Category: Scratch a Lib-Find a Moron

For A Party Of ‘Joy,’ Democrats Are Awfully Miserable

In the months leading up to the 2024 election, Democrats had convinced themselves that they’d settled on the perfect campaign message. Not content with simply slandering their chief political rival as a Hitler-loving Nazi to distract from their disastrous policies, they arbitrarily declared themselves the party of “joy.”

“Forget the bad economy and border invasion, we’re all about the good vibes!” — or so went your typical Kamala Harris campaign appearance.

If it wasn’t obvious already (it should’ve been), it’s clear to any casual observer that tagline was nothing more than a facade.

Since Donald Trump’s return to the White House, Democrats have come down with a strong case of misery. No matter the policy or how much success it might reap for the American people, Democrats have treated nearly every action the president has taken as if it’s a world-ending crisis.

Case in point: Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.

On Wednesday, Harris’ weird vice presidential pick threw a hissy fit before local media, in which he dramatically bemoaned Trump’s efforts to dismantle the Department of Education and return the issue to the states where it belongs. In his incoherent screed, Walz fearmongered that laying off agency employees would harm children’s learning and produce devastating consequences for America’s educators.


But the Minnesota governor’s tantrum is a microcosm of the blind rage displayed by Democrats since Trump’s comeback.

Earlier this week, a Massachusetts Democrat had a meltdown at a House subcommittee hearing after his Republican colleague correctly referred to Rep. Tim “Sarah” McBride, D-Del. — a trans-identifying man — as “Mr. McBride.” The childish display came a week after another House Democrat got kicked out of Trump’s address to Congress for repeatedly interrupting the president’s speech.

These actions don’t even include those undertaken by the party’s unhinged base, whose behavior has been equally — if not more — despicable.

Continue reading “”

Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva dead at 77. “Grijalva, D-Ariz., died of lung cancer-related issues on Thursday

Krugman is a perfect reverse economic barometer. He’s always been wrong

Smug Krugman Says Trump Won Because Low-Income Voters Lack ‘Sophisticated Views’ on Economics

So here’s the thing. If PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) is serious about combatting widespread public opinion that the tax-supported “news service” is a haven for elitist leftists (which is exactly what it is), trotting out the ever-smug economist, Paul Krugman isn’t the best way to go about showing it.

During a taped interview with PBS economics reporter Paul Solman, which the outlet aired on Thursday, Krugman was his usual pathetic, self-centered self throughout.

Incidentally, the former New York Time columnist has been on a years’-long crusade to find a social media app that would take down Elon Musk’s X (formerly, Twitter), and has insisted for years that President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential election win over Democrat Hillary Clinton was “rigged.”

Solman kicked off the festivities.

For just short of 25 years, Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman was a New York Times columnist. He began the column in the Clinton years. Krugman left The Times just before Donald Trump was inaugurated. I asked him what has changed in 25 years.

Krugman said that back in the day, he was “extremely optimistic.” But today? (emphasis, mine)

When I began writing the column, people were extremely optimistic. I was hired basically to talk about all the good news and maybe funny stuff that was happening in this glorious late 1990s economic boom. And it’s been a very troubled world since then.

[…]

Most voters have very little idea of policy. I mean, you look at the polling, ask people, do you approve of Obamacare, and it’s still pretty negative. And you ask, do you approve of the Affordable Care Act, and it’s very positive. So that’s telling you something about what voters understand about policy.

I’m unaware that most voters see the Affordable Care Act very positively, but let’s move on—with Krugman continuing to, let’s call it, “twist the truth”:

Continue reading “”

“Imagine filing lawsuit against Glock, getting five paragraphs in, and admitting you fundamentally don’t understand how the gun even works.”

Imagine filing lawsuit against Glock, getting five paragraphs in, and admitting you fundamentally don’t understand how the gun even works.

Holding down the trigger bar will cause a dead trigger – not fire the gun repeatedly. Embarrassing.

Image

Fundamental misunderstanding continues. The G18 achieves auto fire differently than a G17 with a switch does. The trigger bar isn’t “held down” in either case, though.

If holding down the trigger bar is all that was required, you wouldn’t need a switch at all.Image

The G46 has the same dastardly trigger bar that works in the same dastardly way. Making a switch for a G46 wouldn’t be fundamentally different than making one for a G17. But don’t worry, New Jersey says the G46 is cool.Image
Image
This is so unbelievably dumb. Mind numbingly so.Image
Me whenever I don’t know how springs work. Me when I’m the master of Glock knowing. Me when I’m a lawyer getting paid to lawsuit and I just make stuff up.Image
If “remaining lowered” is all that it took, why don’t Glocks go full auto if you assemble them without the trigger bar at all? Permanently lowered if it isn’t installed. Shutting the slide should rip the whole mag, right?Image

Ketanji Brown Jackson Vs. Sonia Sotomayor: Who’s Dumber?

