Well THIS Certainly Violates The Narrative™

Schools are safer than they were in the 90s, and school shootings are not more common than they used to be, researchers say

From the linked piece:

Mass school shootings are incredibly rare events. In research publishing later this year, (James Alan) Fox (Lipman Family Professor of Criminology, Law, and Public Policy at Northeastern) and doctoral student Emma Fridel found that on average, mass murders occur between 20 and 30 times per year, and about one of those incidents on average takes place at a school.
—
Their research also finds that shooting incidents involving students have been declining since the 1990s.
—
Four times the number of children were killed in schools in the early 1990s than today, Fox said.
“There is not an epidemic of school shootings,” he said

Not according to the bleating gun control crowd. The actual numbers are pretty bad, but they always have to inflate them because apparently reality isn’t bad enough. It’s like hate crimes. There’s more demand than there is supply.

Political Gaffe: When a Politician Accidentally Tells the Truth

This time it’s Bloomberg. In last night’s South Carolina debate, Bloomie admitted to buying the 2018 House Majority:

Slip of the tongue? Mike Bloomberg stops himself from saying he 'bought' all of the new Democrats' seats

Let’s just go on the record. They talk about 40 Democrats, 21 of those were people that I spent $100 million to help elect. All of the new Democrats that came in, put Pelosi in charge, and gave the Congress the ability to control this president, I bought – I got them

He obviously didn’t quite stop himself.

See the previous example.

Paging Rick Mance, Rick Mance, Line 1!

Somebody came out with a new and improved hand-held mini-gun, the XM556 Microgun. Being fully automatic, it's restricted to military, law enforcement, and (of course) Class III dealers. (Damn you, Hughes Amendment!)

Which Rick Mance of Traction Control blog is. Rick brought some interesting stuff to the Gun Blogger Rendezvous. I'd imagine he'd like one of these for a dealer sample.

Update:  He beat me to it by a long shot.

Apparently Being Able to Defend Oneself...

...is "incredibly dangerous" to the gun ban er, control, um safety movement:

Gun-Control Exec Says Attempts to Sell Guns to Minorities, Women ‘Incredibly Dangerous’

Re-Imagine

From the new Paper-of-Record, The Babylon Bee comes a more accurate re-write of John Lennon’s classic “Imagine.” Here are the lyrics:

Imagine there's no bread
It's easy if you try
No tacos or hot sauce,
Nothing cold or fried,
Imagine all the people living in the gulags

Imagine there's no money
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to eat or drink
And no bacon too
Imagine all the people living short life spans ooooh

You may say I'm a commie
But I'm not the only one
And someday you will join us
Or we'll shoot you in the face

Imagine no possessions
Because all your stuff was redistributed
Lots of greed and hunger
But seriously please can I have a potato
Imagine all the people sharing all your stuff, yeah

You may say I'm a commie
But I'm not the only one
Did you say you don't like that?
Then it's the gulag for you, son

Socialist Paradise!

So Bernie Sanders goes on 60 Minutes and defends his previous defense of Castro's Cuba, touting Cuba's universal literacy program (and probably "free" health care.) 

Right Bernie - Cuba is such a paradise, look at these people who fled Florida for Cuba's universal literacy and free health care:

Oh, wait.....

Quote of the day - Not Real Socialism Edition

I just recently had a "discussion" with someone on FB on the topic of "democratic socialism."  He indignantly left the conversation when I posted this cartoon:

But that's not the QotD.  This explanation - in its entirety - by Larry Corriea is:

I keep seeing this idiotic thing where "socialism" is used as a synonym for "government". So if you like fire departments or roads, you're a socialist...

BULLSHIT. These people drive me insane.

Government and its many programs all existed before Karl Marx. Socialism has an actual definition, and it isn't this mealy mouthed, wishy-washy, nebulous, feel good, gibberish people use today. It actually means something.

Going back to the men who created the philosophy, socialism means that regular "value" isn't what drives economics, instead production is coordinated through central government planning. That's the key element. Duh.

