Daily Pics, My Comic, and The Times
the Daily
the Comic
the Blog
If you're going to name a virus variant Omicron.

At least humor us by adding Persei 8 to the title.


While I was working in the men's section of a department store, a woman asked me to help her choose a white dress shirt for her husband.

When I asked about his size, the woman looked stumped at first, then her face brightened. She held up her hands, forming a circle with her forefingers and thumbs.

"I don't know his size," she said, "but my hands fit PERFECTLY around his neck."


A truck driver who had been out on the road for two weeks, stopped at a brothel on the outskirts of a small town.

He walked straight up to the Madam, laid down $500 and said, “I would like your ugliest woman and a plate of lukewarm greasy food!”

The Madam was surprised by this request and said to him, “But sir, for that kind of money you could have one of my finest ladies and a three course meal”.

The truck driver replied, “Listen Darlin, I ain’t horny, I’m just homesick”.


Demi Lovato showed off a new spider tattoo that you can plainly see on the left side of her shaved head.

Other than that, she's doing great!


My friend came by today, he looked visibly upset. He said he just slept with his third cousin.

I told him if it upsets you so much, quit counting them.

Quote of the Times;
I was never one who sought to make the small man tall by cutting off the legs of a giant. I wanted to drag no man down to my size. Only to preserve a way of life which might make it possible for me, one day, to elevate myself until I at least partly matched his size. – Harvey

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
Jamaican National Accused of Murdering 19yo Cashier in NYC Demands 'Reparations' For '400 Years of Slavery' by Chris Menahan

The 30-year-old Jamaican national accused of murdering 19-year-old cashier Kristal Bayron-Nieves while robbing a Burger King in East Harlem demanded "reparations" for "400 years of f***ing slavery" after being arrested.

Police have released this video of an armed man who shot a #BurgerKing cashier last night during a robbery in East Harlem. The victim, 19 year old Kristal Bayron Nieves, has since died of her injuries
— Kiran Dhillon (@KiranDhillonTV) January 9, 2022

Video of the suspect accused of shooting dead a Hispanic female working at a Burger King in Harlem, NY. Winston Glynn shouts about reparations & slavery. He allegedly shot the teen after robbing the restaurant. He was a recipient of public assistance (EBT)
— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) January 15, 2022

From The Daily Mail, "Homeless man who shot dead teen cashier in cold blood at Burger King where he used to work had been released without bail in November for screwdriver attack: Screamed 'America's gonna burn' during wide-eyed perp-walk":

A 30-year-old career criminal yelled 'America's gonna burn' after being arrested over the cold-blooded murder of a 19-year-old Burger King cashier during a robbery this week - and the homeless man was free to kill after being released without bail for menacing another man with a screwdriver little more than a month before the murder.

Winston Glynn was tracked down in Brooklyn after an intense citywide manhunt following the shocking murder of Kristal Bayron-Nieves at the East Harlem Burger King, where NYPD officials said Glynn previously had worked.

Glynn was out on the street following his arrest on November 30 because his crime was 'not bail eligible.'

The Jamaican immigrant was being led out of the 25th Precinct stationhouse after being booked Friday afternoon when he launched into his rant as an angry crowd cursed at him in English and Spanish. The victim was Puerto Rican.

'Why am I guilty?' Glynn shouted through the blue mask covering his face as officers walked him to a waiting police car.

'You know they charge n*****s every day?

'Where's our reparations for four hundred years of f***ing slavery.'

Detectives attempted to load the handcuffed suspect into the back of the car when he screamed 'f*** you all! and then bellowed, 'America's gonna BURN!'

The cops then grabbed him by the shoulders and the top of his head as they struggled to shove him in the vehicle.

But Glynn had one last parting shout for those calling him 'garbage' and much worse in Spanish.

'Do you wanna start a war between Latinos and n*****s?! Do you wanna start a war?' he hollered.
Glynn faces charges of first-degree murder, first-degree robbery, criminal use of a firearm and criminal possession of a weapon.

Should we just send our reparations payments to him directly?

Do we owe reparations to all Jamaican nationals who just showed up yesterday?

Vice President Kamala Harris is the descendant of Jamaican slave owners, should we send her reparations checks too?

Whether or not this guy has mental problems, isn't it remarkable how he's got the narrative down pat?

As soon as you cross our border you can become an "aggrieved minority" that's "oppressed" by the "evil white man" (who you traveled thousands of miles to come and live with after fleeing your own country and your own people).

You can demand reparations for slavery, get free healthcare, heaps of welfare and ramble on about how you "built this country" to applause from libtards and the media.

You can even demand the right to vote!

New York City's new mayor Eric Adams just last week signed a bill into law to give non-citizens like Glynn the right to vote in municipal elections.

This is what we're told is "progress!"

News of the Times;
The more I get to know people.

The more I realize why Noah let only animals on the boat.


My dear friend, a divorcee, never remarried, and her daughter wanted to know why.

"The men I know would bring too much heavy baggage to the marriage and I simply don't want to put up with it," she explained.

Taking her mother's hand in hers, my friend's daughter said sweetly, "I hate to break the news to you, Mom, but you're not exactly carry on."


In a historic first, the inflation rate of the U.S. Dollar has surpassed the approval rating of the President.

"Wow! My inflation is way higher than Trump's inflation! Take that, Trump!" said Biden to an orange he had mistaken for Trump. "It's so high it even passed my really high approval rating! That's how you do it, Jack!"

According to experts, runaway inflation is so high that it has broken the inflation meters on all the economist's inflation measuring machines. Many are concerned this will make the poor become instantly much poorer, even as the wealthy and the political class are protected since they are able to ride on top of the inflation wave on their very expensive inflation wave surfboards.

Biden's approval rating is not doing nearly as well, with several pollsters revealing it has melted down and sunk deep into the Earth's core like a massive malfunctioning nuclear reactor.

The administration hopes they can turn things around by passing some massively popular legislation, like a federal takeover of elections.


I was in a taxi today and the driver said, "I love my job. I'm my own boss. Nobody tells me what to do."

Then I said: "Turn left here."


There was a nasty storm over the Madrid airport.

The rain in Spain fell mainly on the planes.

Quote of the Times;
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! – Henry

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
What Issue Was Really at the Heart of the Civil War, and is it Relevant Today? by William Sullivan

Most Americans today have a romanticized (and extraordinarily narrow) historical understanding of the conflict that we call the Civil War.

In their imaginations, it goes something like this: With passions inflamed by a moral renaissance in the North regarding the institution of slavery in the South, the two sides decided to go to war over the issue. In the end, the evil South was righteously razed by the armies of the North, and thus, slavery was ended, and the former slaves made American citizens, as Abraham Lincoln intended.

If you think this an unfair caricature of the extent of the average American’s knowledge on the subject, I’d wager you haven’t spoken to many people under 50 about the subject. Our young and middle-aged enjoy a collective memory of this fantastic tale of good and evil, and so many of our countrymen believe that it actually occurred in this way that presenting any alternative or more nuanced version of the story earns a million accusations of supporting “white supremacy.”

But the truth matters. And the telling of it matters, perhaps now more than ever because, at the rate that the leftists who indoctrinated generations to believe that fable are now using academia to rewrite history and are controlling modern avenues for free speech, opportunities to do so may be scarce in the future.

And, also, the true story is important because it’s incredibly relevant today.

The truth is most certainly not that Abraham Lincoln and the Union soldiers were so moved by the moral arguments against slavery that they were compelled to invade and destroy the South. Likewise, Robert E. Lee and Confederate soldiers didn’t pick up their rifles and start shooting at their former countrymen because they thought they were coming to take away the slaves that fewer than 10 percent of Southerners owned.

That’s just silly, and in a sane world, anyone suggesting it would be ridiculed into irrelevance.

The truth is, as Clifford Dowdey observes in his opening statements of The History of the Confederacy 1832-1865:

The Civil War was fought for thirty years before the mounting antagonisms exploded in a clash of arms. The period from Nullification in 1832 until Fort Sumter in 1861 constituted a long period of cold war, even by today’s standards. Men who opposed one another in the opening phases of the conflict had gone to their rewards when the shooting began, and the generation in the South which was to die had not been born when South Carolina first defied the Union. The quarrel was passed on, like a baton in a relay race, from generation to generation, until the men who settled in the bloodiest violence had little notion of what had started it.

The initial salvo which began this cold war did not actually occur in 1832 but in 1828. The federal government issued new tariffs which were, by design, both harmful to the South and beneficial to Northern producers. A tariff of nearly 49-percent was issued on nearly all imported goods. The consequence was not only that Northern industries were protected by artificially pricing European competitors out of the market, but agrarian Southern economies were double-struck by being required to pay more for goods they had previously imported and the reduction in European trade meant less money for Europeans to compete for Southern cotton. And to make matters worse, there was fear in the South of retaliatory tariffs from Europe which would further harm commerce. Understandably, this came to be known in the South as the Tariff of Abominations, and it led to the 1832 Nullification Crisis.

South Carolina threatened to secede, but armed conflict was avoided (and bitter resentment assured) by the 1833 passage of both the Force Bill and the Compromise Tariff, which gave the federal government the right to militarily enforce tariffs and lowered the tariff rates, respectively.

It was this question which was at the heart of this constitutional crisis, “a bedrock question,” writes Robert Selph Henry in The Story of the Confederacy, “going to the very nature of government… The fundamental question of the relation of the states to the government they had created.”

South Carolina was far from the first to threaten secession. In the seventy years between the Founding and South Carolina’s eventual secession, for example, New England seriously threatened secession twice -- once on the grounds that federal embargoes after the War of 1812 harmed commerce, and again after the annexation of Texas in 1845 and disagreement with American foreign policy in the War with Mexico.

The central question regarding secession, in both cases, was the same as South Carolina’s in 1832 and 1861. If the people of a state surmise that the federal government is pursuing a policy that compromises the liberty and prosperity of its citizens, does that state have to conform to what is perceived by the people of the state as an unconstitutional abuse of power, or, more bluntly, intolerable tyranny?

Dumbing down history to simple, easily digestible falsehoods (like “the Civil War was fought to free the slaves,” for example) is the easiest and most effective way to make those falsehoods common knowledge. That’s why the leftist propagandists and racial grievance hustlers in academia, the media, and the government do it. The truth about what led the country to the Civil War, however, is anything but simple or easily digestible. But I think Clifford Dowdey offers a fairly good summation:

[The North and South] had diverged into patterns of life which became increasingly antithetical; antagonisms and rivalries grew in intensity. The industrial North did wish to buy cheap and sell dear at the expense of the South, while Northern money power needed the South in a colonial status for exploitation. Slavery did exist in the South, and there was a high moral tone in the issue of freedom, held by a small minority. Extremists on both sides did inflame passions. There was, as an amalgam of all this, the nationalistic sweep of the new industrial middle-class society represented by the North, in alliance with the expanding, democratic West, and against these the South stood as an anachronistic, arrogant feudal culture in the path of manifest destiny. All of this defines the elements of duality within the corporate body of the nation; yet, put them all together, with equal emphases or any single emphasis, and the element of explosion is missing.

That element was similar to the violence inherent in the split personality of the schizophrenic. There the separate parts are locked in a struggle which must be resolved if the corporate body is to function. If this warring duality cannot be resolved, an explosion is inevitable.

There should be little need to expound upon the parallels to today in that, but here goes:

Red and blue states have, in fact, diverged into patterns of life that have become increasingly antithetical in recent years, and antagonisms and rivalries are growing in intensity. Blue states did fleece the taxpayers of red states last year by demanding a federal bailout for their decision to keep their states irrationally closed during the pandemic and in order to keep their broken, and internally unsustainable, entitlement programs afloat. There is a high moral tone being expressed on abortion in red states, an institution that disregards the right to life among the unborn just as the institution of slavery disregarded the right to liberty among slaves. Extremists on both sides are inflaming passions. Effete coastal liberals and elitists in the media and academia view middle-class, red-state denizens as anachronistic God-worshippers who prioritize their families and communities before the needs of the national collective, and are thereby impediments on that Hegelian path of history toward their inevitable vision of “progress.”

Red and blue states do, in many ways, seem like separate parts locked in a struggle that must be resolved if we are to function as a nation. Will this warring duality be resolved, or will we explode when, for example, the federal government decides to mandate vaccination IDs be issued by all of the states, and several states refuse?

Again, if the people of a state surmise that the federal government is pursuing a policy that compromises the liberty and prosperity of its citizens, does that state have to conform to what is perceived by the people of the state as an unconstitutional abuse of power, or can it express its autonomy and liberty without the prospect of being attacked by the federal government for having done so?

That is the central question that was at the heart of the Civil War. And we are fools to not consider that it’s the likeliest question that will be at the heart of the next one or to understand that it’s certainly the question at the heart of the semi-cold war between right and left in America today.

News of the Times;
How do you stop Canadian bacon from curling in your frying pan?

