It seems that alarmists are proposing to "rebrand" "Climate Change" for greater shock value. It's apparent that "Climate Change" isn't shocking enough anymore.
Awwwwww...
Yep, climate alarmists are pushing for a change in vocabulary to scare people into taking global warming more seriously, starting with terms like "Global Meltdown" and "Climate Collapse."
Writing for "AdAge Magazine" this week, a guy named Aaron Hall argued that in order to get people to "take action" against "Climate Change," "rebranding" is crucial, since people have gotten too used to the idea that the climate is changing and needs to be shocked into the notion that the world as we know it is ending!
(Ending? Isn't that a bit extreme?)
"Is there a better way to convey the urgency of the situation," he went on to say, "while also encouraging folks to take action? Could the tools of branding and brand naming create a more resonant, powerful name," Mr. Hall asked?
Hall suggested that perhaps "global meltdown" might work. Of course, that's tough to swallow when much of America is in the throes of a blizzard. However, he offered that "Climate Collapse" and "Climate Chaos" instill a clear message or even a direct call to action. He went on to state, "There's nothing neutral about collapse or chaos."
To up the rhetoric even further, Hall proposes to weaponize the term "Scorched Earth."
"Sometimes a brand name needs to be hyperbolic to truly capture hearts and minds. If we don't take massive action now, Earth will be uninhabitable - an irreversible barren wasteland," he insists. "Scorched Earth" paints the direct picture of what's to come and what we must avoid and is like the edgiest brand name from our exploration."
"Whatever we call it, impending climate doom is upon us if we don't act quickly," Hall concludes. "Perhaps a new name will shift the needle, even if just a little;"
Mr. Hall's contention that it does not matter if what is said is true, so long as it elicits the necessary response is reminiscent of similar assertions by leaders of the "Extinction Rebellion" (XR) Movement.
Spokespersons for this movement acknowledge that their claims that billions of people are going to die from "climate change" have no basis whatsoever in scientific fact but are necessary to provoke this kind of response that is needed to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions.
XR spokesman Zion Lights (really?) was quick to acknowledge that there is no real basis for this prediction, but contended that such incendiary language is necessary to motivate people, confessing that "alarmist language works."
So let's sum up, shall we?
1. There is no proof that "global warming" exists, or that it will kill billions. But there's a very loud group of extremists who have bought in to the idea that we're all going to roast in a fiery Hell, and they want to do something about it, right now!
2. Recent data indicating that 90% of the Earth's glaciers are growing, that Polar Bears aren't drowning, that Miami will stay above sea level and that our temp hasn't changed appreciably in decades doesn't seem to faze them. They're Hell-bent on continuing to "cry wolf." They may just wake up one of these days and discover nobody believes them anymore...
Saturday, November 30, 2019
Wednesday, November 27, 2019
"People of Color"
I'm one of those "People of Color" you hear about. In fact, all of us are...
"People of Color" are most always Black, or Brown, or Red, or Yellow. But hey, for some strange reason we don't use those terms anymore. No, that would be racist. We now use "People of Color." But so-called "White" people are "People of Color" too, I maintain, and I'm here to explain my rationale.
Take me for example: I'm a sort of medium beige. Others of my "tribe" are of differing shades. They could be oatmeal in color, or a burnt umber, or chestnut, or latte, or desert sand, or perhaps a nice parchment, even.
Or they could be of an egg nog shade, or sorrel, or buttermilk, or ecru, or perhaps biscuit, or a fawn shade, or maybe even an attractive parmesan hue.
Or maybe they're buff, or eggshell, or macaroon, or hazelwood, or maybe even a nice cafe au lait.
But whatever their hue, they are all "People of Color."
To my way of thinking, the only folks who are not a member of the "People of Color" club, are those who are born an albino. Albinos are NOT "People of Color," because they do not possess any skin pigment. And in this color-absorbed society, pigment is the only thing. Without it, you see, the Democrats wouldn't have any way of knowing exactly who to slice and dice and mix and match and cut and paste and beg and plead and pander for votes in order to divide and conquer our electorate. And that's exactly what they've been doing since one B. H. Obama took office and showed them how, using Saul Alinsky's famous playbook.
However, and this is now important for some strange reason, we must not leave behind those who "identify" as a person of a color different than their own. If there's one thing the Democrats have taught us, it's that one can "identify" as almost anything, and we non-identifiers must...MUST...grant them the right to do so. Boys can identify as girls, girls can identify as boys, and people of one race can identify as another.
(BTW, we've learned of late that a 220 pound, 6 foot boy identifying as a girl has a pretty good chance of winning the next girl's wrestling meet. Thanks Barack. Your tenure shall not be forgotten...)
Remember Rachel Dolezol? She's White, but "identified," she said, as Black. So much so that she became the Director for the Western Region of the Oregon NAACP. Now that, my friends, is some serious "identification." But hey, all that's important is that she meant well, right?
Hmmmmmm.
Think about this: If skin pigmentation is soooooo unreliable as a judge of race that a whole slew of Black Oregonian NAACP members chose a White woman to be their leader, perhaps they should come up with another set of metrics...
So, even if a person's an albino, if they "identify" as a Black person, it's quite okay according to the Progressive playbook. It might help, of course, if they'd put a sign on their lapel so proclaiming. It could help forestall the need to explain themselves to other Social Justice Warriors when they're out protesting...
Did you ever ask yourself if this race-absorbed Democrat Party were to perhaps stop focusing upon skin color and start paying attention to core "bread and butter" issues, like jobs, and immigration, and foreign relations, and the economy, and even the weather (climate change), if they absolutely must, would they possess an even greater appeal to those they wish to rule? I'd say yes.
What would you say?
"People of Color" are most always Black, or Brown, or Red, or Yellow. But hey, for some strange reason we don't use those terms anymore. No, that would be racist. We now use "People of Color." But so-called "White" people are "People of Color" too, I maintain, and I'm here to explain my rationale.
Take me for example: I'm a sort of medium beige. Others of my "tribe" are of differing shades. They could be oatmeal in color, or a burnt umber, or chestnut, or latte, or desert sand, or perhaps a nice parchment, even.
Or they could be of an egg nog shade, or sorrel, or buttermilk, or ecru, or perhaps biscuit, or a fawn shade, or maybe even an attractive parmesan hue.
Or maybe they're buff, or eggshell, or macaroon, or hazelwood, or maybe even a nice cafe au lait.
But whatever their hue, they are all "People of Color."
To my way of thinking, the only folks who are not a member of the "People of Color" club, are those who are born an albino. Albinos are NOT "People of Color," because they do not possess any skin pigment. And in this color-absorbed society, pigment is the only thing. Without it, you see, the Democrats wouldn't have any way of knowing exactly who to slice and dice and mix and match and cut and paste and beg and plead and pander for votes in order to divide and conquer our electorate. And that's exactly what they've been doing since one B. H. Obama took office and showed them how, using Saul Alinsky's famous playbook.
However, and this is now important for some strange reason, we must not leave behind those who "identify" as a person of a color different than their own. If there's one thing the Democrats have taught us, it's that one can "identify" as almost anything, and we non-identifiers must...MUST...grant them the right to do so. Boys can identify as girls, girls can identify as boys, and people of one race can identify as another.
(BTW, we've learned of late that a 220 pound, 6 foot boy identifying as a girl has a pretty good chance of winning the next girl's wrestling meet. Thanks Barack. Your tenure shall not be forgotten...)
Remember Rachel Dolezol? She's White, but "identified," she said, as Black. So much so that she became the Director for the Western Region of the Oregon NAACP. Now that, my friends, is some serious "identification." But hey, all that's important is that she meant well, right?
Hmmmmmm.
Think about this: If skin pigmentation is soooooo unreliable as a judge of race that a whole slew of Black Oregonian NAACP members chose a White woman to be their leader, perhaps they should come up with another set of metrics...
So, even if a person's an albino, if they "identify" as a Black person, it's quite okay according to the Progressive playbook. It might help, of course, if they'd put a sign on their lapel so proclaiming. It could help forestall the need to explain themselves to other Social Justice Warriors when they're out protesting...
Did you ever ask yourself if this race-absorbed Democrat Party were to perhaps stop focusing upon skin color and start paying attention to core "bread and butter" issues, like jobs, and immigration, and foreign relations, and the economy, and even the weather (climate change), if they absolutely must, would they possess an even greater appeal to those they wish to rule? I'd say yes.
What would you say?
Monday, November 25, 2019
I Love Football!
I dunno' about you, but I just luuuuuv football!
Or, rather I should say that I love to watch football!
Or, better put, I love to watch enormous guys beat the crap out of each other, every thirty seconds, for three hours, trying to navigate the incomprehensible rules that guide this stupid game. Even when interrupted by extraneous and spurious yellow flags, thrown by those wannabe refs who are just jealous of the enormous players who are making more money than they are.