In other words, you take decisions away from the people/the market who would normally make them based upon what they value, and instead put those decisions in the hands of government. This is why Bernie is offended by there being too many brands of deodorant.

It isn't social programs. It isn't roads. It isn't fire departments. Or any other project governments have spent tax money on for thousands of years. If it was just that stuff they'd call themselves democrats/republicans in the US and this wouldn't be an issue.

But Bernie calls himself a socialist for a reason, and words mean things. Socialism isn't a blank slate for you to scribe your dreams on.

Which is why almost everybody who has actually studied history at all thinks actual socialism (as opposed to your fluffy magic unicorn version) is evil, while those who have studied history and still want it are wannabe totalitarians and statists who think it sounds awesome, because they assume they're going to be the ones in charge. Then they sell the fluffy unicorn version of socialism to the useful idiots. They tell you it's social programs and fairness, when actual reality is bread lines, inefficiency, and eventually gulags and firing squads.

Chris Matthews and James Carville are flaming liberals, but they've studied enough history to know that socialism is a terrifying evil. That should be a clue to all of you who normally identify as liberal, but who've been snookered into thinking socialism is innocuous.

And no, Denmark isn't socialist, when even the PM of Denmark has to come out and say, Hey Bernie Bros, quit using us as an example of socialism, because we're actually a traditionally capitalist nation with a lot of social programs.

Because again, socialism isn't a synonym for government. Whenever you treat it as such, you're being a useful idiot. When you say you prefer socialism, it's actually you saying you want the government to be in charge of everyone's business, because you think freedom is icky. (which is also why that declaration gets such a strong reaction from everyone who actually knows what socialism is)

This ignorance is partly the right's fault for knee jerk reaction calling every government program socialist. However, they are right to do so if the program is designed to take freedom/decisions away from people/business, and instead have the government make those decisions for them. That would be socialist.

This is also why polls show young people prefer "socialism", because they're thinking of the fluffy unicorn version they've been sold. When you narrow it down and ask about specific policies, it turns out they don't want the government telling them where/how/what they can do with their lives, while some unaccountable faceless bureaucrat decides what their time/labor/effort is worth.

If you're just in favor of social programs and safety nets, the democrat party is thataway (and don't blame me that they suck! That's on them!). But don't let the DNC's suckiness confuse you into supporting a system which has been one of the greatest, actual evils in human history.

President Trump Starts to Drain the Swamp

J. Christian Adams weighs in on the weaponization of the Justice Department.

Justice is no longer blind. Investigations, charges, and even prison terms depend on the ideological views of the targets.

If you are a friend of the president, the Justice Department “career lawyers” will do all they can to find a venue in the District of Columbia where they know a rabid population of Democrat jurors will do all they can to send you to Big Sandy.

If you doubt me, you haven’t heard of Tomeka Hart, the nasty partisan jury foreman in Stone’s trial who should have never been on the jury in the first place.

The Scales of Justice come in two versions, one for Democrats and one for Trump.

Let's examine those Justice Department “career lawyers.”

It is now plain that “career lawyer” isn’t a euphemism for unbiased and impartial. It’s exactly the opposite. It usually means Democrat, leftist, elitist, culturally hostile to middle America and feverishly anti-Trump.

Read the whole thing.

Moment of Zen

It's been way too long since I posted one of these:

Sycamore Falls in Northern Arizona

Damned Good Question

WHO Exactly is Living in a Bubble?

Interesting piece:  I’ve been a Democrat for 20 years. Here’s what I experienced at Trump’s rally in New Hampshire.

Pullquote:

You see, I was one of those Democrats who considered anyone who voted for Trump a racist. I thought they were horrible (yes, even deplorable) and had worked very hard to eliminate their voices from my spaces by unfriending or blocking people who spoke about their support of him, however minor their comments. I watched a lot of MSNBC, was convinced that everything he had done was horrible, that he hated anyone that wasn’t a straight, white man, and that he had no redeeming qualities.

