Contempt of Congress options

David Hardy says there are options to be considered now that Holder has been found in contempt of Congress:

The House sends out its Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest the defendant, he is tried on the spot, and the House decides whether to convict.

It is a little bit of a surprise to me but the Capital has a dungeon just for such purposes. And I find it interesting and very pleasing that:

…presidential pardons appear not to apply to civil contempt procedures such as inherent contempt because it is not an “offense against the United States” or an offense against “the dignity of public authority.”

I realize spending really needs to be cut but couldn’t we find enough money to enlarge the dungeon enough to hold a few more people? You would think that after spending a few days chained to the wall they would become more cooperative with Congressional investigations.

Good question

Katie Pavlich, “If Operation Fast and Furious wasn’t about pushing for more gun control, then why is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a group with strong oppositions to the Second Amendment, coming to Attorney General Eric Holder’s defense?”

That’s a very good question.

And in case you don’t recognize the name Ms. Pavlich literally wrote the book on Fast and Furious. It’s a good book. Both Ry and I liked it.

Quote of the day—NRA-ILA

Concurrently, the nation’s total violent crime rate has dropped 18 of the last 20 years, to about a 41-year low. The nation’s murder rate has dropped to about a 48-year low. Polls show that support for gun control has fallen, support for the Second Amendment has risen, and gun ownership is higher now than any time since 1993. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

The Brady Campaign’s response? Go even further off the deep end.

We’ve all heard the popular 19th century axiom, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.” It’s good advice in some circumstances, but the Brady Campaign would have been better off with the advice of W. C. Fields:  “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There’s no point in being a damn fool about it.”

June 29, 2012
Learning Pains at the Brady Campaign? Pain, Yes. Learning, No
[This ties in with something Sebastian and I have commented on before. The anti-gun people are being “damn fools”. If the anti-gun people weren’t out there pushing their agenda we would spend more time on safety training instead of politics. If they wanted to reduce accidental injuries and deaths due to poor gun handling then they should become NRA certified firearms instructors and make classes available at affordable prices. If they wanted to reduce violent crime they should teach personal protection classes.

The world would be a better much place if they joined us instead of fighting us.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sebastian

You have to wonder how far the anti-gun movement could have gotten if they had been honest, instead tricking the American people into gun control through deception and subterfuge. What’s even more amazing to me, faced with the utter failure of their movement, like a one-trick pony, they keep doing the same thing.

June 29, 2012
Concealed Carry Killers
[As I have said before the anti-gun movement has a culture of deceit to the point deception has become institutionalized within their organizations. They sometimes don’t even bother to hide it.

But to address Sebastian’s wonderment, their bag of tricks only contained deceit so all they can do is keep performing the same trick again and again or else give up. And giving up you life’s work is not something that you can easily do. But with the information age their kind will, just like the KKK, gradually fade away into the dustbin of history as they fail to recruit enough replacements for those that leave the movement through retirement.—Joe]

That didn’t work for G. Gordon Liddy

Perhaps there is something subtle going on here that I don’t understand but this seems to be a settled issue:

Obviously Holder’s been under pressure for more than a year, but I think there will be an argument by the Justice Department that anytime a president authorizes something, that whomever follows the president’s orders cannot be prosecuted.

If I recall correctly G. Gordon Liddy claimed the same thing at his trial and he got a 40 year sentence for supervising a burglary.

People at the Department of Justice and/or the ATF deliberately sent guns to Mexican drug cartels in the hopes they could recover them later at “crime scenes”. Of course in this instance “crime scenes” is an euphemism for locations where innocent people were murdered. In other words people, perhaps acting under the orders of the POTUS, deliberately engaged in activities they believed would be directly related to the deaths of innocent people. They were successful and at least 300 people died as per their plan.

Liddy was sentenced to 40 years for supervising one burglary. What does that sentence extrapolate into for supervising 300 murders?