Actually, I love to watch all that stuff mentioned above, but most particularly when the weather is abhorrent. Six feet of blowing snow. Ice storms throughout the region. Sub-zero temperatures enhanced by 30 mile per hour winds. Snow drifting so badly the refs have to use blowtorches to clear the yard markers. Ice crystals forming on beards and mustaches. Dripping snot flash-freezing onto bright red faces. Bone-crushing collisions in -7 degree weather you can hear all the way to the broadcasting booth. Footballs harder than concrete. Everyone there totally miserable. Me, comfy as all get out, fireplace blazing, brandy snifter snifting, old Shep curled up by my stocking-covered tootsies. Oh yeah, I love to watch football.
I love to watch these behemoths wear little kiddie clothes and run up and down and throw and catch a funny looking ball, all while attempting to disembowel each other. They are paid yuuuuuuuge salaries to do this, and I want them to earn their money! I want them to twist their appendages and contort their spleens. I want them to rue the day they decided to keep playing a kiddie game instead of getting a real job, like normal people.
And I want to hide in the bushes, so to speak, and watch them do it.
Football in the fall is boring. Football in February is where I'm at...
Or, rather I should say that I love to watch football!
Or, better put, I love to watch enormous guys beat the crap out of each other, every thirty seconds, for three hours, trying to navigate the incomprehensible rules that guide this stupid game. Even when interrupted by extraneous and spurious yellow flags, thrown by those wannabe refs who are just jealous of the enormous players who are making more money than they are.
Actually, I love to watch all that stuff mentioned above, but most particularly when the weather is abhorrent. Six feet of blowing snow. Ice storms throughout the region. Sub-zero temperatures enhanced by 30 mile per hour winds. Snow drifting so badly the refs have to use blowtorches to clear the yard markers. Ice crystals forming on beards and mustaches. Dripping snot flash-freezing onto bright red faces. Bone-crushing collisions in -7 degree weather you can hear all the way to the broadcasting booth. Footballs harder than concrete. Everyone there totally miserable. Me, comfy as all get out, fireplace blazing, brandy snifter snifting, old Shep curled up by my stocking-covered tootsies. Oh yeah, I love to watch football.
I love to watch these behemoths wear little kiddie clothes and run up and down and throw and catch a funny looking ball, all while attempting to disembowel each other. They are paid yuuuuuuuge salaries to do this, and I want them to earn their money! I want them to twist their appendages and contort their spleens. I want them to rue the day they decided to keep playing a kiddie game instead of getting a real job, like normal people.
And I want to hide in the bushes, so to speak, and watch them do it.
Football in the fall is boring. Football in February is where I'm at...
Sunday, November 24, 2019
Q: Want to Get Money Out of Politics?
A: Prevent candidates from using their own $Money to campaign.
That's it. It's simple. Nothing more is necessary.
Oh wait, you want more? You want specific reasons for my little Plan? Okay, here goes...
We've all learned by now that one Mike Bloomberg has decided to throw his extremely expensive fedora into the ring for POTUS 2020. As a matter of fat, he did it today.
Mike, as you likely know, was the three-term Mayor of New York City and the is the 17th richest man in America. And as you also likely know, he's been known to use his enormous wealth to try and inflict his personal beliefs on others. And "inflict" is the operational word. Like passing a law to restrict NYC's resident's salt intake. He doesn't like salt, so nobody should else be able to use it, right? And also preventing them from buying 16 oz. sodas. Oh, you could get five or ten or fifty 12 oz. sodas, just not one 16 oz. He also bought and paid for his third mayoral term by spending more than $100 million of his own money to lobby for a change to NY State's constitution to permit it. And money carried the day.
He's also America's biggest gun-grabber, professing the willingness to spend any amount of money to try and overturn the 2nd Amendment. He's funding various anti-gun groups in an effort to sway public opinion, once again wishing to force his will on others. In short, Mr. Bloomberg is the enemy of anyone who wants to spice their food, buy a Big Gulp or use a gun.
But being a $Billionaire gives Little Mikey a whole bunch of advantages over his less well heeled competitors. And he's not alone. Last month Tom Steyer jumped into the fray. He's also a multi-$Billionaire, having "earned" his vast wealth via a hedge fund, which made him $Millions betting on coal and oil/gas futures. Now, however, he's Seen The Light. Oil/gas/coal now bad, wind/solar/surf now good! The only issue, according to him, is "Global Warming" or "Climate Chaos," or whatever they're calling it today. And he's using his wealth to try and buy votes from people who share his kooky view that The Sky Is Falling!
Unfortunately, that "kooky" view is shared by far too many folks these days. Remember that old adage, "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth..."
And then there's Deval Patrick. Ex-two term Governor of Massassasssachewsetts, Patrick jumped from the guvnorship straight to Bain Capital, the very same place that Mitt Romney co-founded way back when. It was bad for Mitt, just fine for Deval. Hmmm. He's now another one of those $Billionaires who desperately wants to buy his way into the Oval Office.
And to these uber-rich we of course add such other POTUS candidates as Sanders (rich!), Warren (rich!), Booker (rich!), Biden (rich!). In short, with the possible exceptions of Bootygagg and Gabbard, all the candidates for Democrat POTUS 2020 are Stinkin' Rich!
And we keep hearing also that a number of other fabulously wealthy Liberals are also contemplating a run, seemingly because they don't believe any of the current candidates can defeat our own Orange Man Bad $Billionaire, one Mr. D. J. Trump. So it would seem that the Number One requirement necessary to run for POTUS these days is a dump truck load of cash.
And I don't think that's the way it ought to be...
So I came up with my little plan that should/could resolve the issue once and for all. And here it is. Drum roll please...
Candidates for President of the U. S. of A. should not be permitted to use their own money to campaign.
Got it? Anyone can run, but they cannot use their own money to do so. They would have to call their friends and neighbors, bang on doors, write letters and beg for donations on TV. They would have to look for money all thither and yon if they want to win. Their campaign would be underwritten by the U. S. taxpayers, of course, as in you and me, as has been the offering for lo, these many years.
Just as candidates can now opt for Federal Funding for their campaigns, which recent candidates have refused to do (Bush, Obama, Trump), believing they could raise more without it, my little Plan would give each qualified candidate Federal matching funds, i.e., one dollar for each dollar raised publicly perhaps. They raise $1,000, they'd get another $1,000. Or, another way might be that they'd get so much money for each registered voter. The mechanism could easily be worked out.
Either way, they'd have to appeal to you and me if they want to win; no donations from us, no fuel for their campaigns. It might prove interesting to watch a Bloomberg or a Patrick or a Steyer have to humble themselves, having been reduced to the same stature as one of their "poorer" competitors, but it would prevent a guy like late-entrant Steyer from spending $47 Million to get on the stage at the 4th debate. There's something really unseemly about that, me thinks.
And it would also prevent some guy like Bloomberg from adding the exclamation point to his POTUS campaign by purchasing the single biggest TV media buy in U. S. history. He's bought $31,000,000 of TV adds to run between November 25th and December 2nd. Is that fair to Gabbard? Or Boootygagg? Or anyone else, for that matter?
They're running on TV right now. I hope for your sake you can find a way to avoid them...
The Presidency should not be for sale. So let's not let anyone buy it. Nor should senate seats be sold to the highest bidder. Or House seats, or any other elected office. My simple Plan calls for leveling the playing field. If you'd like to get the money out of politics, this is perhaps the only way...
That's it. It's simple. Nothing more is necessary.
Oh wait, you want more? You want specific reasons for my little Plan? Okay, here goes...
We've all learned by now that one Mike Bloomberg has decided to throw his extremely expensive fedora into the ring for POTUS 2020. As a matter of fat, he did it today.
Mike, as you likely know, was the three-term Mayor of New York City and the is the 17th richest man in America. And as you also likely know, he's been known to use his enormous wealth to try and inflict his personal beliefs on others. And "inflict" is the operational word. Like passing a law to restrict NYC's resident's salt intake. He doesn't like salt, so nobody should else be able to use it, right? And also preventing them from buying 16 oz. sodas. Oh, you could get five or ten or fifty 12 oz. sodas, just not one 16 oz. He also bought and paid for his third mayoral term by spending more than $100 million of his own money to lobby for a change to NY State's constitution to permit it. And money carried the day.
He's also America's biggest gun-grabber, professing the willingness to spend any amount of money to try and overturn the 2nd Amendment. He's funding various anti-gun groups in an effort to sway public opinion, once again wishing to force his will on others. In short, Mr. Bloomberg is the enemy of anyone who wants to spice their food, buy a Big Gulp or use a gun.