You take away their little brooms.


As my wife lay dying in the hospital bed, she looked at me and said, "My life is flashing before my eyes."

"That's great," I replied. "See if you can spot where you lost my car keys."


Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”

He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”

He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!”

“Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.


A man take his wife to the doctor for an annual checkup. When the doctor calls the woman in, she turns to her husband and says, “Let’s go Harold.”

The husband dutifully follows her into the doctor’s examination room. The doctor says, “Mrs. Sanders, I have been practicing medicine for 35 years and built a very honorable reputation. You can certainly trust me."

The wife replies, “Oh I trust you, doctor. It’s my husband I don’t trust with your pretty receptionist out there.”


What do you call a morning meal from a hotel which gives you diarrhea?

An incontinental breakfast.

Quote of the Times;
“The overwhelming number of deaths, over 75%, occurred in people who had at least four co-morbidities. So really these are people who were unwell to begin with.” - CDC Director Rochelle Walensky

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
The Media’s Color-Coded Parenting Standard by Heather Mac Donald

On April 19, 2021, McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski suggested in a text to Chicago’s mayor that the parents of two children recently killed in Chicago’s gang activity had “failed those kids.” Kempczinski’s text became public in November 2021, prompting widespread accusations of racism and calls for his resignation. Kempczinski confessed to his white privilege and apologized profusely for holding parents responsible for the fate of their children.

On December 3, a district attorney in Michigan filed involuntary manslaughter charges against the parents of Ethan Crumbley. The 15-year-old Crumbley allegedly killed four fellow students during a shooting rampage at his Oxford, Michigan high school on November 30. The prosecutor based her indictment of Crumbley’s parents on the fact that they had allowed Ethan to access a legally purchased handgun and ought to have known that the boy was primed to kill his classmates. The press, Democratic politicians, and gun control advocates greeted the homicide charges against the Crumbley parents with ecstatic approbation.

The divergent reactions to the Kempczinski text message and the Crumbleys’ indictment illuminate the different standards to which minority parents and white parents are held. When black juveniles perpetrate street violence, the press and public officials almost never ask: where were the parents? The less involved a parent is in a child’s life, the less society expects of him. These double standards may have a benign intent, but they enable a cultural dysfunction whose effects are thousands of times more lethal than school shootings.

Kempczinski made his ill-fated suggestion of parental responsibility after seven-year-old Jaslyn Adams was gunned down by her father’s gang rivals. Jaslyn and her father Jontae Adams were parked in a McDonald’s drive-thru lane on Chicago’s West Side on April 18, 2021, when two gunmen jumped out of a car and unleashed at least 45 shots at their car. Jaslyn was struck six times and died; Jontae was seriously wounded. A convicted heroin dealer, Jontae knew that his gang’s enemies were out for his blood. The day before the shooting, he tweeted: “Opps probably downstairs waiting on me.”

A few weeks before Jaslyn Adams’s murder, 13-year-old Adam Toledo was out running the streets at 2:30 a.m. with a fellow gang member. Both Toledo and his associate Ruben Roman were armed. ShotSpotter technology picked up eight rounds of gunfire from the pair; two calls to 911 also reported the shots. Toledo and Roman fled from the responding officers; the officer who chased Toledo down an alley shouted at him to “stop it” or “drop it [i.e., the gun].” In an almost instantaneous succession of events, Toledo wheeled toward the officer with his gun in his hand, then dropped the weapon and put his hands up. A fraction of a second later, the officer shot him once, fatally. Opinion is divided on whether the cop was justified in firing his weapon.

A day after the Jaslyn Adams murder, Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot paid an unrelated visit to McDonald’s headquarters. Kempczinski thanked Lightfoot via text message for her visit and added: regarding the “tragic shootings. . . , both at our restaurant yesterday and with Adam Toldeo [sic]. With both, the parents failed those kids which I know is something you can’t say. Even harder to fix.”

Kempczinski would pay the price for saying the unsayable. After activists obtained and released the text message in November, a coalition including Color of Change and Showing Up for Racial Justice released an open letter to the CEO: “Your text message was ignorant, racist and unacceptable coming from anyone,” the letter read, “let alone the CEO of McDonald’s, a company that spends big money to market to communities of color and purports to stand with Black Lives.” McDonald’s employees and race advocates protested outside the company’s headquarters and demanded reparations. U.S. representative Bobby Rush joined calls for Kempczinski to resign. A McDonald’s worker told a local TV station that Kempczinski was “putting the blame on parents for the violence in the streets. He can’t relate because he is wealthy.” Jaslyn Adams’s mother, heretofore a cipher, emerged from her obscurity to vent her anger: “How dare you judge me! . . . You come from privilege. You can’t speak about me.”

Lightfoot’s office joined the denunciations: “Victim shaming has no place in this conversation,” a press release read. (“Victim-shaming” is a euphemism for ascribing moral agency to a favored victim class.)

Kempczinski went into penance mode. He held “listening sessions” with franchise owners, employees, and corporate managers. He repeatedly accused himself of racial insensitivity. “Not taking the time to think about this from their viewpoint was wrong, and lacked the empathy and compassion I feel for these families,” Kempczinski said in one message. “This is a lesson that I will carry with me.” A few days later, Kempczinski announced: “My texts to the Mayor of Chicago were wrong—plain and simple. I am truly sorry and I know I have let you down. I also know this has conflicted with our values—values that you have all worked so hard to embody across the business.”

Kempczinski was right the first time around. Had 13-year-old Adam Toledo not been gangbanging at 2:30 a.m., had he been in bed or at the very least at home and out of trouble, he would be alive today. His parents (in this case, the usual single mother) were responsible for keeping him off the streets. Did Toledo’s mother know he had a gun? And if not, should she have known? Those questions may not be asked.

Jaslyn Adams’s father Jontae did come under fleeting criticism for his role in her death. In May 2021, Chicago radio host Leon Rogers asked Adams how, if he knew that he was a target of gang rivals, he could have made the decision to “move around with that baby girl, knowing there is possibly someone out there who wants to hurt you?” Adams danced around the question: “My daughter wanted McDonald’s. I tried to Uber McDonald’s,” he responded. “As far as my actions or my past, maybe it had something to do with it. But I was a father the day my daughter died. . . . I don’t remember gang-banging. I don’t remember what led to it.”

Chicago Tribune columnist Dahleen Glanton issued an even more definitive accusation of parental negligence: “Gang-banging and parenting don’t mix. Those who engage in gang activity should have to make a choice—either give up gang life or forfeit the ability to be a good dad. . . . When a bullet meant for [the father] kills a child, he becomes an unwitting accomplice in the murder.”

