace officer who as a normal part of the officer’s duties has arrest powers and carries a firearm, as those terms are defined in RCW 10.93.020, and is obtaining firearms or ammunition for law enforcement purposes;

(e) The criminal justice training commission;

(f) Any federal firearms dealer, federal firearms importer, or dealer, as those terms are defined in RCW 9.41.010, who is obtaining firearms or ammunition for resale;

(g) Any person who may, pursuant to RCW 9.41.113(4), claim an exemption from the background check requirements of RCW 9.41.113;

(h) The exchange of a firearm where the dealer sold that firearm to the person seeking the exchange within the 30-day period immediately preceding the date of exchange or replacement;

(i) The return of any firearm to its owner;

(j) The receipt of firearms by a person who acquires possession of the firearms by operation of law upon the death of the former owner who was in legal possession of the firearms, provided the person in possession of the firearms can establish such provenance. Receipt under this subsection is not “distribution” under this chapter;

(k) Any private party transaction where the seller is, at the time of the transaction, required under state law or by court order to relinquish all firearms;

(l) Any private party transaction where the seller is any of the following:

(i) The personal representative of a decedent’s estate who is transferring the firearm to one or more heirs or beneficiaries of the decedent’s estate pursuant to the decedent’s will or the laws of intestate succession;

(ii) The holder of the decedent’s property who is transferring the firearms pursuant to RCW 11.62.010 to the successor of the decedent, as defined in RCW 11.62.005, or the surviving spouse of the decedent pursuant to RCW 11.04.015; or

(iii) The trustee of a trust who is transferring the firearms to one or more trust beneficiaries upon the death of a settlor of the trust; or

(m) Any person who is a licensed collector as defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 921 and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, and who has a current certificate of eligibility issued by the department of justice.

(3)(a) Any person who violates this section commits a class 1
civil infraction and shall be assessed a monetary penalty of $500.

(b) If a person previously has been found to have violated this section, then the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW for a subsequent violation of this section.

(c) If a person previously has been found to have violated this section two or more times, then the person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW for each subsequent violation of this section.

Who are they targeting with this law? It is just the dealer. A person purchasing ammo can go to a different seller every other day. They can then purchase 15,000 rounds in a month without running afoul of this proposed law. They can even buy any number of rounds from a friend.

Via email, Rolf proposed a motive for this seeming absurdity:

Depending on the enforcement regs, I think I may see its primary purpose.

It a limitation on FFLs selling you more than X. Not a prohibition on you buying more than X.

That means the DEALER must track by ID all purchases and maintain those records.

If they don’t, then a government informant walks in 29 days apart as part of a sting operation…..

Constant harassment of dealers is the only goal.

This is plausible. But I think it is just as likely that they really are that stupid. The law doesn’t have to make sense. It is just (what they want to be) the law.

If you insist this has to make sense in some way, then Rolf has a decent hypothesis. Think about it this way. Excluding the Las Vegas music festival shooting a few years ago, where over 1,100 rounds were fired, can you name a crime that utilized more than 1,000 rounds? And even in that incident, Purchases from just two dealers would have supplied more than enough ammo.

This makes it crystal clear their goal is not public safety.

These criminal need to be prosecuted. I hope they enjoy their trials.

The First and Second Amendments Cannot Coexist

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

We don’t make this statement lightly, but the folks over at Giffords and Brady have filed an amicus brief in a matter, challenging all of Maryland’s new sensitive places, that actually argues that the First Amendment and the Second Amendment cannot coexist, and because of that, the 2A will always take a back seat to the 1A.

William Kirk
December 30, 2024
The Most Dangerous Gun Control Argument You Will Ever Read

What other rights must you only exercise one at a time? If you exercise your right to freedom of religion, do you forfeit your Third Amendment rights and you will be required to quarter troops in your house? Or how about, if you insist on a warrant before your house is searched, you then forfeit your “privilege” to a lawyer when being questioned by the police.

I don’t say “privilege” lightly, because this is what they are demanding. The government gets to decide when, where, how, and if you get to exercise a specific enumerated right. Their demands change the exercise of a right into a privilege.

I don’t think the courts will buy this argument. I would like to think the lawyers writing this brief know it too and are doing this just for the money.

I hope they get slapped down with extraordinary harshness.

Disregard for Court Rulings Must Be Soundly Rejected

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings. These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected.

John Roberts
Supreme Court Chief Justice
December 31, 2024
Roberts warns against ignoring Supreme Court rulings as tension with Trump looms

One has to wonder if there are specific cases he has in mind when he says this. More importantly, what actions will the court take to enforce their decisions?

It is About Bullying, not Crime Reduction

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

“Stupidity” may apply in terms of whether they honestly believe such restrictions will reduce or prevent crime, but rights-hating Democrats know such measures infuriate and frustrate gun owners, which is exactly what they want to do. Were they in elementary school, one might argue, this would be called bullying, because they know they can get away with it.

Dave Workman
December 30, 2024
WA Lump of Coal: Dems File HB 1132 Limiting Gun, Ammo Buys

They have been bullying us for decades. I expect it will get worse before it gets better. It will only get better when they start paying a price. I don’t know when or if that will happen, but I know it should happen.

There are at least two ways this can come about legally. 1), they are prosecuted; or 2), the court assigns a monitor to them. The monitor would report to the judge periodically.

I would like to see the politicians and activists supporting this crap spent time in prison. I’m thinking the sentence length should he double the number of days the offending law was in force.

Great Britain as Our 51st State

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Time is not on our side. As the Eurozone crumbles and American protectionism ramps up, our flimsy state will be crushed like an ant between two great elephants. To see Britain lose itself within America would surely be a tragedy of world-historic proportions. But the alternative – to sink complacently into powerlessness, spurred on by politicians who can hardly define what “nationhood” even means – doesn’t bear thinking about. The politics of self-interest is clearly beyond our miserable band of modern leaders. 

Why not jump on to the America First bandwagon and throw in our lot with the winning side? If nothing else, we might get better fast food out of it.

Poppy Coburn
December 26, 2024
It’s time to become the 51st state of the US

Coburn is advocating Great Britain join the U.S.A as our 51st state! That is a new one to me.

That deserves as least a little thought. My initial thought is that I need to be convinced it was a good idea.

Canada would bring a lot of natural resources to the union. The proximity would make productive use relatively easy. The political culture of central Canada could be considered a match. I think this would work to the benefit of both peoples.

As much as I would love to see the introduction of the 2nd Amendment to Great Britain. But other than a decade or so of amusement and plenty of work for firearms instructors and gun manufactures what do they have to offer. We already have decent access to our pick of their human resources. I have worked with numerous software engineers from there. My stepdaughter is going to school there. She was welcomed into a top-notch school for her doctorate in Computer Science. They have some awesome building and history. But we can already visit and partake the joys of that. The politics are painfully to the left of here. Their healthcare sucks. So why buy the cow when you can get the milk for a good price? What am I missing?

Global War Over 2+2=4

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

One day, in the near future, a global war break out will with every human on the planet participating.

On one side, their banners will proclaim the war cry, “2+2=4”.

On the other side, their rainbow banners will state, “That’s racist!”

Alice Smith (@TheAliceSmith)
Tweeted on March 29, 2022

While I think this is overstated to make the point, I do think it has more than a little truth in it. And that is very depressing. It is between the sane and insane. It is war about reality and delusions.