But being a $Billionaire gives Little Mikey a whole bunch of advantages over his less well heeled competitors. And he's not alone. Last month Tom Steyer jumped into the fray. He's also a multi-$Billionaire, having "earned" his vast wealth via a hedge fund, which made him $Millions betting on coal and oil/gas futures. Now, however, he's Seen The Light. Oil/gas/coal now bad, wind/solar/surf now good! The only issue, according to him, is "Global Warming" or "Climate Chaos," or whatever they're calling it today. And he's using his wealth to try and buy votes from people who share his kooky view that The Sky Is Falling!
Unfortunately, that "kooky" view is shared by far too many folks these days. Remember that old adage, "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth..."
And then there's Deval Patrick. Ex-two term Governor of Massassasssachewsetts, Patrick jumped from the guvnorship straight to Bain Capital, the very same place that Mitt Romney co-founded way back when. It was bad for Mitt, just fine for Deval. Hmmm. He's now another one of those $Billionaires who desperately wants to buy his way into the Oval Office.
And to these uber-rich we of course add such other POTUS candidates as Sanders (rich!), Warren (rich!), Booker (rich!), Biden (rich!). In short, with the possible exceptions of Bootygagg and Gabbard, all the candidates for Democrat POTUS 2020 are Stinkin' Rich!
And we keep hearing also that a number of other fabulously wealthy Liberals are also contemplating a run, seemingly because they don't believe any of the current candidates can defeat our own Orange Man Bad $Billionaire, one Mr. D. J. Trump. So it would seem that the Number One requirement necessary to run for POTUS these days is a dump truck load of cash.
And I don't think that's the way it ought to be...
So I came up with my little plan that should/could resolve the issue once and for all. And here it is. Drum roll please...
Candidates for President of the U. S. of A. should not be permitted to use their own money to campaign.
Got it? Anyone can run, but they cannot use their own money to do so. They would have to call their friends and neighbors, bang on doors, write letters and beg for donations on TV. They would have to look for money all thither and yon if they want to win. Their campaign would be underwritten by the U. S. taxpayers, of course, as in you and me, as has been the offering for lo, these many years.
Just as candidates can now opt for Federal Funding for their campaigns, which recent candidates have refused to do (Bush, Obama, Trump), believing they could raise more without it, my little Plan would give each qualified candidate Federal matching funds, i.e., one dollar for each dollar raised publicly perhaps. They raise $1,000, they'd get another $1,000. Or, another way might be that they'd get so much money for each registered voter. The mechanism could easily be worked out.
Either way, they'd have to appeal to you and me if they want to win; no donations from us, no fuel for their campaigns. It might prove interesting to watch a Bloomberg or a Patrick or a Steyer have to humble themselves, having been reduced to the same stature as one of their "poorer" competitors, but it would prevent a guy like late-entrant Steyer from spending $47 Million to get on the stage at the 4th debate. There's something really unseemly about that, me thinks.
And it would also prevent some guy like Bloomberg from adding the exclamation point to his POTUS campaign by purchasing the single biggest TV media buy in U. S. history. He's bought $31,000,000 of TV adds to run between November 25th and December 2nd. Is that fair to Gabbard? Or Boootygagg? Or anyone else, for that matter?
They're running on TV right now. I hope for your sake you can find a way to avoid them...
The Presidency should not be for sale. So let's not let anyone buy it. Nor should senate seats be sold to the highest bidder. Or House seats, or any other elected office. My simple Plan calls for leveling the playing field. If you'd like to get the money out of politics, this is perhaps the only way...
Friday, November 22, 2019
The Largest Army in America...
You might be interested to know that more than 642,000 people applied for hunting tags for last year's Wisconsin deer season. 642,000! Surprised?
And more than 738,000 applied for deer tags in Texas, the largest annual deer hunt in the nation. And more than 501,000 in Missouri. And 586,000 in Michigan. And 574,000 in Colorado. And 367,000 in Illinois. 600,000 in Minneesssowwwwtta. And 353,000 in Georgia. And That, my friends, is a lot of deer hunters to-be (Dept. of the Interior, 2019).
And many, many more signed up for hunts in Nebraska, and Kansas, and Idaho, and Montana, and Tennesssseeee, and, and...
In fact, you might be surprised to learn that more than 10,000,000 deer hunters applied for tags during the 2016 - 2017 seasons.
Add to that those who hunt ducks, and geese, and black bear, and elk, and antelope, and rabbit, and quail, and Big Brown Bears, and every other type of game every year, and you have millions more hunters, each of whom is armed and steeped in the American hunting culture.
They would count themselves among the more than One Hundred Million American gun owners. And these folks own more than 350,000,000 guns, and that number is increasing by more than 2 million every month (FBI stats, 2019).
But what one should really focus their attention on is that 600,000 applicants for a deer tag means that 600,000 people own guns and are ready to use them. Consider, if you will, that we only have a bit more than 1,200,000 active duty soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen spread all across the world in all our nation's military.
Contrast that reality with these numbers: Many more people sign up to hunt deer every year than are actively protecting us in our military. Which means that just our deer hunters collectively alone, are a greater armed force than of all the members of our military put together. And, oh yeah, most of the militaries of our allies, as well.
That should put a chill up the spine of all gun-grabbers everywhere.
Those of the anti-gun persuasion often speak of "gun violence" and how we might prevent it. Let's take a look at that, shall we? "Preventing it" to them means confiscation of all the guns we have in circulation, and then eliminating all the ways to buy more. Oh, they might tell you they only want "common sense gun reforms," but that really means, "give me all your guns and nobody gets hurt." We know that from 2020 Democrat POTUS candidates, who have happily said as much during the 5 debates. And that's why gun owners don't trust gun-grabbers and never will.
Here's a really big question I'd like an answer to: What, exactly, is the gun control crowd suggesting we do to take the guns out of the hands of CRIMINALS? So far each and every one of their anti-gun laws focuses on making it harder for honest, honorable, law-abiding citizens to buy, own, use and keep firearms. None, I repeat NONE of their more than 25,000 anti-gun laws or proposed laws are focused on getting guns out of the hands of those predisposed to use them illegally: gang bangers, robbers, thieves, rapists, burglars, carjackers, terrorists and prospective mass-murderers.
Why? Could it be that it's just too much trouble to try and figure out a way to take the guns from crooks? Or that they just don't know how? Admitting that they don't have the answer to this perplexing problem would be to admit to their fawning sycophantic followers that they aren't omniscient. Or maybe that they just don't care? I mean, it's sooooo easy to disarm the honest firearm owners, they think, why should they use quality time to try and figure out a way to actually come up with a way to end "gun violence" by disarming the Bad Guys? You know, the ones who are actually causing the problems?
Friends, and you ARE my friends, they want very much to disarm us. As to "why," the only answer I can come up with is that disarmed people are easier to manage. To control. To make us all do what they want done. Sort of like the way the leadership approached the problem in Cuba, and North Korea, and China, and England, and Australia. And more recently, Venezuela. The Venezuelans aren't so happy they turned their guns in ten years ago. They surely could use them now, doncha' think? If they hadn't, maybe they wouldn't be eating their zoo animals now...
And while they're disarming us, they're simulfriggintaneously letting thousands and thousands of hardened felons out of our prisons. What are they thinking?
Here's my little admonition to the powers-that-be in Sacramento, and every other place where they want to give the finger to the 2nd Amendment: Until or unless you come up with a way to disarm criminals, leave us law-abiding gun owners the Hell alone. If not, learn to fear the hunters amongst us, especially if we wind up in a civil war; there's legions of them, and they're all armed and considered dangerous...
And more than 738,000 applied for deer tags in Texas, the largest annual deer hunt in the nation. And more than 501,000 in Missouri. And 586,000 in Michigan. And 574,000 in Colorado. And 367,000 in Illinois. 600,000 in Minneesssowwwwtta. And 353,000 in Georgia. And That, my friends, is a lot of deer hunters to-be (Dept. of the Interior, 2019).
And many, many more signed up for hunts in Nebraska, and Kansas, and Idaho, and Montana, and Tennesssseeee, and, and...
In fact, you might be surprised to learn that more than 10,000,000 deer hunters applied for tags during the 2016 - 2017 seasons.
Add to that those who hunt ducks, and geese, and black bear, and elk, and antelope, and rabbit, and quail, and Big Brown Bears, and every other type of game every year, and you have millions more hunters, each of whom is armed and steeped in the American hunting culture.
They would count themselves among the more than One Hundred Million American gun owners. And these folks own more than 350,000,000 guns, and that number is increasing by more than 2 million every month (FBI stats, 2019).
But what one should really focus their attention on is that 600,000 applicants for a deer tag means that 600,000 people own guns and are ready to use them. Consider, if you will, that we only have a bit more than 1,200,000 active duty soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen spread all across the world in all our nation's military.
Contrast that reality with these numbers: Many more people sign up to hunt deer every year than are actively protecting us in our military. Which means that just our deer hunters collectively alone, are a greater armed force than of all the members of our military put together. And, oh yeah, most of the militaries of our allies, as well.
That should put a chill up the spine of all gun-grabbers everywhere.
Those of the anti-gun persuasion often speak of "gun violence" and how we might prevent it. Let's take a look at that, shall we? "Preventing it" to them means confiscation of all the guns we have in circulation, and then eliminating all the ways to buy more. Oh, they might tell you they only want "common sense gun reforms," but that really means, "give me all your guns and nobody gets hurt." We know that from 2020 Democrat POTUS candidates, who have happily said as much during the 5 debates. And that's why gun owners don't trust gun-grabbers and never will.
Here's a really big question I'd like an answer to: What, exactly, is the gun control crowd suggesting we do to take the guns out of the hands of CRIMINALS? So far each and every one of their anti-gun laws focuses on making it harder for honest, honorable, law-abiding citizens to buy, own, use and keep firearms. None, I repeat NONE of their more than 25,000 anti-gun laws or proposed laws are focused on getting guns out of the hands of those predisposed to use them illegally: gang bangers, robbers, thieves, rapists, burglars, carjackers, terrorists and prospective mass-murderers.
Why? Could it be that it's just too much trouble to try and figure out a way to take the guns from crooks? Or that they just don't know how? Admitting that they don't have the answer to this perplexing problem would be to admit to their fawning sycophantic followers that they aren't omniscient. Or maybe that they just don't care? I mean, it's sooooo easy to disarm the honest firearm owners, they think, why should they use quality time to try and figure out a way to actually come up with a way to end "gun violence" by disarming the Bad Guys? You know, the ones who are actually causing the problems?
Friends, and you ARE my friends, they want very much to disarm us. As to "why," the only answer I can come up with is that disarmed people are easier to manage. To control. To make us all do what they want done. Sort of like the way the leadership approached the problem in Cuba, and North Korea, and China, and England, and Australia. And more recently, Venezuela. The Venezuelans aren't so happy they turned their guns in ten years ago. They surely could use them now, doncha' think? If they hadn't, maybe they wouldn't be eating their zoo animals now...
And while they're disarming us, they're simulfriggintaneously letting thousands and thousands of hardened felons out of our prisons. What are they thinking?
Here's my little admonition to the powers-that-be in Sacramento, and every other place where they want to give the finger to the 2nd Amendment: Until or unless you come up with a way to disarm criminals, leave us law-abiding gun owners the Hell alone. If not, learn to fear the hunters amongst us, especially if we wind up in a civil war; there's legions of them, and they're all armed and considered dangerous...
Wednesday, November 20, 2019
I Was Almost Convinced...
Yes, my friends, and you ARE my friends, I was almost convinced. I was just about to warm up to this whole "global warming" thing the Leftoids have been incessantly bleating about for years.
College professors, blow-dried TV talking heads, Hollyweird celebritards, and hand-in-your-pockets politicians have been assuring us for years that our planet is burning up. The CO2 levels are soooo high (how high are they?), they say, that our climate will crater. Our seas will rise up so very much Miami will be an afterthought. Our children will have to wear gas masks to go to school. Maybe there won't even be any school! Maybe there won't be any children! It's that much of a crisis!
Our ex-bartender Representative from the Bronx with too many names is so worked up over it she's decided not to have children! Now, I don't know about you, but I'm kind of happy when I hear that those whose opinions I abhor and whose intellectual capabilities are woefully suspect decide not to procreate. That's another generation saved from this craziness.
Anyway, I was almost convinced. That old "97% of climate scientists" thing almost got to me. Even though I know that they all work for the Government in some form or fashion, whether in colleges and universities, or in think tanks, or in NASA/NOAA-type organizations, and that they have to keep uttering that same "sky is falling" blather to make sure their paychecks keep cashing.
BTW, the other "3%" work for such as the Weather Channel and your local TV stations, where they can discover the truth, and then report it. I've been listening to them; they're telling me the 97% folks are full of s**t.
Google John Coleman, ex-CEO and co-founder of the Weather Channel, if you'd care for a more in-depth condemnation of this Chicken Little theory (he's on record as calling it "The greatest scam in history!").
But anyway, I was just plain worn out. They'd pretty much convinced me. Even though we still have plenty of glaciers and the polar bears haven't all drowned as yet (!) and the dratted temperature seems to always stay about the same, I was about to join the ranks of the hippppmotizzzzed...
And then I learned that all my heroes, the same folks who've been preaching to me that we're in a "climate crisis," haven't been doing as they've been preaching. They've been living as if there is no climate chaos! They're all flying around in their little G-5s, spewing carbon like all get out. For shame! So what's a citizen to do?
Joe Biden, ancient politician who speaks in word salads, just issued his 3rd quarter expense report from his 2020 Democrat POTUS run. And the results are shocking. SHOCKING, do you hear me (with apologies to "Casa Blanca")! He spent nearly $900,000 of his donor's money flying around on private jets! That's $Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars! Despoiling our collective atmosphere, he was! Ruining our collective lives, he was! He can't do that, can he? Especially if he's trying to convince us mere citizens that we should ride a horse, right?
How about all the others? You know, his co-candidates? The scolds who keep telling us that The End Is Near! How are they comporting themselves in this period of pre-catastrophe?
Good question, oh carbon-breath. They're all flying around on expensive little planes, too! If I were a prospective donor to any political candidate, I'd hate to think that my hard-earned money went to pay for a $2,500-an-hour Gulfstream.
And then there's good ol' Barry. Mr. Obama will be resting comfortably in his third home, the one he just purchased in Martha's Vineyard. His new seaside cottage set him back a cool $15,700,000! And, since it's located exactly ON the water, I'm thinking he's not at all worried about the oceans rising, now is he? So if an ex-Prez sez waterfront property is A-Okay for him to buy and live in, that it won't disappear in a deluge, who am I to judge?
So let's sum it all up, shall we? Global Whatever is a scam. It's a cruel hoax being being played on the easily-led and easily-sold and easily-convinced, by sleazy, hypocritical politicians and activists. They've used this climate thing as the basis for a new religion for those sorely in need of a religion. And they've been so very successful that our dimwitted youts (what's a yout?) are screaming and crying and pulling out their hair, convinced that they've only got 12 more years to live.
I dunno' about you, but I just cannot wait to see how this whole Godforsaken mess unfolds...
College professors, blow-dried TV talking heads, Hollyweird celebritards, and hand-in-your-pockets politicians have been assuring us for years that our planet is burning up. The CO2 levels are soooo high (how high are they?), they say, that our climate will crater. Our seas will rise up so very much Miami will be an afterthought. Our children will have to wear gas masks to go to school. Maybe there won't even be any school! Maybe there won't be any children! It's that much of a crisis!
Our ex-bartender Representative from the Bronx with too many names is so worked up over it she's decided not to have children! Now, I don't know about you, but I'm kind of happy when I hear that those whose opinions I abhor and whose intellectual capabilities are woefully suspect decide not to procreate. That's another generation saved from this craziness.
Anyway, I was almost convinced. That old "97% of climate scientists" thing almost got to me. Even though I know that they all work for the Government in some form or fashion, whether in colleges and universities, or in think tanks, or in NASA/NOAA-type organizations, and that they have to keep uttering that same "sky is falling" blather to make sure their paychecks keep cashing.
BTW, the other "3%" work for such as the Weather Channel and your local TV stations, where they can discover the truth, and then report it. I've been listening to them; they're telling me the 97% folks are full of s**t.
Google John Coleman, ex-CEO and co-founder of the Weather Channel, if you'd care for a more in-depth condemnation of this Chicken Little theory (he's on record as calling it "The greatest scam in history!").
But anyway, I was just plain worn out. They'd pretty much convinced me. Even though we still have plenty of glaciers and the polar bears haven't all drowned as yet (!) and the dratted temperature seems to always stay about the same, I was about to join the ranks of the hippppmotizzzzed...
And then I learned that all my heroes, the same folks who've been preaching to me that we're in a "climate crisis," haven't been doing as they've been preaching. They've been living as if there is no climate chaos! They're all flying around in their little G-5s, spewing carbon like all get out. For shame! So what's a citizen to do?
Joe Biden, ancient politician who speaks in word salads, just issued his 3rd quarter expense report from his 2020 Democrat POTUS run. And the results are shocking. SHOCKING, do you hear me (with apologies to "Casa Blanca")! He spent nearly $900,000 of his donor's money flying around on private jets! That's $Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars! Despoiling our collective atmosphere, he was! Ruining our collective lives, he was! He can't do that, can he? Especially if he's trying to convince us mere citizens that we should ride a horse, right?