Glanton and Rogers are black, so their criticism of Jontae Adams flew under the radar, leaving just Kempczinski to bear the wrath of the race activists.

Contrast the response to Kempczinski with the public attitude toward Ethan Crumbley’s parents. Even if one agrees with the indictment holding them criminally responsible for their son’s murder rampage, one can still wonder why other parents are treated as nonexistent. The Crumbleys’ very presence in their son’s life and their responsiveness to the authorities made them available as a target of criminal liability. They both came to the school when officials summoned them but declined to pull Ethan from school on the day of the shooting, because they both worked and didn’t want to send him to an empty home. Had they been from the inner city and not shown up at all, no media figure would have objected. But because the Crumbleys responded to the school, the media can ask why they didn’t search Ethan’s backpack to see if he was carrying his gun. We could ask the same question of parents whose children are out on the streets every night, obviously up to no good.

Where, for example, did the following juveniles get their guns, and why didn’t their parents intervene?

On November 14, 2021, an 11-year-old boy in Chicago stole a woman’s car at gunpoint, the latest in a series of carjackings in which he was allegedly involved. On November 28, 2021, a 13-year-old boy led the police in Antioch, California, on a 2 a.m. chase in a car that had been stolen at gunpoint in nearby Oakland. That same day, a 13-year-old boy and a 12-year-old boy were arrested in connection with the armed carjacking of a pizza delivery man in San Leandro, California. The assailants had dragged the victim out of his car at gunpoint. In the Minneapolis suburb of Roseville, on November 4, two young teenagers held a gun to a woman’s head as she exited her gym at 10 p.m. and stole her SUV. A car chase and foot chase through downtown St. Paul ensued, with the police eventually arresting all the car’s illegal occupants: three boys, ages 13, 14, and 15, and two girls, ages 13 and 14. No one asked: why didn’t these children’s parents intercept their guns?

On October 14, 2021, a 13-year-old boy and four other juveniles, including three girls, smashed their way into an SUV parked in a Holiday Inn Express outside of Milwaukee. A 47-year-old deaf woman, Sunita Balogun-Olayiwola, interrupted the attempted car theft and drove off in her own car to apprehend the fleeing thieves herself. When she confronted them, they tried to steal her car as well, punching her in the face and slamming her car door in her face as she held on to it. Balogun-Olayiwola fell, and the 13-year-old boy ran over her several times, fatally crushing her skull and ribs. The thieves drove off and used Balogun-Olayiwola’s credit card at a local Walmart. Upon arrest, one of the females, age 14, let it be known that she wanted to keep the deceased’s stolen cell phone. No one asked: where were the parents?

One can maintain that Ethan Crumbley’s intercepted note—“The thoughts won’t stop. Help me”—provided clear warning of his homicidal intent and is sufficient evidence to deem his parents legally responsible for the four deaths. (Ethan’s school counsellors, however, who questioned him and observed his behavior for nearly two hours in their office while he did his science homework, also concluded that he posed no risk to himself or others.) If Ethan’s note is a basis for his parents’ criminal liability, other parents are also on notice that their children are toting around guns as part of a daily culture of street violence. Urban youth routinely post videos flaunting illegal firearms and other contraband. One such video, obtained by Wisconsin Public Radio, shows three young women dancing and laughing while pointing a semi-automatic weapon at the screen. Have their parents confiscated and locked up the gun by now, and if not, why not?

The Crumbleys bought the gun Ethan used legally. Juvenile gangbangers usually get their guns illegally. Complying with gun laws would thus seem to make a parent more susceptible to prosecution than a parent who ignores his child’s illegal acquisition.

There have been 29 shooting incidents on school property this year, including the Ethan Crumbley rampage. Eight students (including Ethan’s four victims) were killed; another 49 people were injured. Contrary to popular perception, the vast majority of those 29 shooting incidents had black perpetrators and black victims. Many involved gang activity. Those shootings were thus of no interest to the press. No one asked how the gunmen got access to their weapons or where their parents were. Contrast those eight student deaths nationally with the toll of urban street violence. In Chicago alone, at least 27 children aged 15 and younger have been killed in drive-by shootings this year, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. More than 100 children have been shot. The toll of drive-bys on children nationally is considerably higher and entirely off the media’s radar screen. On November 6, 2021, for example, 23-month-old Jasper Wu was killed sleeping in his car seat while his mother drove on Interstate 880 in the Bay Area. Neither the mother nor the baby was a target; the stray bullet that killed Jasper erupted from a shootout between the occupants of two nearby cars.

School shootings with white perpetrators and white victims are even rarer than school shootings generally, but they get all the attention. They are irrelevant to the U.S. homicide toll, which last year topped 20,000 victims. (More than half of those 20,000 homicide victims were black, though blacks are less than 13 percent of the population; their killers were overwhelmingly neither whites nor cops, but instead other black civilians.) White-on-white school shootings receive disproportionate attention partly because the media value white life more than black life (except in those vanishingly few instances involving a white shooter and black victim). But saturation coverage of the handful of white-on-white school shootings is also essential to establishing the myth that whites with legal guns, especially those from Trump-voting areas, are the biggest criminal and terror threat today. Never mind that black males between the ages of 14 and 17 commit lethal gun violence at over ten times the rate of white and Hispanic teen males combined.

Parental inattention and irresponsibility account for a large percentage of urban youth victimization as well as of youth crime commission. On Labor Day weekend of this year, a 14-year-old boy in Chicago was shot while standing on a sidewalk at around 3 a.m. by someone who emerged from a car and fled the scene. That same weekend, a 17-year-old boy in Chicago was shot in the back while sitting in a car at about 2 a.m. During the weekend of September 25 in Chicago, a 17-year-old boy was shot in a mass shooting with four victims at 1:40 am. Like Adam Toledo, had they been at home rather than running the streets after midnight, they would likely be alive today. They were victims waiting to happen, and had they not been shot, they may have been in line to commit a similar drive-by themselves. No one called their parents to account.

On July 5, 2021, a six-year-old girl was standing with her mother among a group of people at about 1 a.m. on Chicago’s Far South Side. An SUV drove up and started shooting into the crowd, leaving the girl in critical condition. Perhaps the gathering was innocent, and the mother had no notice of risk. Still, one may rightly ask why a six-year-old is out after midnight.