More on ‘Gunsmiths’

This happens a lot.  A customer calls about a problem, and it’s the customer’s gunsmith who says “X” yet the “gunsmith” is totally wrong.  The “gunsmith” is the source of the problem, or the source of the misunderstanding of the problem.  Yesterday, a rep from Big Household Word High-End Optics Company came in with a Yugo M70.  The wooden buttstock’s comb was too high for him, plus he had a Galil missing a detent ball for the rear sight.

Solid wooden stock with a bolt through the middle.  So shave down the comb.  Fit and try.  Ten minutes, plus some finish sanding and some linseed oil.  Nope.  “Gunsmith” decided it would be a better idea to bubba some lump of weld under the rear sight leaf, to raise the sight instead, thus negating the elevation slide function entirely, and crank up the front to match.

“Gunsmith told him that a detent ball for the Galil was “hard to find”.  It took google less than a second to find several sources of loose steel balls, and yet you don’t need a ball per se.  It could be a short piece of rod.  All it really needs to do is fit in the hole with the spring and be sort of roundish on one end.

I asked the rep; “What kind of a ‘gunsmith’ is this guy?”  And this is the answer I get every time;

“Oh but he’s a really great guy.  Really a great guy.  Old School.  He’s been at it for decades and really knows his stuff..”  I have gotten that answer from a lot of people.  That very same answer.  In that very same kind of ‘I can’t believe what I’m hearing’ situation.

I’ve taken to using Tam’s definition of a gunsmith– one who can take an amorphous lump of steel and turn it into a fine firearm.  Give the average farmer or junior high school shop teacher around here a bent, rusty nail, a hack saw, an old bastard file and a power drill, and he can make you a new detent pin for your Galil rear sight, without ever having heard of a Galil.  Actually he could make do with just the file, the saw and the nail, and his bare hands, but that take a little longer.  Same deal for adjusting the comb height, but you only need the file (or a pocket knife) and a chunk of sandpaper.  But an “experienced gunsmith” was out of his element.  It’s gotten so every time I hear the infamous words, “My gunsmith says…” I start rolling my eyes.  I know there are good ones out there (some really, really good ones) but no one calls me or comes in with a problem if they have a really good gunsmith, do they?  So my sample is heavily weighted.  Or so I hope.

A big takeaway here is that a nice personality, I suppose, can overcome the greatest depths of incompetence, and keep you in business.

That’s it then

If the constitution allows Congress to do practically anything it wants, so long as it can be called it a “tax” by some stretch of the imagination (remember the NFA?), then we’ll have to repeal the 16th amendment.

Has anyone else made this point?  I had Rush on for about an hour, he was talking about the SCOTUS decision on nationalization of the medical industry the whole time, and he never mentioned the 16th.  That’s where most of this social engineering crap comes from– “nudge” us this way and that using the tax code.

Quote of the day—Ry Jones

The pro-tyranny side just doesn’t get enough positive coverage.

Ry Jones
June 27, 2012
[This was while walking by Westlake Park in Seattle. The park attracts most of the demonstrators for such things as the Occupy Whatever crowd. As usual there were some people there with signs I didn’t bother to read.

For a while I thought the root premise in the statement, tyranny doesn’t get positive coverage, was correct. But I had a nagging doubt that something was wrong. If anti-tyranny gets all the positive coverage then how does tyranny succeed?

The SCOTUS ruling on Obama Care this morning crystallized the answer. A retweet from Ry put it in video:

The quote above is wrong. The tyrant and their policies receives nearly all the positive coverage and is welcomed with thunderous applause.—Joe]

One Step at a Time, Then

In the spirit of boldly following the truth where ever it leads; can I get any agreement on the following statement?

Prohibition is an absolute, 100% guarantee that there will be increased gang activity, increased gang power, increased gang violence, an escalating police presence, and increased corruption at the police level working its way up through government at higher levels, with a coresponding deterioration of respect for police, and the rule of law, among the general public.

Yes or no?  You have to take all points in the above sentence together.  If you disagree with any part of it, your answer is “No”.  Give a brief, simple explanation of why you disagree.  For our purposes here, we will limit the definition of Prohibition to; a federal ban on alcohol or any other popular intoxicant.  This has nothing to do with your opinions, or clinical expertise, on this or that drug, the general effects of intoxicants on society or any of that.  Keep all of that out of the discussion, please.  Focus like a laser beam.