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti, a pivotal case addressing state restrictions on controversial medical interventions, including puberty blockers and hormone treatments for minors with gender confusion. At the heart of the case is a Tennessee law banning these procedures for children, with the court’s decision likely to have far-reaching consequences. Will our country protect children from these barbaric and irreversible procedures or not?

As I previously reported, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson humiliated herself when she bizarrely tried to equate banning transgender procedures for minors with prohibiting interracial marriage. She began with a convoluted statement: “Being drawn by the statute that was sort of like the starting point, the question was whether it was discriminatory because it applied to both races and it wasn’t necessarily invidious or whatever.”

It got worse from there.

“But you know, as I read … the case here, the court starts off by saying that Virginia is now one of 16 states which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications.” While it was clear that she intended to invoke historical racial discrimination, the connection to the case at hand was tenuous at best.

The real stretch came when she concluded, “And when you look at the structure of that law, it looks in terms of you can’t do something that is inconsistent with your own characteristics. It’s sort of the same thing.”

The suggestion that anyone could somehow liken laws protecting minors from irreversible and harmful gender procedures to bans on interracial marriage is downright absurd. Jackson’s argument hinged on a confusing assertion that both types of laws were based on “inconsistency” with one’s “characteristics,” a comparison that is frankly laughable and dumb.

But she wasn’t the only left-wing justice on the court to make a dumb argument.

While speaking before the court, Tennessee’s Solicitor General asked, “How many minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits?”

And that’s when Justice Sonia Sotomayor promptly jumped in.

“I’m sorry, Counselor,” she said, interrupting him. “Every medical treatment has a risk, even taking aspirin, there is always going to be a percentage of the population under any medical treatment that’s going to suffer a harm.”

That’s right. Sotomayor, the so-called “wise Latina,” compared cutting off the healthy breasts and genitals of minors to taking aspirin.
Which justice made the dumber argument? Jackson bizarrely compared Tennessee’s ban on gender procedures for minors to bans on interracial marriage, claiming that both involve “inconsistency” with inherent characteristics. The analogy was a spectacular failure as protecting minors from irreversible harm has nothing to do with racial discrimination.

Meanwhile, Sotomayor trivialized the issue by likening the risks of permanent, life-altering surgeries on minors to those of taking aspirin. This flippant dismissal of the severe, irreversible consequences of such procedures demonstrates a shocking lack of seriousness.

Both arguments are embarrassingly absurd, making it difficult to determine which is more moronic. One thing is for sure: both are an embarrassment to the court.

Walz’s Interview With ‘The View’ May Have Revealed More Than He Intended

Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz was asked another softball question about gun ownership and the Second Amendment on Monday, this time from the hosts of The View. While most of Walz’s answer was nothing more than a regurgitation of his campaign talking points claiming that gun owners have nothing to fear from the candidate who previously supported banning handguns and declared the Supreme Court shouldn’t find that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, one jab at Donald Trump highlighted the draconian stance that the Harris/Walz ticket has taken on who, exactly, possesses the right to keep and bear arms.

Walz made one more shady dig at his Republican opponent Donald Trump, telling the co-hosts, “The Republican nominee can’t pass a background check to get a gun,” referring to Trump getting convicted on 34 felony counts in his hush money trial early this year.

“We understand the Second Amendment and lawful gun owners, folks who have been doing this for 50 years like I have, we understand that there’s not a single thing that we’re proposing that takes away your right to be able to own that firearm, to be able to have it in your possession,” he continued. “But it does go a long ways to making sure that folks who shouldn’t have it, don’t have it.”

Clearly Walz believes that Trump’s felony convictions for the non-violent crime of falsifying business records should prevent him from lawfully possessing a firearm, though the Minnesota governor still believes felons should be able to cast a vote. Just last year Walz signed a bill allowing felons to have their voting rights restored after they complete their sentence, though their ability to legally own a firearm is still prohibited under Minnesota law.

Walz’s stance is right in line with Biden/Harri’s DOJ, which has argued that a lifetime prohibition on gun ownership is entirely appropriate for anyone convicted of a felony or criminal offense punishable by more than a year in prison, even non-violent crimes. That argument has its share of critics, however, including multiple judges on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which seems poised to once again rule in favor of a Pennsylvania man seeking to get his 2A rights restored almost 30 years after he pled guilty and received probation for falsifying his income on a food stamp application.

The Third Circuit previously ruled in favor of Bryan Range, but the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the appellate court after it issued the Rahimi decision. The appellate court held oral arguments in the Range case for a second time earlier this month, and the panel seemed skeptical of DOJ attorney Kevin Soter’s position that only “serious crimes” result in a lifetime loss of the right to keep and bear arms.

Continue reading “”