Many daylight shootings are also predictable. On September 21, 2021, a 15-year-old boy was standing in a strip mall near his South Side high school in Chicago when two people fired at him; after he fell, the shooters continued to unload 20 shots into his body. That boy’s gangster-style death was all but inevitable; his father was killed in a drive-by in 2020. Neither parent kept the teen from gang life and away from guns.

In the afternoon of July 1, 2021, a nine-year-old Chicago girl was shot in the head riding in the back seat of a car with a gang outreach worker, a profession populated by alleged former gang members. Was she properly with the outreach worker, who was also shot? That same day, a one-month-old girl was shot in the head in a mass drive-by shooting on the South Side with six other victims at around 8:15 p.m. In this case, the baby’s presence at the scene may represent no dereliction of parental duty. Similarly outside the range of parental control may have been the Chicago Labor Day weekend shootings of a four-year-old boy who was shot twice in the head while sitting inside his home, a 13-year-old boy shot in the head inside a residence, and a 12-year-old boy and a 15-year-old girl targeted in a drive-by while standing outside a business. While the victims’ parents may not share blame for these particular shootings, the consequences of family breakdown in the inner city are so pervasive that that breakdown plays at least some role in every such shooting. Yet no one with a public platform addresses parental responsibility to get married and stay married while raising children.

Youth disorder is on the rise. This past Saturday night, December 4, anarchic flash mobs swarmed downtown Chicago’s Magnificent Mile. A bus driver was lured out of his bus and savagely beaten by two teens; two officers were injured trying to control the crowds; and a 12-year-old girl was shot in the back. The bullet ruptured her kidney and spleen. A 15-year-old boy was shot less than three hours later. The girl’s mother claims she had no idea that her daughter was in downtown Chicago that night and that once the daughter arrived back home on Sunday night, neither she nor her daughter knew that the daughter had been shot.

The country turns its eyes away from this mayhem and the social dysfunction that it represents, terrified that both are beyond any solution. The media follow strict rules of concealment: the race of black perpetrators may not be mentioned, the race of white perpetrators is always relevant. On Thursday, December 2, a felon stabbed an Italian computer science student to death in Manhattan’s Riverside Park; minutes later, he stabbed an Italian tourist. The New York Times buried the story on page A16 and remained silent about the race of the suspect and his victim. Above the Times story was an article about jury selection in the manslaughter trial of a Minnesota police officer who fatally shot Daunte Wright in April 2021 after mistaking her gun for a taser. The Times carefully laid out the racial configuration: “Ms. Potter, who is white,” and “Mr. Wright, who was Black.” Likewise, the suspects in the murders of two Chinese graduate students at the University of Chicago this year have no race, as far as the media is concerned. Eighty-eight percent of all interracial violence between whites and blacks is committed by blacks against whites, yet only in those rare instances of white-on-black crime will the race of the assailant be reported. Coverage of the killing of six holiday celebrants at a Wisconsin Christmas parade on November 21 by a man who plowed his car into the crowd faded out after the police released the suspect’s identity: Darrell Brooks is black (and on the record as anti-white). Had a white person (let alone one with such a trail of racial animosity) driven into a Martin Luther King Day celebration, the round-the-clock coverage would have lasted for weeks.

These double standards help no one. Society should have a colorblind norm of parental responsibility and of the duty to obey the law. If the Crumbley parents are found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, there are many more parents out there whose passivity in the face of likely lawlessness deserves equally strict scrutiny.

News of the Times;
I've decided that from January 1st on, I'm only going to watch things that are 1080p and above.

It's my new year's resolution.


My favorite exercise is a cross between a lunge and a crunch.

It’s called lunch.


Tourists unloading from the ferry onto Liberty Island in New York Harbor were met with disappointment this week, as the pedestal upon which the Statue of Liberty once stood was empty. Instead, a letter on stationery the size of a king sized bed lay on the pedestal with a message reading, “Fed up with New York, moving to Florida. - L. Liberty”

“I had just clocked into my shift this morning and looked up to see she was gone,” said security guard Feldman Baxter, while complying with the city’s mandates of wearing two masks outdoors, standing 20 feet from anyone else, rubbing his arm from his recent fifth booster jab, and ending each sentence with, “Praise Fauci.”

Reports flooded in of eyewitnesses seeing the fifteen-story symbol of freedom driving an oversized U-Haul down the Atlantic coastline, stopping only for gas and fish tacos.

“Wow, I love it here! I feel like I’m with my people,” said the Statue of Liberty while wading out to a small island off the coast of Miami to make herself comfortable in her new home. “I need to buy myself a bikini.”

At time of publishing, D.C. officials were investigating the now-empty marble chair of the Lincoln Memorial.


A fellow came into a bar and ordered a martini. Before drinking it, he removed the olive and carefully put it into a glass jar. Then he ordered another martini and did the same thing. After an hour, when he was full of martinis and the jar was full of olives, he staggered out.

"Well," said a customer, "I never saw anything as peculiar as that!"

"What's so peculiar about it?" the bartender said. "His wife sent him out for a jar of olives."


Remember back before the Internet, we thought that lack of information was responsible for stupidity.

Turns out it wasn't.

Quote of the Times;
“I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest.” - Henry David Thoreau

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
The Way Out by Larry P. Arnn President, Hillsdale College

Here are two questions pertinent to our times: (1) How would you reduce the greatest free republic in history to despotism in a short time? and (2) How would you stop that from happening? The answer to the first question has been provided in these last two disastrous years. The answer to the second has begun to emerge in recent months. Both are worthy of study.

Reducing a Great Republic to Despotism

To establish despotism in a nation like ours, you might begin, if you were smart, by building a bureaucracy of great complexity that commands a large percentage of the resources of the nation. You might give it rule-making powers, distributed across many agencies and centers inside the cabinet departments of government, as well as in 20 or more “independent” agencies—meaning independent of elected officials, and thus independent of the people.

This much has been done. It would require a doctoral thesis to list all the ways that rules are made in our federal government today, which would make for boring reading. The truth is that very few people not directly involved know how all this works. Although civics education is practically banned in America, most people still know what the Congress is and how its members are elected. But how many know how the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) came to be, under what authority it operates, and who is its head? Here is a clue: it is not Anthony Fauci.

Admittedly, this new kind of bureaucratic government would take—has taken—decades to erect, especially in the face of the resistance of the Constitution of the United States, which its very existence violates. But once it has been erected, things can happen very fast.

What, for example, if a new virus proliferates around the world? There have been procedures for dealing with such viruses for a long time. They begin with isolating the sick and protecting the vulnerable. But suddenly we have new procedures that attempt to isolate everybody. This is commanded by the CDC, an element of this bureaucratic structure, and by a maze of federal and state authorities, all of which see the benefit to themselves in getting involved. The result is that large sections of our economy were closed for months at a time, and citizens placed under the equivalent of house arrest. This has not happened before. The cost of it, and not just in monetary terms, is beyond calculation.

To set up a despotism capable of pulling this off you would need the media’s help. Those controlling the media today are trained in the same universities that invented the bureaucratic state, the same universities the senior bureaucrats attended. The media would need to be willing to suppress, for example, the fact that 50,000 doctors, scientists, and medical researchers signed the Great Barrington Declaration. That document reminds people that you cannot suppress a widely disseminated contagious virus through shutdowns and mass isolation, and that if you try, you will work immeasurable destruction of new kinds—unemployment, bankruptcy, depression, suicide, multiplying public debt, broken supply chains, and increases of other serious health problems. Some of the signatories to this Declaration come from the most distinguished universities in the world, but never mind: their views do not fit the narrative propagated by the powerful. They have been effectively cancelled, ignored by the media and suppressed by Big Tech.

You would need some help from business, too. As far as influence is concerned, “business” is dominated by large institutions—those comprising big business—whose leaders are also educated in the same universities that conceived bureaucratic government and trained the bureaucrats and media heads. This provides a ground of agreement between big business and the bureaucratic state. Anyway, agree or not, businesses are vulnerable to regulation, and to mitigate the risk of regulatory harm they play the game: they send lobbyists to Washington, make political contributions, hire armies of lawyers. If you are big enough to play the game, there are plenty of advantages to be won. If you are not big enough to play the game—well, in that case you are on your own.

Amidst the unprecedented lockdowns, imagine there comes an election, a time for the people to say if they approve of the new way of governing and of this vast, unprecedented intrusion into their lives. Then let us say that in several states the election rules and practices are altered by their executive branches—the people in charge of enforcing the law—on their own, without approval by their legislatures. Say this brazen violation of the separation of powers takes place in the name of the pandemic. One does not need to know what percentage of votes in the final tally were affected to see that this is fishy. No sensible person would place control of the election process in one party—any party—or in one branch—any branch—of the government, alone. In some crucial states, that was done.

Finally, to sustain this new kind of government, you would need to work on education. You might build a system of centralized influence, if not control, over every classroom in the land. You might require certification of the teachers with a bias toward the schools of education that train them in the approved way. These schools, poor but obedient cousins of the elite universities, are always up on the latest methods of “delivery” of instruction (we do not call it teaching anymore). These new methods do not require much actual knowledge, which can be supplied from above.

As far as content, you might set up a system of textbook adoption that guarantees to publishers a massive and captive market but requires them to submit proposed books to committees of “experts,” subject of course to political pressures. You might build a standard approved curriculum on the assumption that everything changes—even history, even principles. You might use this curriculum to lay the ground for holding everything old, everything previously thought high and noble, in contempt.

Doing this, incidentally, deprives the student of the motive to learn anything out of fashion today. It is a preparation not for a life of knowing and thinking, but for a life of compliance and conformity.

This is by no means an exhaustive account of what it would take to build a thoroughgoing tyranny—for further instruction, read Book Five of Aristotle’s Politics or George Orwell’s 1984. But it gives an idea of a mighty system, a system that seems unassailable, a system combining the powers of government and commerce, of education and communication. Money and power in such a system would accrue to the same hands. The people who benefit from the system would be the ruling class. Others would be frustrated. And such a system would tend to get worse, because the exercise of unchecked power does not bring out the best in people.

Any elaborate system of government must have a justification, and the justification of this one cannot simply be that those in the ruling class are entitled on the basis of their superiority. That argument went away with the divine right of kings. No, for the current ruling class, the justification is science. The claim of bureaucratic rule is a claim of expertise—of technical or scientific knowledge about everything. Listen to Fauci on Face the Nation, dismissing his critics in Congress as backward reactionaries. When those critics disagree with him, Fauci said recently, “They’re really criticizing science because I represent science. That’s dangerous.”

The problem with this kind of thinking was pointed out by a young Winston Churchill in a letter to the writer H.G. Wells in 1901. Churchill wrote:

Nothing would be more fatal than for the government of states to get into the hands of the experts. Expert knowledge is limited knowledge: and the unlimited ignorance of the plain man who knows only what hurts is a safer guide, than any vigorous direction of a specialized character. Why should you assume that all except doctors, engineers, etc. are drones or worse? . . . If the Ruler is to be an expert in anything he should be an expert in everything; and that is plainly impossible.

Churchill goes on to argue that practical judgment is the capacity necessary to making decisions. And practical judgment, he writes in many places, is something that everyone is capable of to varying degrees. Everyone, then, is equipped to guide his own life in the things that concern mainly himself.

Another thing about the experts is that they are not really engaged in the search for truth. Instead, the powerful among them suppress the obvious fact that there is wide disagreement among the experts. There always is.

God save us from falling completely into the hands of experts. But God has given us the wherewithal to save ourselves from that. So let us move to the second question posed above.

How to Defeat a Rising Despotism

In answering the second question, I will tell two stories that are suggestive.

The first took place in the small town of Jonesville, Michigan, five miles north of Hillsdale College. In our state, as in most places where the lockdowns were enforced, businesses were crippled or destroyed en masse. Restaurants were chief among them. One of our local restaurants is a 30-year-old diner called Spanglers Family Restaurant. Mitch Spangler is the proprietor. The business was founded by his late father, and Mitch was purchasing the business from his mother. The payments to his mother depended upon the revenues of the business, and his mother’s retirement depended upon the payments. The life’s work of two generations was at stake. Mitch was also helping to support a daughter in college.

This is not to mention the more than 20 employees whose livelihoods are dependent on Spanglers. “Our employees are moms who have kids,” Spangler told the local paper. “One of our employees is pregnant; another is a 19-year-old kid. This is his first job, and he just bought a car.” Our leaders in Washington treat it as a small thing when trillions are being thrown about. To the Spanglers and people like them, their relatively small revenue streams are everything.

Mr. Spangler was not prepared to surrender all this. When a second lockdown was ordered by Michigan’s governor a year ago last month, he kept his restaurant open. He put a sign on the door and posted on Facebook to make clear, among other things, that he was acting out of necessity for the sake of his business and the livelihoods of all those dependent on it; that precautions would be taken, including the installation of an electrostatic fogger that would disinfect the air; that he understood the thinking of those who would choose to stay away from his restaurant, but that he hoped they would understand his own thinking. “If you cannot support us, we understand,” he wrote, “but please allow us to have the freedom to do what we have to do.”

The wheels of bureaucracy began to grind. Spanglers was visited repeatedly by the health department, by the licensing authorities, and even by the agriculture department (one wonders what they had to do with it). Spangler was fined and threatened with forcible closure. But he persevered, never backing down, and his business did well. On a typical weekend, not only locals but supporters from the neighboring states of Indiana and Ohio lined up outside to show their support.

Mitch Spangler is our kind of fellow, and the College gave him some help organizing his legal representation. We did not wish to be in the newspaper about this because we were facing our own pressures, and we too were determined to resist them. But Spangler was no good at keeping a secret: he wore a Hillsdale College t-shirt on FOX News and thanked us for our help. And when he had a little ceremony in his parking lot in the spring to thank his staff and his customers, I was honored to say a few words.

This may not seem on its face a big story, but it is a most important story. It is important because it is a story about the nature of human beings and of citizens and of our rights. The nature of a thing is the essence of a thing. One aspect of the nature of a human being is that he must eat to live. In condemnation of slavery, Abraham Lincoln loved to say that every man was created with a head, hands, and mouth, the implication being that the head should guide the hands in the feeding of the mouth. Because we are made to live this way, we are also determined to live this way. The alternative is dependence, which does not make us happy.

It should not therefore be surprising that, if you try to destroy the business of a man whose family has spent over 30 years building it, he will resist. Trying to strongarm people like Mitch Spangler is not a good idea. There are millions of them, and they have always made up the core of this greatest of free republics.

The second story is more famous, but it too is about nature—indeed, about that word’s most basic meaning. The word nature, as I said, refers to a thing’s essence, but it comes from the Latin word for birth. Our nature begins with how we are born and how we grow. Just as we are attached by nature to the way we get our livings, so we are attached by nature to our parents, and still more to our children. And this second story, set in Loudoun County, Virginia, is about parents and children.

In schools throughout Virginia, including in Loudoun County, children are being subjected to critical race theory (CRT). This involves lecturing children, especially those belonging to the non-preferred races, about the “structural evils” of which they are told they are part. Being taught alongside CRT is a distorted view of the history of our country, which true enough has its warts, but which surely has its glories as well—including glories about equal rights regardless of race. Between fighting the armies of the English monarch, the Confederacy, the Nazis, the communists, and Islamic terrorists, something nearing a million Americans have died for the cause of equal rights. These Americans have come in all colors.

Amidst statewide controversy over the teaching of CRT, the Loudoun County School Board also adopted a broad policy of recognizing “transgender” students in preference to their “biological sex” (excuse the redundancy). Even before this, boys were permitted to use girls’ bathrooms, in one of which there was an assault and rape of a female student by a “gender-fluid boy.” The boy in question was then allowed to attend another school in Loudoun County, where he assaulted another girl. This first girl’s parents were understandably outraged and, at the risk of being called narrow-minded, went so far as to complain to the school board.

Groups of parents who had already been protesting CRT and policies promoting transgenderism joined in the complaint. There was no violence at the school board meetings with one exception: law enforcement was summoned, and the outraged father of the assaulted and raped girl was bloodied and dragged out of one meeting. It is true, however, that voices were raised.

The National School Board Administration called upon the Biden administration to investigate these protesting parents as potential perpetrators of “domestic terrorism or hate crimes.” Remember, these parents were citizens attending a meeting of an elected body to tell their representatives what they think. The rights of petition and assembly are protected in the First Amendment. Except for certain preferred groups, these rights today appear to have been repealed.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland intervened, instructing the FBI to investigate these parents and others around the country. The FBI’s Counterterrorism Division has reportedly deployed tools and resources normally reserved for terrorist threats against parents who are angry at school boards for what is occurring in their children’s schools. All this provoked massive support, across Virginia and around the nation, for the parents of Loudoun County.

This support is not surprising. By nature, parents love their children and feel responsibility for them. Citizens, especially one hopes American citizens, feel entitled to state their grievances. The Declaration of Independence itself contains a list of grievances against the King. The Biden administration reacted to these protests just as King George III reacted against the American colonists in the years leading up to the American Revolution: he called in law enforcement. And the people of Virginia reacted in a way reminiscent of the American colonists: they defeated the candidate for governor who took the position that parents should have nothing to do with their children’s education.

What do these two stories—one of them taking place in Hillsdale County, Michigan, a deep red county, and the other in Loudoun County, Virginia, which is deeply blue—have in common? In both stories we see reactions against violations of our rights, rights that we have by nature as human beings.

The story about Mitch Spangler is about our right to work and to store up the product of our labor so that we and our families can eat and thrive. The American Founders put this in terms of our natural right to property. The story about the parents of Loudoun County is about the natural right of mothers and fathers to raise their children. To interfere with these rights is to interfere with the nature of the human being.

These facts about nature were well known during the American Revolution, the very Revolution that is besmirched by the members of our ruling class today, just as it was besmirched by the ruling class at the time of the Revolution. It was the interference with the colonists’ natural rights by that former ruling class that led to the American Revolution. These recent stories from Michigan and Virginia show that we Americans do not seem to like that interference any better today.

In addition to the right to make a living and the right to raise our children, we have the right to participate in our government, even if we are not experts, and the right to look to the heavens and not to our ruling class for guidance. We have these rights because we—every single one of us—were born with them sewn by God into our nature, and we cannot find our earthly fulfillment without them.

If we put these facts together as a people, we will have recovered the understanding that produced the American Revolution. We will stop these current predations upon our rights. We will bring this overwhelming government back where it belongs, under the control of the people.

The signs of such a movement are emerging. Pray they are enough.

Larry P. Arnn is the twelfth president of Hillsdale College. He received his B.A. from Arkansas State University and his M.A. and Ph.D. in government from the Claremont Graduate School. From 1977 to 1980, he also studied at the London School of Economics and at Worcester College, Oxford University, where he served as director of research for Martin Gilbert, the official biographer of Winston Churchill. From 1985 until his appointment as president of Hillsdale College in 2000, he was president of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy. From October 2020 to January 2021, he served as co-chair of the President’s Advisory 1776 Commission. He is the author of several books, including The Founders’ Key: The Divine and Natural Connection Between the Declaration and the Constitution and Churchill’s Trial: Winston Churchill and the Salvation of Free Government.

News of the Times;
I ordered a book called "How to scam people online" two months ago.

Still hasn't arrived.


You ever hear about the bulletproof Irishman?

Rick O'Shay.