How about all the others? You know, his co-candidates? The scolds who keep telling us that The End Is Near! How are they comporting themselves in this period of pre-catastrophe?
Good question, oh carbon-breath. They're all flying around on expensive little planes, too! If I were a prospective donor to any political candidate, I'd hate to think that my hard-earned money went to pay for a $2,500-an-hour Gulfstream.
And then there's good ol' Barry. Mr. Obama will be resting comfortably in his third home, the one he just purchased in Martha's Vineyard. His new seaside cottage set him back a cool $15,700,000! And, since it's located exactly ON the water, I'm thinking he's not at all worried about the oceans rising, now is he? So if an ex-Prez sez waterfront property is A-Okay for him to buy and live in, that it won't disappear in a deluge, who am I to judge?
So let's sum it all up, shall we? Global Whatever is a scam. It's a cruel hoax being being played on the easily-led and easily-sold and easily-convinced, by sleazy, hypocritical politicians and activists. They've used this climate thing as the basis for a new religion for those sorely in need of a religion. And they've been so very successful that our dimwitted youts (what's a yout?) are screaming and crying and pulling out their hair, convinced that they've only got 12 more years to live.
I dunno' about you, but I just cannot wait to see how this whole Godforsaken mess unfolds...
Monday, November 18, 2019
Flags...
I watched several games yesterday I shall henceforth call "Flags."
Flags, I just learned, is a game where you try to move the referees downfield, one thrown Flag at a time, until one or the other reaches the End Zone. That's where the cheerleaders hang out.
Oh, every few Flags a football play will occur, usually without much effect. But Flags is what we're all now about.
We used to feel sorry for referees. Kind of like we used to feel sorry for government employees, until we learned that they make more money than we do. Mucccch more! Those are the guys dressed in black and white stripes that decide when the enormous gladiators on the field commit offenses. And when they do, the refs throw their little yellow Flags. And then they tell us what the penalty was, if they can agree, and just how many yards it cost the offending team.
They delight in such decisions. It's kind of like the fame you finally get when you're elected to your homeowners' association, and you can set about giving unwanted tickets to your neighbors for leaving their trashcans out for too long.
No more. Now, just like the gummint workers who have silently slithered past us mere mortals of late to earn yuuuuge salaries and retirement packages that would make even Tom Brady envious, the Refs have silently insinuated themselves into the GAME. Now, it's the REFS who decide when a play can start. It's the REFS who decide when a play is over. It's the REFS who decide if somebody did a no-no, and then throw their little yellow Flags with abandon.
They used to do it infrequently. Every few plays. No more often than that. They were almost invisible, the Refs were. And so we suffered through their presence, sort of like we put up with slobbering old Uncle Ralph once a year at Thanksgiving dinner.
But NOW, almost every play! Okay, egggsaggerayshun. Every other play. And when they strike, the game stops. Any momentum one side or the other had begun to build, to achieve, in an effort to actually score some points...gone. Poof! Bummer! Woodie killer, par excellence!
And that's just for the players. Us poor plebes at home watching these tedious and boring presentations are tearing our collective hair. And it's seemingly true this year especially. It makes you want to scream obscenities at your 5k, 4G, curved screen, high-zoot, 1080p TV!
And it makes more and more folks just like me want to find a black and white replay of an Olympic curling match from some by-gone era to watch instead.
It seems to me that every time the Big Guy at the National Football League puts in a new rule, most often because one of the Refs screwed up a call somewhere (think back to the Saints screwjob in the 2018 playoffs), it makes the game slower, harder to follow, more infuriating and less interesting. I mean, is there anyone anywhere who thinks football needs more penalties?
And is there anyone anywhere who hasn't noticed that more than a few stadium seats are minus asses during 2019 NFL games?
So, if they keep up with this tomfoolery I'll just find some park to visit or a stamp to collect or a dog to pet. Continuing to watch this tedious display of Flags flying all hither and yon has now officially brought me to gag level...
Flags, I just learned, is a game where you try to move the referees downfield, one thrown Flag at a time, until one or the other reaches the End Zone. That's where the cheerleaders hang out.
Oh, every few Flags a football play will occur, usually without much effect. But Flags is what we're all now about.
We used to feel sorry for referees. Kind of like we used to feel sorry for government employees, until we learned that they make more money than we do. Mucccch more! Those are the guys dressed in black and white stripes that decide when the enormous gladiators on the field commit offenses. And when they do, the refs throw their little yellow Flags. And then they tell us what the penalty was, if they can agree, and just how many yards it cost the offending team.
They delight in such decisions. It's kind of like the fame you finally get when you're elected to your homeowners' association, and you can set about giving unwanted tickets to your neighbors for leaving their trashcans out for too long.
No more. Now, just like the gummint workers who have silently slithered past us mere mortals of late to earn yuuuuge salaries and retirement packages that would make even Tom Brady envious, the Refs have silently insinuated themselves into the GAME. Now, it's the REFS who decide when a play can start. It's the REFS who decide when a play is over. It's the REFS who decide if somebody did a no-no, and then throw their little yellow Flags with abandon.
They used to do it infrequently. Every few plays. No more often than that. They were almost invisible, the Refs were. And so we suffered through their presence, sort of like we put up with slobbering old Uncle Ralph once a year at Thanksgiving dinner.
But NOW, almost every play! Okay, egggsaggerayshun. Every other play. And when they strike, the game stops. Any momentum one side or the other had begun to build, to achieve, in an effort to actually score some points...gone. Poof! Bummer! Woodie killer, par excellence!
And that's just for the players. Us poor plebes at home watching these tedious and boring presentations are tearing our collective hair. And it's seemingly true this year especially. It makes you want to scream obscenities at your 5k, 4G, curved screen, high-zoot, 1080p TV!
And it makes more and more folks just like me want to find a black and white replay of an Olympic curling match from some by-gone era to watch instead.
It seems to me that every time the Big Guy at the National Football League puts in a new rule, most often because one of the Refs screwed up a call somewhere (think back to the Saints screwjob in the 2018 playoffs), it makes the game slower, harder to follow, more infuriating and less interesting. I mean, is there anyone anywhere who thinks football needs more penalties?
And is there anyone anywhere who hasn't noticed that more than a few stadium seats are minus asses during 2019 NFL games?
So, if they keep up with this tomfoolery I'll just find some park to visit or a stamp to collect or a dog to pet. Continuing to watch this tedious display of Flags flying all hither and yon has now officially brought me to gag level...
Friday, November 15, 2019
Getting a Better Education...
It seems hardly a day goes by when we aren't subjected to news about one college campus or another staging a walkout or protest about some "existential" thing that has "triggered" their little sensibilities.
Like, say, a college or university actually inviting a conservative speaker to, you know, speak. Or upon learning that Chick-fil-A might open a sandwich shop upon their premises. Or finding out that "Climate Change" is ruining their little lives and that they might not live long enough to pay back their student loans.
So they get together and shout and yell and scream and pull their collective hair, waving their signs and displaying their placards. Or they go downtown and block intersections and impede traffic and assault motorists, and then head on back to campus for a good cry in the "safe room." And they do their very best to prevent any, ANY counter-protest from the more conservative protesters who may be in attendance. Preventing any other voice, any other signs, any other placards from being displayed. Banning thought, banning speech, banning opposition.
You've got to hand it to them; fascistic fascists doing fascistic things most often get fascist results...
However, I'd like to say that this might actually prove to be a great thing for these students' education and our country's future. No doubt you've been learning of late that much of the teaching that takes place in our colleges and universities these days is not too much different than what one might expect to receive in a reeducation camp in Moscow, or Beijing or Havana. We're spending $30,000, $40,000, even $70,000+ a year to send our little darlings off to Yale, and Haaaaaavid, and Stanford, and Marquette, and what we're - they're - getting in return is a world-class, high-priced brainwashing, coupled with a useless degree.
Who out there in Internet land actually believes that a degree in Gender Studies, or Existential Phenomenalism, or Black Studies, or Medieval Lesbian Poetry will prepare our young people for adulthood? For a career? For a JOB?
Few, I'd doubt.
BTW, if there are "Black" studies, are there also "Red" studies? And "Yellow" studies? Or perhaps "White" studies? Me thinks not...
Sooooooo, if you connect the dots here I'd say that any day students decide to protest this or that, and ditch class to do so, is a really good day for America. If they storm out of class, waving their little signs and parading with their little banners, protesting the latest perceived assault on something or other, at least they're not in class being taught a bushel basket load of useless crap that will do nothing beneficial for anyone except perhaps the professor. At least he, or she, or maybe "it" (California, doncha' know) will feel better by having polluted their little pansy brains...
Imagine that: Those who are paying a s**tload of cash to get a worthless education may actually be better off protesting imagined Leftist snowflake sleights than sitting in class, listening to some hard-core Leftist anarchist commie pinko spew a bunch of useless, anti-American tripe...
Oh yeah, late news: The football players and students at the West Linn High School in Oregon marched off the field in last Friday night's game, refusing to continue so long as the Chick-fil-A food truck was selling sandwiches in the parking lot. Really? We've come that far? A chicken sandwich is now an existential threat?
How the Hell did we get here, America? And how the Hell do we get back?
Like, say, a college or university actually inviting a conservative speaker to, you know, speak. Or upon learning that Chick-fil-A might open a sandwich shop upon their premises. Or finding out that "Climate Change" is ruining their little lives and that they might not live long enough to pay back their student loans.
So they get together and shout and yell and scream and pull their collective hair, waving their signs and displaying their placards. Or they go downtown and block intersections and impede traffic and assault motorists, and then head on back to campus for a good cry in the "safe room." And they do their very best to prevent any, ANY counter-protest from the more conservative protesters who may be in attendance. Preventing any other voice, any other signs, any other placards from being displayed. Banning thought, banning speech, banning opposition.
You've got to hand it to them; fascistic fascists doing fascistic things most often get fascist results...
However, I'd like to say that this might actually prove to be a great thing for these students' education and our country's future. No doubt you've been learning of late that much of the teaching that takes place in our colleges and universities these days is not too much different than what one might expect to receive in a reeducation camp in Moscow, or Beijing or Havana. We're spending $30,000, $40,000, even $70,000+ a year to send our little darlings off to Yale, and Haaaaaavid, and Stanford, and Marquette, and what we're - they're - getting in return is a world-class, high-priced brainwashing, coupled with a useless degree.
Who out there in Internet land actually believes that a degree in Gender Studies, or Existential Phenomenalism, or Black Studies, or Medieval Lesbian Poetry will prepare our young people for adulthood? For a career? For a JOB?
Few, I'd doubt.
BTW, if there are "Black" studies, are there also "Red" studies? And "Yellow" studies? Or perhaps "White" studies? Me thinks not...
Sooooooo, if you connect the dots here I'd say that any day students decide to protest this or that, and ditch class to do so, is a really good day for America. If they storm out of class, waving their little signs and parading with their little banners, protesting the latest perceived assault on something or other, at least they're not in class being taught a bushel basket load of useless crap that will do nothing beneficial for anyone except perhaps the professor. At least he, or she, or maybe "it" (California, doncha' know) will feel better by having polluted their little pansy brains...
Imagine that: Those who are paying a s**tload of cash to get a worthless education may actually be better off protesting imagined Leftist snowflake sleights than sitting in class, listening to some hard-core Leftist anarchist commie pinko spew a bunch of useless, anti-American tripe...
Oh yeah, late news: The football players and students at the West Linn High School in Oregon marched off the field in last Friday night's game, refusing to continue so long as the Chick-fil-A food truck was selling sandwiches in the parking lot. Really? We've come that far? A chicken sandwich is now an existential threat?
How the Hell did we get here, America? And how the Hell do we get back?
Wednesday, November 13, 2019
Your Media Politics Primer...
New York City is a "blue" town.
So is Washington, D.C., Cheecago, Lost Angeles, San Franpoopville, Filladelphia, Nooowark and about 200 other American cities.
They're called "blue" because they're filled up to the brim with folks who routinely, predictably, reliably vote Democrat. And "blue" is the color assigned to Liberals/Progressives/Leftists.
In the District of Columbia, for example, more than 94% of the population voted Democrat in both 2016 and 2018. It was over 90% in Lost Angeles. 84% in Chicago.
And they're called "blue" because they've been owned and operated by Left-wing Democrats for years. Sometimes decades. Sometimes even generations! The above-named cities are excellent examples. Chicago, to throw out a name, hasn't had an elected Republican in more than 70 years!
Maybe that's why these cities have all declared themselves "sanctuary cities," in defiance of Federal laws. I wish I could do that whenever I wanted to, wouldn't you? Just decide that this law, or that one, wasn't up to your liking. And so, you'll just disregard it. Just like our biggest cities have chosen to do.
So it probably wouldn't come as a surprise to anyone to learn that the reporters for the Washington Post, to name one example, all live within a few miles of each other. They all shop at the same places, and eat at the same restaurants, and worship at the same churches and synagogues.
Just kidding about that last one...
They therefore reflect their friends and neighbors and co-workers in terms of their core mores and folkways and beliefs. And also their politics. Thus, it also shouldn't be a surprise to you to learn that they all lean "Left," as in Liberal. The five-county area in which they reside is jam-packed with Federal worker bees, more than 200,000 of them, unfortunately, each of them is happily skipping on home with an average of $150k a year. And since all that gravy comes at the over-sucked teat of the taxpayer, you and me, they are quite reasonably drawn to any political Party and any presidential candidate who promises more of the same, which the Democrats routinely do. And they are terrified of any candidate who threatens to mess with their pot of gold.
Like Donald Trump.
Need another example? Sure. It was reported that fully 96% of all political campaign donations made by D. C. Media personnel during the 2018 election cycle went to Democrats. It was 95% in 2016. One might tend to think that these folks lean Left...
The foregoing stats will prove to you that the reporters who are reporting the news are reliable Lefties. And that what you'll get with them, and from them, is...Lefty news. News that's been slanted to reflect Leftist ideals and beliefs and goals and objectives.
To emphasize that point, Trump just got booed at a World Series game. Booed! Since the game was played in the Democrat stronghold of Washington, D.C., no one should have expected any different.
It should also be mentioned that these same theoretical WashPo reporters likely all attended the same journalism schools, of which there aren't all that many anyway. And they learned the same stuff, from the same aging, Summer of Love, tie-dyed, dope-smoking, hippy professors, almost all of whom are Liberal.
Thus, we have a region surrounding the District of Columbia filled with Lefties. And among them are print and broadcast and blog and podcast reporters who reflect that region's values. Hence, the MainStreamMedia (MSM) in D.C. leans Left. And in the case of the Washington Post, Far Left!
I might mention at this point that the Washington Post is owned lock, stock and barrel, by one Jeff Bezos, Amazon's owner and the richest man in the world. Oh yeah, and a rabid Leftist Democrat and Trump hater. Might that be another reason why the WashPo's news is slanted so far to the Left?
So it is with the New York Times. Far Left! And the Chicago Sun Tribune. Far Left. And the San Francisco Chronicle, San Fran Nan Pelosi's home town paper. Far Left. And the Lost Angeles Times (owned by the same far-Left guy who owns the Chicago Trib). Far Left!
Almost all of the news we consume as Americans comes from New York City. That's where the MSM is located. And where the news is gathered, and collated, and prepared for broadcast. All the broadcast networks and cable TV and radio channels are located within about six blocks of each other in Midtown-Manhattan, NYC. Six blocks! These media are then fed by the Lefty D.C. news-gatherers, who then wrap it all together with a neat Lefty bow tied around it and send it out over the airwaves. They send it first to the major broadcast and cable and print outlets, and then on to the peons in Iowa, and Colorado, and Louisiana, and Florida, and Montana.
These are all places where there is zero input to national news production. In fact, 49 states have pretty much zero input. Ask yourself, who do New York City reporters talk with? They talk only with their friends and neighbors and co-workers. And with each other. The folks they bump into at the gym. The folks they meet at the bar. Folks who think like they do. Do they have reporters talking with folks in Iowa? No. In New Mexico? No. In Montana? No. How about Pensacola, FL, and Pumpkin Center, MO, and Salina, KS. No, No, and No.
Ask yourself; when was the last time you got a call from a national pollster? Someone asking for YOUR opinion. Yeah, me neither...
In other words, they gather, refine and produce the news without any input at all from those who believe, think and act differently than does their little tribe. And so their "product" is inherently flawed. It is incomplete and skewed, and I'd guess they don't even know it. Let me say again: these reporters aren't talking to us; they're actually talking only to each other.
I'm not convinced they really believe there's anyone actually living out there in "Flyover Country," nor do they really care...
How many of us know that we're being force-fed news with a marked Leftist slant? How many of us know to seriously discount the accuracy and reliability and neutrality of our MSM. How many of us wander through life unaware that Leftists are lying to us each and every day, and with a smile on their faces?
Put simply, with exception of two cable TV news channels, all the "news" you receive from the others is nothing more than than that day's Democrat National Committee talking points, homogenized and reassembled into as palatable a package as they can manage.
And unfortunately, there's an enormous percentage of our population that doesn't know it. And I, The Chuckmeister, am here to correct that oversight.
People, listen up! Be careful information shoppers! The so-called MSM is out to force-feed you manufactured, Left-wing propaganda. A word to the wise should be sufficient...
So is Washington, D.C., Cheecago, Lost Angeles, San Franpoopville, Filladelphia, Nooowark and about 200 other American cities.