Do read the whole thing.

Quote of the Day - Progressive Agenda Edition

This is going to be a long one, but it's important.  From Victor Davis Hanson via an Epoch Times interview:

(T)he progressive project started in the 19th century. And it took hold with Woodrow Wilson in the early ’20s, and its basic belief was that the U.S. Constitution erred on the side of liberty rather than equality. We should have been like the French Revolution, more of a fluid concept that would change with the times and use the power of government not to ensure equality of opportunity but to mandate equality of result. And therefore, there were certain things in the Constitution that prevented that project.

Not to mention The Reign of Terror. Executions in the public square, etc.

And we’ve changed a lot of them. We now have senators elected by direct vote and not appointed by the legislatures. The states cannot have property qualifications. Some of these were justified as archaic in the 18th-century sense.

But given those reforms, we’re still not to where we want to be. And what do I mean by that? The Supreme Court can be an obstacle. And so we need to pack the court. Now, Democratic candidates no longer see the 1937 FDR effort to pack the court as disreputable, but an honorable attempt. So they’re all endorsing [this idea of] let’s pack the court and make 15 judges, if we can’t get our guys on the court. Let’s abolish the Electoral College and all the arguments that these people with powdered wigs in the 18th century came up with. Let’s just have a direct vote and let California and New York and the Great Lakes, big cities [like] Chicago, determine the election. And why do you have to go out in a place like Wyoming or Utah? And let’s get rid of this archaic idea of two senators from Utah or from Wyoming having as much clout as two senators in California. And here, we’re speaking in California. My senator represents 20 million people. A senator in Wyoming represents 250,000. One man, one vote. Let’s get rid of it, even though it’s in the Constitution.

What I am getting at is they want to streamline the Constitution continually in an effort to make a country of radical equality; that requires certain things like this impeachment or to prune the Second Amendment. Or to say that the First Amendment does not apply here at Stanford University, because we can say, “That’s hate speech, what he said. He has no right to say hate speech. I declare that ‘hate speech,’ therefore, don’t speak.” And so the First Amendment, the Second Amendment are being pruned. Due process on college campuses … If I say that I was sexually assaulted by that person over there … I don’t have to come forward to identify myself. That person is not given constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments as he would in a criminal trial off-campus. The ACLU, they used to be the champion of free speech, is now a grassroots organizer, it says, political organizer. You don’t see any ACLU outrage [that] Adam Schiff is now going into the phone records of members of Congress, even though when the U.S. government looked in the phone records of terrorists in 2001 after 9/11, the ACLU said that was a violation of residents’ rights—not U.S. citizens, but residents.

So what I’m getting at is that the progressive project is a multifaceted effort by intellectuals, academics, foundations, progressive members of the Democratic Party to change, formally, the Constitution and to change the mindset of the American people, so that we can make people all the same by the powers of government. We see what’s going on. We’ve seen it in Cuba, we’ve seen it in Russia, we’ve seen it in Venezuela, we’ve seen it in China. And we’ve seen a soft benign form in Europe.

And the United States is really the only major country in the world that says, “You know what, that process inevitably leads to an Orwellian totalitarian state, and it crushes liberty and individual freedom, and we’re not going to do it here.” That’s why we have a Bill of Rights and a Constitution.

Voter Fraud? What Voter Fraud?

Oh, look! More about that voter fraud I have been told doesn't exist, and if it does, well, it doesn't rise to the level of anything to be concerned about!

If Dems didn't have voter fraud, how would they win elections?

SOTU Reaction

Quote of the Day - Thomas Sowell Edition

The 2020 Iowa Caucus is a Disaster

And yet these people want to run OUR HEALTH CARE.

 

They had THREE YEARS to implement whatever changes they wanted to improve the system, and what did they get? A clusterfuck.

I seem to remember the Obamacare website took about three years to develop, too, before it was rolled out to similar results. How much did the Iowa caucus disaster cost the DNC?

The memes are funny, though: