Going back to my post on Canuckistan’s gun confiscation plan, there’s this headline:
Alberta and Saskatchewan Have a Message for
Ottawa on Gun Confiscation: GFY
Of course, if said two entities were to become U.S. States #51 and #52, this would be less of an issue… just sayin’.
Haymarket, Edinburgh 1999
From Loyal Friend & Reader John C. comes this:
See, what gets up my nose about this is that when Gummint puts up signs, there needs to be clarity above all things.
Take that “requirement” addendum, for instance. Is that a 2-gun minimum per car, or a 2-gun minimum per occupant? This ambiguity certainly leaves the interpretation up to the supervising official, and I’d hate to run afoul of state law just because of the lack of clear signage.
My advice, therefore, is for people to carry at least two guns per person when they visit Texas. Or anywhere else, for that matter.
Ambrose Bierce once said something along the lines of: “Whenever politicians talk, no matter what the topic, it’s always about money.”
In that spirit therefore, I offer up this little piece of shit masquerading as a pearl:
Democrats have moved to enact legislation that would establish retroactive liability for American energy producers through so-called “climate superfund” laws which penalize companies for lawfully providing energy that Americans rely on every day.
Beyond potential political challenges, the Democrat plan to punish energy producers also faces significant legal hurdles.
The Justice Department and Vermont in late March faced off in the federal courts over the 2024 climate superfund law that would require fossil fuel providers to pay for the alleged costs of climate change. The Trump administration has sued to block the law, claiming it violates the Constitution. The administration believes that climate superfund laws are unlawful attempts to regulate emissions that cross state lines. API and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have filed their own lawsuit against Vermont.
Jonathan Rose, who represented Vermont at the late March hearing, said, “We don’t need to convince the court that climate change presents serious challenges to the state of Vermont. The act is intended to recover some of the costs it’s going to need to adapt to climate change,” he said. “What it doesn’t do is, it doesn’t try to mitigate climate change, stop climate change, or otherwise impact global emissions or anything like that.”
Yeah, it’s not even attempting to paint itself as having “noble” intentions (i.e. staving off Global Cooling Climate Warming Change©); it’s a naked grab for money, pure and simple. The accepted “fact” that Global Cooling Climate Warming Change© is actually a thing simply gives the theft a foundation. (Corollary: if Global Cooling Climate Warming Change© is not real — it isn’t — then all this bullshit should go away — it won’t — because they’ll always clamp onto some other imaginary catastrophe as a pretext for their theft.)
A cursory look at a couple of other states trying to do similar: New York and Hawaii. Both Bluer than Paul Newman’s eyes, both stuck with massive Democrat government-created spending deficits.
I don’t always agree with what John Konrad says, but on this topic he’s spot-on:
Civilization is the ability to sustain itself. By that measure, Europe isn’t a civilization at all. It’s a dependency with better wine. That’s not a threat. I t’s a weather report. Build a Navy. Or don’t. But stop lecturing the people who made you “better than us”. Our “crudeness”, our “stunted liberal education”, our “ugly strip malls” are because we sacrificed our culture to support yours.
Read the whole thing, it’s worth it. The question is, though: how many Europeans are going to read it and wake up to its reality?
Here’s a “British TV personality”, one Faye Winter:
Stop me if you don’t think that she’s somewhat similar to most of her ilk…
Postscript: after reading the Comments below, I think I’m going to go for a better class of totty in future. I’m sick of these phony broads, and I’d rather look at everyday women, even if they’re not perfect physical specimens (through surgery etc.).