Sir Isaac Newton developed calculus during the plague; how bored are you that you would invent calculus?

Don't argue with people on social media, every classroom had that kid who ate paste, that's them.

Just a heads up that "Soylent Green" took place in 2022.

It's perfectly OK to talk to yourself and to respond to yourself, however it's not OK to repeat what you said because you weren't listening.

Remember, prosthetic legs make great stocking stuffers.

"Just cleared out some space in the freezer" sounds much more productive than, "I just polished off another pint of ice cream."

The FDA has approved eye drops that would replace the need for readers, however this will increase use of the question, "Has anyone seen my eye drops

We're pretty sure COVID came from China. But then again, so did ketchup so, I guess it's a wash.

The average American won't finish paying off holiday debt until July, it's the gift that keeps on giving.

70% of people say their dog helps them stay fit especially if you have one of those cross-fit breeds.


Every sign of the zodiac has a unique hairstyle.

Except Cancer.


How do you follow Will Smith in the snow?

You follow the fresh prints.

Quote of the Times;
No amount of evidence will ever persuade an idiot. – Twain

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
Dear Conservatives, Elon Musk is Not Your Friend by Bode Land

Conservatives have enjoyed Elon Musk's behavior in recent weeks, blasting Elizabeth Warren, opposing lockdowns, and insulting CNN, but the giddiness spewing from conservatives about Musk is foolish.

To those embracing Elon Musk's political conversion, remember that Musk has been one of the most prominent advocates of the continuous scam known as climate change. Like Bill Gates and Al Gore, Musk is an extremely wealthy man who fattens his own pockets through propagating climate change. And like those other rich guys, Musk doesn't refrain from using private jets to fly around the world to save it.

In 2018, Elon Musk reportedly donated $6 Million to the Sierra Club while writing, "Thank you for fighting climate change. This affects every living creature on earth." Once merely an environmental advocacy group, the Sierra Club has since evolved to promote other left-wing issues from pushing for mass immigration and abortion.

Musk also has no reservations about whispering sweet-nothings to communists by praising China as "more responsible" than the U.S. and said that Chinese government officials could "possibly" be "more responsible" for their citizen's happiness than America is.

In May, Musk tweeted a call for a Carbon Tax and spoke with the Biden administration about implementing it. Musk demanding the government to take money from taxpayers should come as no surprise because Musk's companies received at least $4.9 billion in government subsidies – as of 2015! Therein lies perhaps Musk's most incredible skill: enriching himself with the government's help.

While government subsidies are not exclusive to one industry, what sets Elon Musk apart is not only his ability to exploit taxpayers but to use government guns to extort his competitors through "regulatory credits." The state and federal governments give regulatory credits for contributing zero pollution to the environment. In the name of fighting climate change, Musk successfully got the state of California and nine other states to set emission standards that only Tesla could meet. Suppose other automakers cannot produce zero-emissions vehicles. In that case, they will either pay hefty fines, have their business licenses revoked, or buy imaginary credits from automakers who do produce zero emissions, like Tesla.

It's important to understand these credits are not real – they are a made-up tax imposed by the government on automakers to reinforce the leftist religion of environmentalism. These credits are free cash with a 100% margin and no overhead. Musk essentially colluded with the government to extort other automakers and pay him off under the guise of fighting climate change. And the returns are enormous.

In 2020, Tesla reported a regulatory credit revenue of $1.58 billion. Tesla's regulatory credits revenue project to be $2.2 billion in 2021, $3.1 billion in 2022, and $4.34 billion in 2023. By 2024, the government will have successfully extorted over $13 billion from automakers like Ford and GMC to fund Tesla. Without the help of this government-sponsored extortion, fiscal 2Q 2021 would have been the first quarter Tesla would have ever turned a profit.

But Tesla isn't the only Musk business that leverages the government to do his bidding. SolarCity received a $750 million investment from New York State for its plans to build a solar panel factory in Buffalo, just a tiny part of the $2.5 billion in government subsidies Uncle Sam has given SolarCity. Despite all the free cash, Tesla purchased SolarCity for $2.6 billion in Tesla stock because SolarCity;

"has floundered despite significant taxpayer support through a bevy of state and federal tax credits and subsidies. Nevertheless, the solar energy company's stock has been in long-term decline as the company struggles to develop a profitable market not reliant on generous helpings of taxpayer support."

Another Musk business, SpaceX, has received $5.5 billion in government contracts from NASA and the Air Force. Of course, NASA and the Air Force get their funding from American taxpayers, which flows into Musk's pocket. A California hedge fund manager told the LA Times: "Government support is a theme of all three of these companies, and without it, none of them would be around."

Another Musk business venture, the Boring Company, constructs underground tunnels as a means of public transportation. Yes, we already have Subway systems, but Musk promises these are faster and only cost $10 million per mile to dig – paid for by taxpayers. The good news for Musk is that he hedged his bets through The Boring Company, so if electric cars flop, then he can still own the mass transit market.

The common thread running through Musk's business ventures is that the government is always his biggest client, and he knows how to sell them. Being the cunning salesman that he is, when Musk needs cash, he opens new locations or moves the business – receiving hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds to do so. When his businesses flounder, he shifts the conversation to one of his other ventures. To his credit, Musk might be the greatest salesman of a generation. How else can someone fund an empire through government coercion and taxpayer money while retaining universal respect and adoration?

Elon Musk is a climate change radical who partners with the government at every turn to enrich himself. Conservatives like Texas governor Greg Abbot shouldn't celebrate the arrival of Tesla and Musk to Texas because he will be coming for the pocketbooks of Texans in no time.

My suggestion is to refrain from gushing over Musk's recent political conversion. Musk is opportunist, and opportunism is a hallmark of the left. He seized the opportunity to make a fortune off climate change, and he's successfully done that. When the COVID insanity ends, climate change is on deck as the weapon of choice that the government will leverage to hijack your freedom. When that happens, Elon Musk will not be on your side.

It is more likely that Musk’s political shift stems from his recognition that a red wave is coming, and the devious salesman inside him is searching for more fertile ground to exploit after exhausting the resources of Democrats. Every con artist needs new investors to keep the scheme going.

Conservatives beware.

News of the Times;
Older Newer
Several animals were savagely beaten in the making of this page, including but not limited to; kittens, rabbits, zebu, skunks, puppies, and platypus. Also several monkeys where force fed crack to improve their typing skills.

And someone shot a duck.

An Images & Ideas, Inc. Service.

No Vegans were harmed in the making of this site. We're looking for a new provider.