They're called "blue" because they're filled up to the brim with folks who routinely, predictably, reliably vote Democrat. And "blue" is the color assigned to Liberals/Progressives/Leftists.
In the District of Columbia, for example, more than 94% of the population voted Democrat in both 2016 and 2018. It was over 90% in Lost Angeles. 84% in Chicago.
And they're called "blue" because they've been owned and operated by Left-wing Democrats for years. Sometimes decades. Sometimes even generations! The above-named cities are excellent examples. Chicago, to throw out a name, hasn't had an elected Republican in more than 70 years!
Maybe that's why these cities have all declared themselves "sanctuary cities," in defiance of Federal laws. I wish I could do that whenever I wanted to, wouldn't you? Just decide that this law, or that one, wasn't up to your liking. And so, you'll just disregard it. Just like our biggest cities have chosen to do.
So it probably wouldn't come as a surprise to anyone to learn that the reporters for the Washington Post, to name one example, all live within a few miles of each other. They all shop at the same places, and eat at the same restaurants, and worship at the same churches and synagogues.
Just kidding about that last one...
They therefore reflect their friends and neighbors and co-workers in terms of their core mores and folkways and beliefs. And also their politics. Thus, it also shouldn't be a surprise to you to learn that they all lean "Left," as in Liberal. The five-county area in which they reside is jam-packed with Federal worker bees, more than 200,000 of them, unfortunately, each of them is happily skipping on home with an average of $150k a year. And since all that gravy comes at the over-sucked teat of the taxpayer, you and me, they are quite reasonably drawn to any political Party and any presidential candidate who promises more of the same, which the Democrats routinely do. And they are terrified of any candidate who threatens to mess with their pot of gold.
Like Donald Trump.
Need another example? Sure. It was reported that fully 96% of all political campaign donations made by D. C. Media personnel during the 2018 election cycle went to Democrats. It was 95% in 2016. One might tend to think that these folks lean Left...
The foregoing stats will prove to you that the reporters who are reporting the news are reliable Lefties. And that what you'll get with them, and from them, is...Lefty news. News that's been slanted to reflect Leftist ideals and beliefs and goals and objectives.
To emphasize that point, Trump just got booed at a World Series game. Booed! Since the game was played in the Democrat stronghold of Washington, D.C., no one should have expected any different.
It should also be mentioned that these same theoretical WashPo reporters likely all attended the same journalism schools, of which there aren't all that many anyway. And they learned the same stuff, from the same aging, Summer of Love, tie-dyed, dope-smoking, hippy professors, almost all of whom are Liberal.
Thus, we have a region surrounding the District of Columbia filled with Lefties. And among them are print and broadcast and blog and podcast reporters who reflect that region's values. Hence, the MainStreamMedia (MSM) in D.C. leans Left. And in the case of the Washington Post, Far Left!
I might mention at this point that the Washington Post is owned lock, stock and barrel, by one Jeff Bezos, Amazon's owner and the richest man in the world. Oh yeah, and a rabid Leftist Democrat and Trump hater. Might that be another reason why the WashPo's news is slanted so far to the Left?
So it is with the New York Times. Far Left! And the Chicago Sun Tribune. Far Left. And the San Francisco Chronicle, San Fran Nan Pelosi's home town paper. Far Left. And the Lost Angeles Times (owned by the same far-Left guy who owns the Chicago Trib). Far Left!
Almost all of the news we consume as Americans comes from New York City. That's where the MSM is located. And where the news is gathered, and collated, and prepared for broadcast. All the broadcast networks and cable TV and radio channels are located within about six blocks of each other in Midtown-Manhattan, NYC. Six blocks! These media are then fed by the Lefty D.C. news-gatherers, who then wrap it all together with a neat Lefty bow tied around it and send it out over the airwaves. They send it first to the major broadcast and cable and print outlets, and then on to the peons in Iowa, and Colorado, and Louisiana, and Florida, and Montana.
These are all places where there is zero input to national news production. In fact, 49 states have pretty much zero input. Ask yourself, who do New York City reporters talk with? They talk only with their friends and neighbors and co-workers. And with each other. The folks they bump into at the gym. The folks they meet at the bar. Folks who think like they do. Do they have reporters talking with folks in Iowa? No. In New Mexico? No. In Montana? No. How about Pensacola, FL, and Pumpkin Center, MO, and Salina, KS. No, No, and No.
Ask yourself; when was the last time you got a call from a national pollster? Someone asking for YOUR opinion. Yeah, me neither...
In other words, they gather, refine and produce the news without any input at all from those who believe, think and act differently than does their little tribe. And so their "product" is inherently flawed. It is incomplete and skewed, and I'd guess they don't even know it. Let me say again: these reporters aren't talking to us; they're actually talking only to each other.
I'm not convinced they really believe there's anyone actually living out there in "Flyover Country," nor do they really care...
How many of us know that we're being force-fed news with a marked Leftist slant? How many of us know to seriously discount the accuracy and reliability and neutrality of our MSM. How many of us wander through life unaware that Leftists are lying to us each and every day, and with a smile on their faces?
Put simply, with exception of two cable TV news channels, all the "news" you receive from the others is nothing more than than that day's Democrat National Committee talking points, homogenized and reassembled into as palatable a package as they can manage.
And unfortunately, there's an enormous percentage of our population that doesn't know it. And I, The Chuckmeister, am here to correct that oversight.
People, listen up! Be careful information shoppers! The so-called MSM is out to force-feed you manufactured, Left-wing propaganda. A word to the wise should be sufficient...
Thursday, November 7, 2019
What Every Boy Scout Already Knows...
I'm guessing it would come as a surprise to many here in Taxforinia to learn that you need three things for a fire to burn. They are:
- Oxygen
- Fuel
- An ignition source
If you had your Boy Scout merit badge in firestarting, which I do, as a matter of fact, you'd know the foregoing. You'd have to or you wouldn't have been able to heat up your beans on the camping trip.
But folks here in authority don't seem to grasp these facts. And put simply, as it relates to our recent fire emergencies here in Taxifornia, here goes:
- We have plenty of oxygen here.
- We have all kinds of ignition sources.
- And God knows, we have scads of fuel. And that, my friends and Patriots, is our problem.
About ten years ago our Republican minority here in Taxifornia offered up legislation to clean up dead trees and scrub brush and overgrown weeds throughout the more fire-prone areas of our once-Golden State. That would mean eliminating available fuel sources so as to prevent the next fire. Yeah, good idea, right?
Not to Democrats.
No, no. Democrats were afraid that clearing dead trees and scrub brush might deprive spotted owls of a place to plant their little feet. Err, claws. Errr, talons. And crazed tree-huggers of a tree to hug. So they voted down the Republicans' plan and sunk the money into curing global warming. Or something. The net result, however, was to permit an overgrowth of potential fuel. Even fuel in Malibu, where all the rich swells live. And where they just learned their money and their political connections won't keep them from burning alive if a wildfire breaks out.
And one just did. All over our state. From north to south, a dozen of them. The stuff we should have cleaned up and carted away caught fire. And our "leader's" response? Blame Republicans for global warming.
Oh yeah, and the power companies turned off the electricity.
You may not know it but our largest utility just declared bankruptcy. They just took a $2.5 Billion Dollar charge due to that filing. And the reason they pulled the plug? It seems that last year's "Paradise" fire was started by PGandE power lines, making them responsible for a $Billion in losses and a dozen deaths. Not good.
But what if those sparks from a power company power line had hit...nothing? The nothing that would have been there if the brush and weeds and overgrown trees had been removed. The stuff that would have been removed had the Democrats not chosen to our their money on...unicorns and rainbows.
And then PGandE just decided that to prevent future wildfires, they would just turn off the power. They wouldn't want to cause peoples' houses to burn down now, right? So the richest state in the nation with the highest taxes in the nation and the highest gas prices in the nation...has fires burning from the sea to the mountains, and no electricity to run its generators.
Everyone out there in Flyover Country: if you're thinking about possibly moving to California, please think again. You have electricity. And cheap gas. And adult leaders. Stay where you are. You'll be much happier...
- Oxygen
- Fuel
- An ignition source
If you had your Boy Scout merit badge in firestarting, which I do, as a matter of fact, you'd know the foregoing. You'd have to or you wouldn't have been able to heat up your beans on the camping trip.
But folks here in authority don't seem to grasp these facts. And put simply, as it relates to our recent fire emergencies here in Taxifornia, here goes:
- We have plenty of oxygen here.
- We have all kinds of ignition sources.
- And God knows, we have scads of fuel. And that, my friends and Patriots, is our problem.
About ten years ago our Republican minority here in Taxifornia offered up legislation to clean up dead trees and scrub brush and overgrown weeds throughout the more fire-prone areas of our once-Golden State. That would mean eliminating available fuel sources so as to prevent the next fire. Yeah, good idea, right?
Not to Democrats.
No, no. Democrats were afraid that clearing dead trees and scrub brush might deprive spotted owls of a place to plant their little feet. Err, claws. Errr, talons. And crazed tree-huggers of a tree to hug. So they voted down the Republicans' plan and sunk the money into curing global warming. Or something. The net result, however, was to permit an overgrowth of potential fuel. Even fuel in Malibu, where all the rich swells live. And where they just learned their money and their political connections won't keep them from burning alive if a wildfire breaks out.
And one just did. All over our state. From north to south, a dozen of them. The stuff we should have cleaned up and carted away caught fire. And our "leader's" response? Blame Republicans for global warming.
Oh yeah, and the power companies turned off the electricity.
You may not know it but our largest utility just declared bankruptcy. They just took a $2.5 Billion Dollar charge due to that filing. And the reason they pulled the plug? It seems that last year's "Paradise" fire was started by PGandE power lines, making them responsible for a $Billion in losses and a dozen deaths. Not good.
But what if those sparks from a power company power line had hit...nothing? The nothing that would have been there if the brush and weeds and overgrown trees had been removed. The stuff that would have been removed had the Democrats not chosen to our their money on...unicorns and rainbows.
And then PGandE just decided that to prevent future wildfires, they would just turn off the power. They wouldn't want to cause peoples' houses to burn down now, right? So the richest state in the nation with the highest taxes in the nation and the highest gas prices in the nation...has fires burning from the sea to the mountains, and no electricity to run its generators.
Everyone out there in Flyover Country: if you're thinking about possibly moving to California, please think again. You have electricity. And cheap gas. And adult leaders. Stay where you are. You'll be much happier...
Monday, November 4, 2019
Prop. 47: A New Business Opportunity!
Let's say you're a shopkeeper in San Francisco.
And let's say that you've grown weary of stepping over legions of the homeless and tent encampments and endless piles of s*it to get in your front door every morning. And also of apologizing to your customers as they try and negotiate this urban toilet to buy their goods.
You've complained to your elected leaders and the police but to no avail. They won't help, because to do so would be "to violate the human rights" of those who are doing their best to ruin your life and your business. You see, to make things better for you, the taxpayer, they'd have to make things worse for the bums. And they just cannot...for some unearthly reason...do that. It's bad.
But you've done your very best to work around that problem. And so have every one of your fellow business owners throughout the Greater San Franpoopville area. But there's one problem you haven't been able to work around: Proposition 47.
Prop. 47 was passed into law back in 2014. The intent of this law by the Progressive weenies in charge up there was to decriminalize shoplifting so the cops could focus on "more serious crimes." So whereas thefts of $50.00 or more used to be the trigger that moved a small shoplifting infraction from a misdemeanor to a felony, these addled dweebs moved that magic, arbitrary number up to a stratospheric $950.00! So, with the passage of this single law, the "Powers that be" in SFO created an entirely new category of crime!
And in doing so, they created an all-new, very exciting and potentially quite rewarding business opportunity.
Now vagrants, bums, drug-addled crooks and the homeless can simply walk into your store, pick up a fifth of Jack Daniels, or a new pair of Levis, or a nice North Face jacket, and walk right back out. Unimpeded. Oh, you could try and stop him, at the risk he might knife you, or shoot you, or hit you over the head with that fifth of Jack Daniels.
Or, you could call the cops, but all the cops would do, if they caught the guy, would be to write him a citation. A citation to appear at some future date to be tried for this crime. And if he doesn't show up? Nothing. The case is dropped. By statute. And the only loser? The shopkeeper who's out a fifth of Jack Black. Or the Levis or the jacket.
A whole new industry has grown up around this flawed, feel-good law. Now, hoards of thieves swarm shops and grab anything they can get their hands on. And then bolt, arms full of expensive goods, all within a minute or so. And then, believe it or not, they set up card tables, out on the sidewalk, all within view of the stores they just robbed, to sell the stuff they just stole.
And the cops? They're out patrolling for some "more serious crime," one could only assume. Because they're surely not arresting these criminals.
How would you like to be a store owner and have somebody steal hundreds of dollars worth of your merchandise and not fear being caught or prosecuted? I'd guess you wouldn't be too happy. And neither are the SFO shopkeepers. They're uniting in an effort to try and end this outlandish perversion, but they're fighting a losing battle; the homeless are simply more important than they are.
Stores are shuttering. Businesses are closing. Prices are rising. The quality of life there is rapidly eroding. And the folks in charge of enforcing the laws are nowhere to be found. Police won't try to enforce laws if their superiors won't back them up. And their superiors aren't willing to back them up...
For those of you who think socialism sounds groovy, and something you'd like to maybe vote for come next November, this foretelling of a distopian nightmare in San Franscrewyou should be a word to the wise.
And for those of you who are out of work and looking for an easy peasy way to earn a nice living, simply make your way to San Francrapville and start grabbing anything that isn't nailed down. The store owners won't stop you and neither will the cops.
For my Millennial friends out there, and Progressives who believe in decriminalizing smaller crimes, there is NO free lunch. And if you try and legislate one into being, the guy on the corner who makes sandwiches will soon be out of business...
BTW, 689,576 people chose to leave California last year (CA Dept. of Tourism). Do you think this new law might be one of the reasons why?
And let's say that you've grown weary of stepping over legions of the homeless and tent encampments and endless piles of s*it to get in your front door every morning. And also of apologizing to your customers as they try and negotiate this urban toilet to buy their goods.
You've complained to your elected leaders and the police but to no avail. They won't help, because to do so would be "to violate the human rights" of those who are doing their best to ruin your life and your business. You see, to make things better for you, the taxpayer, they'd have to make things worse for the bums. And they just cannot...for some unearthly reason...do that. It's bad.
But you've done your very best to work around that problem. And so have every one of your fellow business owners throughout the Greater San Franpoopville area. But there's one problem you haven't been able to work around: Proposition 47.
Prop. 47 was passed into law back in 2014. The intent of this law by the Progressive weenies in charge up there was to decriminalize shoplifting so the cops could focus on "more serious crimes." So whereas thefts of $50.00 or more used to be the trigger that moved a small shoplifting infraction from a misdemeanor to a felony, these addled dweebs moved that magic, arbitrary number up to a stratospheric $950.00! So, with the passage of this single law, the "Powers that be" in SFO created an entirely new category of crime!
Penalty-free shoplifting!
Now vagrants, bums, drug-addled crooks and the homeless can simply walk into your store, pick up a fifth of Jack Daniels, or a new pair of Levis, or a nice North Face jacket, and walk right back out. Unimpeded. Oh, you could try and stop him, at the risk he might knife you, or shoot you, or hit you over the head with that fifth of Jack Daniels.
Or, you could call the cops, but all the cops would do, if they caught the guy, would be to write him a citation. A citation to appear at some future date to be tried for this crime. And if he doesn't show up? Nothing. The case is dropped. By statute. And the only loser? The shopkeeper who's out a fifth of Jack Black. Or the Levis or the jacket.
A whole new industry has grown up around this flawed, feel-good law. Now, hoards of thieves swarm shops and grab anything they can get their hands on. And then bolt, arms full of expensive goods, all within a minute or so. And then, believe it or not, they set up card tables, out on the sidewalk, all within view of the stores they just robbed, to sell the stuff they just stole.
And the cops? They're out patrolling for some "more serious crime," one could only assume. Because they're surely not arresting these criminals.
How would you like to be a store owner and have somebody steal hundreds of dollars worth of your merchandise and not fear being caught or prosecuted? I'd guess you wouldn't be too happy. And neither are the SFO shopkeepers. They're uniting in an effort to try and end this outlandish perversion, but they're fighting a losing battle; the homeless are simply more important than they are.
Stores are shuttering. Businesses are closing. Prices are rising. The quality of life there is rapidly eroding. And the folks in charge of enforcing the laws are nowhere to be found. Police won't try to enforce laws if their superiors won't back them up. And their superiors aren't willing to back them up...
For those of you who think socialism sounds groovy, and something you'd like to maybe vote for come next November, this foretelling of a distopian nightmare in San Franscrewyou should be a word to the wise.
And for those of you who are out of work and looking for an easy peasy way to earn a nice living, simply make your way to San Francrapville and start grabbing anything that isn't nailed down. The store owners won't stop you and neither will the cops.
For my Millennial friends out there, and Progressives who believe in decriminalizing smaller crimes, there is NO free lunch. And if you try and legislate one into being, the guy on the corner who makes sandwiches will soon be out of business...
BTW, 689,576 people chose to leave California last year (CA Dept. of Tourism). Do you think this new law might be one of the reasons why?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)