Yes or no?

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

Social bigotry is bad enough when practiced by the media and the gun prohibition lobby but when it becomes the official policy of an elected government panel, it then becomes necessary, if not imperative, for the courts to intervene.

Alan Gottlieb
Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President
June 26, 2012
[Social bigots must not be allowed to violate the inalienable rights of people. This case is no different than if the county Board of Supervisors’ had refused to allow a Christian, Muslim, or Jewish bookstore to open and must be dealt with just as severely.—Joe]

More Zimmerman evidence

From my viewpoint it appears Zimmerman’s case is getting stronger with every new bit of evidence released:

Prosecutors released more evidence in the George Zimmerman case Tuesday afternoon including an unredacted police report and the results of a voice stress test given the day after he shot Trayvon Martin.

The supplemental discovery was released at 1 p.m. and includes video and audio recordings of police interviews with Zimmerman, a 29-page Sanford Police report without statements redacted and an exemption list that notes redactions to the evidence.

The video released by prosecutors shows the same reenactment with additional footage of detectives asking Zimmerman about his injuries.

In the short clip, Zimmerman points out cuts and bruises on his head but says he wasn’t injured elsewhere.

“He was just focused on my head,” Zimmerman says.

In the stress test, Zimmerman answered “No” when asked “Did you confront the guy you shot?” He answered “yes” when asked “Were you in fear for your life, when you shot the guy?”

The examiner concluded Zimmerman was telling the truth.

The way I read the “tea leaves” is that the prosecution and perhaps even the media is slowly preparing the public for an acquittal or perhaps even dropping the charges.

Random thought of the day

Over the weekend someone told me, “Drop the logic; embrace the real.” The short version of my response was, “I have no idea what this means.”

Yesterday as I was walking to the bus stop I was listening to The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos. Yet, I was still trying to get my mind around the implications of “Drop the logic; embrace the real” without concluding such a statement was an invitation to delusionville.

The author was talking (literally, he was reading his own book) about simulations of “universes” and how we might detect if we are in a simulated universe such as those explored in Hollywood with movies like “The Matrix“. Compared to some of the first alternate computer games I was aware of such as the text based game Zork computer games do an amazing job of creating simulated universes. Combined with the predictions of Ray Kurzweil in The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology we can imagine we are getting close (perhaps less than 40 years) from creating virtual universes which will be extremely difficult to distinguish from reality.

One of the suggestions the author made was that if we know of existence of millions or billions of virtual universes, such as those instantiated by all the people playing video games, and we question the reality of the universe we live in then the following logical conclusion might be entirely valid. Since we know that there are X million virtual universes in existence and only one universe that we have questions about the most likely answer is that the universe in question is also a virtual universe.

I’m pretty sure my friend hadn’t encouraged me to “Drop the logic” with anything this profound in mind but I decided they weren’t necessarily a strong candidate for occupying a padded cell either.

Quote of the day—Brennan Bailey

How heartless do you have to be to laugh about the tragedy of this country’s deepening epidemic of spoon crime?

Brennan Bailey
June 25, 2012
From an email thread at work. This was in response to someone who said, “ROF, LMAO” in response to this picture (the origin may have been this comment):
[Yes. We gun owners are heartless and have no sympathy for those made fat by the spoon manufactures and their evil lobbyists who block commonsense spoon control.—Joe]

This is for Bill Whittle

And also for everyone else.  I don’t get paid to do this.  The time spent is all cost, so I don’t spend much time editing.  I wanted to take this piece, or rant, of mine and really polish it, using historical links and references, but too bad– here it is.  It’s verbatim off of a members only section on, from a thread on medical pot and guns.  I bring Bill Whittle’s name into this post because he has, as I’ve been describing on numerous blogs, fully embraced, with relish, the left’s “guns cause harm” meme.  All the best intentions will be for naught unless we think clearly, following the truth where ever it leads.  Well here it is;

There is a direct and inseparable link between Prohibition and gun restriction. Note Operation Fast and Furious.

