Category Archives: politics

He Could Have Said This…

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) says he’ll send four—count ’em—four High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems equipped with medium range rockets to Ukraine. It’ll take about three weeks to get into Ukrainian hands for operational use. There’s no word on how many actual rockets will be shipped along with the systems, not even a rough ballpark estimate. Only this:

The Pentagon would not say how many rockets it will provide to Ukraine, only that it is sending four of the truck-mounted HIMARS systems. The trucks each carry a container with six precision-guided rockets, which can travel about 45 miles[.]

Such largesse by the Progressive-Democrat President. Russia’s Smerch system, their own multiple launch rocket system, carries a dozen rockets per load and ranges 56 miles.

Even so, Biden could have said from the start that he was sending this token to Ukraine and without all the prattle about what he was not going to send.

The question remains, too: how many more Ukrainians must die, how many more Ukrainian women raped and children butchered by the barbarian while Biden dithers before any more arms shipments?

And why the concern about Ukraine striking into Russia to hit supply depots, troop gatherings, transportation routes from those into Ukraine, or any other targets the Ukraine government deems useful to its fight for national survival? Why should Russia be a sanctuary, protected against counterattack in this war that Russia started and still is prosecuting?

The Political Winds

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that then-Presidential candidate Robert Francis O’Rourke proudly declaimed that Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.

Having failed utterly in that campaign, O’Rourke subsequently changed his Web site’s Gun Safety page to read And while it might not be the easy or politically safe thing to say, I strongly believe that we need to reduce the number of AR-15’s and AK-47’s on our streets.

Now O’Rouke has adjusted his Gun Safety page again [emphasis in the original]:

And while it might not be the easy or politically safe thing to say, I don’t believe any civilian should own an AR-15 or AK-47.

He’s not Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke. He’s Robert Francis “Veleta” O’Rourke.

Facts Don’t Matter

Posted on by
Reply

Especially when they contradict settled conclusions drawn beforehand. Here’s Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for Georgia’s governorship, Stacey Abrams:

We know that increased turnout has nothing to do with suppression.

And

Suppression is about whether you make it difficult for voters to access the ballot. And in Georgia we know difficulty has been put in place for too many Georgians[.]

Never mind that voter suppression is so strong that not only Republican voter turnout exploded in the just concluded Georgia primaries, so has Democratic voter turnout:

Democratic turnout increased 30% over the last midterm in 2018 [which is pre-Wuhan Virus situation]….

The pre-set conclusion is all that matters.

Rank Cowardice

Posted on by
Reply

Did these European nations learn nothing from WWII, or are they gone soft in their wealth and safety under our American umbrella? Or do they ignore the fresh lessons the nations of eastern Europe—freed from Russian occupation only a generation ago—would teach them?

Some European Union states have floated the idea of giving President Vladimir Putin an off-ramp that would make it easier for him to justify a de-escalation to his domestic audience in Russia, while a peace plan drawn up by Italy proposed autonomy for Ukraine’s Crimea and Donbas.

Our own Henry Kissinger—who negotiated our preemptive surrender in Vietnam—is an especial embarrassment. Pontificating in Davos, he actually said with a straight face

…”ideally, the dividing line should return to the status quo ante,” suggesting that Ukraine should allow Russia to retain the Crimean Peninsula, which it annexed in 2014, and swaths of the eastern Donbas region seized by Moscow-backed separatists the same year.

And

pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine … but a new war against Russia itself.

That is Kissinger once again practicing his politics of preemptive surrender, ceding to Russia the occupied territories of Ukraine, a Kissingerian ownership based solely on their seizure by Russia at gunpoint.

It’s certainly easy enough for those far away from the fight for national survival, sitting in their air-conditioned offices, blithely to tell that nation to just give up some land and we’ll have peace in our time.

Never mind that giving away any square inch of a nation’s territory is giving away pieces of that nation’s existence. Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had the right characterization of Kissinger’s words.

I get the sense that instead of the year 2022, Mr Kissinger has 1938 on his calendar. And that he thought he was addressing an audience not in Davos, but in erstwhile Munich.

One of Zelenskyy’s advisors, Oleksiy Arestovych, was more blunt:

Get lost with suggestions of this sort, that Ukraine should trade some of its territory. Children are dying here, soldiers are stopping shrapnel with their own bodies, and they’re telling us to sacrifice territory. It will never happen.

And from the second link just above:

they are telling us to sacrifice our land? Bite me, f*ckers.

Indeed.

Red Flag Laws

Posted on by
Reply

Some thoughts on necessary criteria for them, particularly as they’re intended to apply to the mentally unstable.

  1. Define “mentally unstable”
  2. Identify which “mentally unstable” are dangerous and which are not
  3. Identify how the “dangerous mentally unstable” are to be disarmed without disarming—leaving defenseless—those around him
  4. Specify how quickly—including appeals—a court case must be finally decided and the “dangerous mentally unstable” gets his weapons back after successfully defending himself
  5. Specify how the “dangerous mentally unstable” will be made financially whole after winning his court case
  6. Specify how an accusation will be separated into a frivolous one and one made in good faith
  7. Specify the sanctions to be brought against the accuser if the “dangerous mentally unstable” wins his court case
  8. Identify how the “dangerous mentally unstable” gets his reputation and his life back after winning his court case, whether it was brought in good faith or bad

That’s just a start on the idiocy and intrinsically virtue-signaling nature of red flag laws.