The authoritarians learned a great lesson from alcohol prohibition. They learned that huge amounts of power and money were transferred to authoritarians, both inside of government and outside of government (tyrants and gangsters) as a direct result of prohibition.

The first time; Americans understood that it would require a constitutional amendment, because the government is not authorized by the constitution to tell us what we may or may not consume. When Prohibition was modified (it was never ended) with another amendment to the constitution, the feds that were employed to smash down doors and brutalize people over alcohol were given another job, the very next month. Prohibition was modified in December of 1933 and the NFA went into effect in January of 1934. The former Prohibition enforcers, who were accustomed to stealing alcohol for their own use and profit could now smash down doors and brutalize people to enforce the brand new National Firearms Act,. Stealing guns and using them for their own use and profit, and making deals with gangs as before.

Just as Prohibition created a newly vitalized and powerful organized crime culture, which of course availed itself of the best weapons, so too did it give FDR an excuse to circumvent the second amendment. He pushed for and got the NFA as a backdoor to gun restriction, making the case that all this gun violence is just too much—something must be done. “Why; it’s not a ban– it’s a tax!” The shiny new ATF was originally a part of Treasury. See?

Create a situation of violence and gangsterism (Prohibition) then swoop in and “fix” it with more even authoritarianism. Works like a charm, every time it’s tried.

The authoritarians have since come up with ways to fool us into accepting federal drug laws, this time without a constitutional amendment. So now we’re right back to the 1920s, but the constitution took a hit in the process. Drug money instead of alcohol money, drug gangs paying off law enforcement instead of Al Capone buying cops– drug enforcement excuses for more power and money instead of alcohol as an excuse for more money and power. The equation is exactly the same, only this time it’s far worse. They’ve beat down former constitutional limits, this time it’s far longer lived, it’s still growing, and it’s growing right along with outrageous actions of feds working directly with Mexican drug gangs (Fast & Furious). Meet your new masters– the big, happy family of gangsters, corrupt government officials, corrupt police, corrupt foreign governments controlled by gangs, some of the worst enemies of America, the BATFE which was recently made part of the Justice Department (not even any more pretense of being a tax authority) and whole new agencies with guns, lots of funding, and protection from the President when they get caught with their pants down, all circle-jerking together, and weakening America at every stage.

Meanwhile; the Republicans are still busy, frantically trying to decide on what they should pretend to believe during the next election. You Suckers!

Now was that so hard?  I don’t believe I blamed guns for anything, or said that guns were “responsible”, I acknowledged the existence of the constitution, acknowledged the fact that corruption exists at all levels (though it’s unpopular to even think that cops can be corrupt) I blamed gangsters for their gangster crime, I didn’t use the term “assault weapon” which was fabricated by the anti-gun media and the Clinton administration, I didn’t confuse an assault rifle with a semi auto carbine, and I laid out a brief history of drugs and guns, showing that they have been inseparable since the 1930s, when FDR linked them and made up the BATF as a faux “tax” authority.  This is all one, continuing story, see, on-going for generations– we’re just caught up in it.  It’s louder now, our government is every bit as corrupt as during the 1920s and ’30s if not more so, and it’s bigger and more powerful, but as of this morning we’re still not connecting all the dots.  Now I have to go pick up my kid.

ETA; Here’s the Whittle piece.  Listen to the actual words.

Mid 19th Century Belt-Fed

Well almost– this uses a closed loop chain, but the concept is there.

Joe and I spoke of this concept many years ago, but I didn’t know until today that it had actually been done.  My version, though, would have been gas operated, but that technology wasn’t tested until some time after the end of the percussion era.  Gas operation and black powder wouldn’t go very well together because BP is so dirty, but it certainly can be done.  Energies are quite a bit lower, but you can throw a projectile of several hundred grains well into the super sonic, from a rifle.  The pistols of the same period could only just make, or slightly exceed, the speed of sound with heavy charges.  I’ve gotten 1130ish fps with a 180 grain pill from an 8″ bbl on an 1858 Remington New Model Army revolver replica, which is on par, energy wise, with the 40 S&W.  The huge 1847 Colt’s Dragoon (Walker) revolver could do somewhat better, but the story goes; it was prone to blow up.  Metalurgy has come a long way since then.

Hat Tip; (I learned a lot about casting there, and I still hang out on the muzzleloading section now and then)

Think of the children!

From Mike at work:

I brought my then youngest (who is now the middle) daughter to the range at 8-years old and she absolutely loved it.  Safe gun handling was taught at least a week before we went.  By the time we were at the range she knew what to do and had respect for the rifle.  To this day she still asks me “when are we going to that range?”  Check out her “straight and off the trigger” finger.


Here are pictures of Mike:


More pictures of Lily:


From looking at these pictures the thought occurs to me that if our opponents were smart enough they may actually have had a rational reason for banning rifles with “collapsible” (length adjustable) stocks. This makes it more difficult for the young to shoot. Even if they didn’t think it through it is a good argument against such restrictions. Hence our side could and should demand, “Think of the children!”

Quote of the day—cherokeeprogressive

Some people see phalluses and penises everywhere they look. It’s either penis envy or hatred of penises, I’ve yet to figure out which.
In the end, it’s a homophobic play to shame supporters of gun rights out of their beliefs. “Guns mean you’re gay” isn’t going to work, but some people will never figure that out. Never.

June 23, 2012
The Washington Monument is a phallic symbol. Skyscrapers are phallic symbols. Guns are NOT.
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

There is from what is actually a pretty decent conversation going on in the Democratic Underground.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Thomas Sowell

Undefined words have a special power in politics, particularly when they invoke some principle that engages people’s emotions. “Fair” is one of those undefined words which have attracted political support for policies ranging from Fair Trade laws to the Fair Labor Standards Act. While the fact that the word is undefined is an intellectual handicap, it is a huge political advantage.People with very different views on substantive issues can be unified and mobilized behind a word that papers over their differing, and sometimes even mutually contradictory, ideas. Who, after all, is in favor of unfairness? Similarly with “social justice,” “equality,” and other undefined terms that can mean wholly different things to different individuals and groups— all of whom can be mobilized in support of policies that use such appealing words.

Thomas Sowell
Economic Facts and Fallacies: Second Edition Economic Facts and Fallacies: Second Edition pages 1 and 2.
[The phrase “special power” brings to mind “super heroes” and “super villains”. I am of the opinion that while there is ample evidence of “super villains” “super heroes” only exist in the minds of small children, some Ron Paul fans, and Democrats.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ayn Rand

To deal with men by force is as impractical as to deal with nature by persuasion.

Ayn Rand
“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,” Philosophy: Who Needs It (The Ayn Rand Library)
Via Atlas Shrugged Movie
[Those that initiate force against you are not properly identified as human and force may be required. Only in extremely rare circumstances is persuasion a good option with these animals.

Government is force. Government is an extremely inefficient, and hence impractical, means of dealing with a set of rational people. It is only when your set of people are not rational and are approximating a herd of animals that government/force is appropriate. The case can be made that our government is creating, perhaps with malice aforethought, a class of people that are best dealt with as if they were an animal herd. This makes more and larger government seem like the appropriate solution to societal issues.

Perhaps growing up on a farm makes me more aware of this but the owner of the herd does not have the best interest of the herd in mind as they care for it. Yes, the herd gets food, water, shelter, and free health care as needed. But it also gets sheared, neutered, dehorned, selectively bred, and those which will be expensive or impossible to be made productive are killed.

I highly recommend Rand’s book. Rand makes the case that whether we think about it or not we each have a philosophy that guides our life. The only question is what type of philosophy. Will it be rational, conscious, and therefore practical; or contradictory, unidentified, and ultimately lethal? One can make the case that failure to teach philosophy at an early age is extremely harmful to both the individual and society.

The inconsistencies of those supporting the current administration are a case in point.—Joe]

%d bloggers like this: