Author Archives: Joe

Quote of the day–Michael Gaddy

Posted on by

Rest assured, there will be a great majority who will not stand against
tyranny. Those who have “gone along to get along” and those who have
continually voted for the “lesser of two evils” will capitulate and surrender
their weapons, as cowards normally do. They will rue the day they failed to
support those who stood for liberty such as Ron Paul. Remember, they were
offered liberty, but chose instead to support the status quo, because, in
their eyes, liberty could not be elected.

Michael Gaddy
Buy, Buy, Buy
January 5, 2008

Changes

Posted on by

I’m going to be attempting to move the blog.joehuffman.org and joehuffman.org domains to a new provider today. You will notice some disruptions.


I’ll attempt to capture and merge any comments left on the old domain during the transition. But if something gets lost please don’t think I intentionally deleted it.


Thanks for your patience.

Quote of the day–Breda

Posted on by

February, Friday the 13th, 2009 – the day the dream died. No dirge is playing, not yet, but wait…the lamentations will come.

And to everyone who voted to enslave the freest people on earth…

I curse you. 48% of of your countrymen curse you. Future generations will curse you. Your own descendants will curse you.

May that knowledge be like a yoke around your neck- the weight of it strangling you, pulling you down into the filth where you belong.


Breda
February 14, 2009
no love
[People should be making their lists.–Joe]

Economics a bigger threat than terrorism

Posted on by

Via US News:



President Obama’s senior intelligence adviser says that the world financial crisis has surpassed terrorism as the country’s “primary near-term security concern,” pointing to unrest in countries around the world as commerce stumbles. It was an unusual briefing by the new Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, who was briefing Congress on the U.S. intelligence community’s annual threat assessment, which in the past has usually focused heavily on issues like Iranian nuclear weapons and progress in the global effort against terrorist groups. “Time is probably our greatest threat,” Blair said. “The longer it takes for the recovery to begin, the greater the likelihood of serious damage to U.S. strategic interests.”


I wanted to write my essay on economics this weekend but I may have something that is a higher priority get in the way.


I’ll get to the economics eventually. It’s really, really important. Here and here are some short courses to get yourself up to speed.

Quote of the day–Tamara K.

Posted on by

You’re going to be paying for passing out this Monopoly money for the rest of your lives, even if you were just born today and live to be 100, and in return, they’ll graciously allow you to keep a little bit extra of your own money. The only people to whom this could sound like a good deal probably get outwitted by flatworms on a regular basis.


There are mornings when I just put my head in my hands and think “Screw it, let it burn.” But I don’t have kids, so that’s an easy out for me…


Tamara K.
February 13, 2009
Taking Retards To The Zoo.
[I do have kids and I think the same thing at times. I figure my kids, smart and hard working, will end up on top of the ash heap and will build a better civilization having observed first-hand the stupidity of socialism.–Joe]

Economic history from the last great depression

Posted on by

Robert Higgs, senior fellow in political economy for The Independent Institute, gives us some of the history of how the socialists ran roughshod over the Constitution in the 30s:



Until the 1930s, the Constitution served as a major constraint on federal economic interventionism. The government’s powers were understood to be just as the framers intended: few and explicitly enumerated in our founding document and its amendments. Search the Constitution as long as you like, and you will find no specific authority conveyed for the government to spend money on global-warming research, urban mass transit, food stamps, unemployment insurance, Medicaid, or countless other items in the stimulus package and, even without it, in the regular federal budget.


This Constitutional constraint still operated as late as the 1930s, when federal courts issued some 1,600 injunctions to restrain officials from carrying out acts of Congress, and the Supreme Court overturned the New Deal‘s centerpieces, the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and other statutes. This judicial action outraged President Roosevelt, who fumed that “we have been relegated to the horse-and-buggy definition of interstate commerce.” Early in 1937, he responded with his court-packing plan.


Although Roosevelt lost this battle, he soon won the war. As the older, more conservative justices retired, the president replaced them with ardent New Dealers such as Hugo Black, Stanley Reed, Felix Frankfurter, and William O. Douglas. The newly constituted court proceeded between 1937 and 1941 to overturn its anti-New Deal rulings, abandoning its traditional, narrow view of interstate commerce and giving the federal government carte blanche to spend, tax, and regulate virtually without limit.


After World War II, the government enacted the Employment Act of 1946, codifying the government’s declared responsibility for managing the economy “to promote maximum employment, production, and purchasing power,” and it has actively intervened ever since, purportedly to attain these declared ends. Its shots have often misfired, however, and we have endured booms and busts, a decade of stagflation, bouts of rapid inflation, and stock-market crashes. The present recession may become the worst since the passage of the Employment Act.


I expect the socialists to complete their take-over and solidify an iron grip on us this time. As Newsweek said, We Are All Socialists Now. The court precedences set in the 30s essentially guaranteed it. The only way that I can see that has any potential to get us out of the abyss is to go deeper into it.

Lame

Posted on by

Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign is whining about the National Park rule change that allows some of us to defend ourselves using firearms in National Parks. They filed the lawsuit and one of the biggest whines is:



On April 3, 2008, the National Park Service’s Chief of Environmental Quality, Jacob Hoogland, warned that the rule “required additional NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] analysis” and that “at minimum an Environmental Assessment should be prepared on the proposed revision to the existing firearms regulation.”


In the same vein, Michael Schwartz, the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Chief of Policy and Directives Management, warned on May 14, 2008 that “The rule was published before they did any NEPA analysis.  Last week, I pointed out that this is a procedural flaw.”


Paul, technically that may be true. I’m sorry my former governer Dirk Kempthorne didn’t dot that particular ‘i’. Let me do it for him now, “Environmental Assessment of the rule change: No affect.”


Now stop your whining and grow up.

Quote of the day–Alan Gottlieb

Posted on by

Kerlikowske’s reported appointment to a post with the Obama administration reinforces the genuine concerns of American gun owners that the new president is not their friend. The new president has surrounded himself with people who have long anti-gun rights track records, including Joe Biden, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel. By adding Gil Kerlikowske to his inner circle, Obama is simply confirming the adage that ‘you can tell a lot about someone by the company he keeps.


Alan Gottlieb
KERLIKOWSKE PICK MORE PROOF OF OBAMA’S ANTI-GUN AGENDA, SAYS CCRKBA
[As the economy worsens crime is likely to go up. I expect the administration to then attack gun owners as a scape goat. This will tend to distract the population from the economy as well as put those uppity gun n***ers in their place. With nearly all Obama’s advisors being exceedingly anti-gun I cannot imagine he won’t attack us during his time in office–Joe]

Our next currency

Posted on by

I was recently talking with a friend about the risks of hyperinflation with the dramatic increase in the money supply and the “stimulus plan”. Our currency may become worthless so what would be the best barter currency? They pointed out that gold has the problem of the smallest coins are not something you could use for relative inexpensive items like a bag of groceries, or a pickup load of wood for your fireplace. And a candy bar? Gold coins just don’t work in a lot of transactions.


Noticing a container of loose change on the kitchen counter I suggested our existing coins may not be devalued as much as the paper currency. The “copper” (mostly zinc now days) has a “melt value” of about $0.02 (see update below) right now due to the high price of metals. I also suggested ammo and bulk food that stores well like dry peas, lentils, and beans. Maybe, we agreed.


Early this morning I woke up with another answer, toilet paper! I then became discouraged because I realized that too would be devalued because of the over supply of paper currency that could be used for the same thing.


And Barb gets irritated with me because I’m such an optimist.


Update: My source on the “melt value” of a penny was apparently wrong. According to this site the current value is about $0.00297.

Quote of the day–Titanium Halo

Posted on by

Let me tell you story. I know a guy. He’s a financial planner/investment banker type who from time to time helps me out. In November I had lunch with him after the first initial crash and wanted his opinion on the gather storm clouds I saw just over the horizon. He told me a few interesting things one of which kinda scared your Hero Halo a bit. He said, ‘Halo, I am advising my clients who have enough liquid assets to secure remote, sustainable property. I’m advising this because for very little capital outlay, they can have a lot of security.’


Ted, I looked right into this guys eyes and saw a certain fear that I have never seen before. This is a man who manages literally billions of dollars worth of assets and he looked as though his entire concept of reality had been shaken to the core. I wasn’t really sure what to do. In all the years I had been dealing with him I had never seen this and wondered why now? What’s different this time? Well, there are many things, but when a guy with these kinds of resources at his disposal says stuff like this, it might be time to start listening.


Titanium Halo
February 5, 2009
Sheep Say, “Baaaaaa”
[I’ve been putting a lot of time into economics recently and hope to have a post on the results of my research sometime this weekend. As a teaser let me just say:



  • The “stimulus plan” violates my Jews In The Attic Test.

  • Daughter Kim’s economics class is reading books that talk of the U.S. government and the CIA “forcing free trade”, and how “capitalism destroys community ties”.

  • My research has involved talking to people from China, India, Ireland, Romania, and Sri Lanka. People speak in hushed tones with a very somber demeanor. It’s bad everywhere.

  • While discussing the politics of our new socialist nation, even without explicit mention that my Jews In The Attic Test was being violated, a friend recently told me that an AK has an expected life of about 50K rounds and even though they have several such rifles it wasn’t enough to solve the problem even if they had enough rounds and didn’t encounter resistance.

We have very, very big problems ahead of us. And the worst part is that the people that caused the problems will likely get more support as the situation gets worse. They will demand more and more “help” from those that put everyone in jeopardy. And the unless very aggressive action is taken by people, who have shown very little backbone in the past, the last people to go down are likely going to be the people that created and aggravated the problems.


I know who John Galt is, but where is his gulch?–Joe]

Questions for Senator Patrick Leahy?

Posted on by

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) will be visiting my work next week to speak and it’s possible I might get a chance to ask him some questions. If I do get such a chance what questions/comments would be appropriate?


Background data on Leahy to help evaluate this opportunity:




  • Leahy is the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and is a senior member of the Agriculture and Appropriations Committees. He ranks seventh in seniority in the Senate.
  • Patrick Leahy was elected to the United States Senate in 1974 and remains the only Democrat elected to this office from Vermont. At 34, he was the youngest U.S. Senator ever to be elected from the Green Mountain State. Leahy was born in Montpelier and grew up across from the Statehouse. A graduate of Saint Michael’s College in Colchester (1961), he received his Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center (1964). He served for eight years as State’s Attorney in Chittenden County. He gained a national reputation for his law enforcement activities and was selected (1974) as one of three outstanding prosecutors in the United States
  • As a leading member of the Appropriations Committee, Leahy is the Chairman of the Committee’s Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations and also sits on its Defense, Interior, Commerce-Justice-Science, Transportation-Treasury-Judiciary-Housing and Urban Development, and Homeland Security subcommittees.
  • Active on human rights issues, Leahy also has been the leading U.S. officeholder in the international campaign against the production, export and use of anti-personnel landmines. In 1992 Leahy wrote the first law by any government to ban the export of these weapons. He led efforts in Congress to aid mine victims by creating a special fund in the foreign aid budget, and the Leahy War Victims Fund now provides up to $14 million of relief to these victims each year. He was instrumental in establishing programs to support humanitarian demining and played a key role in pushing for an international treaty banning anti-personnel mines. He also wrote and enacted civilian war victims relief programs that are underway in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Quote of the day–John Robb

Posted on by

The global Depression scenario is now dominant. Here are some of the drivers:



  • An utterly complete regulatory capture of the US government (the advent of the Obama administration has done nothing to change this). Regulatory capture is when monied interests take control of the government institutions that are supposed to regulate/control them. In OODA terms, this is a loss of control over the critical orientation phase of decision making loops. As a result, a vast looting of the government’s coffers is now in process.

  • The D-process (de-leveraging and deflation) feedback loop is now entrenched. This is a neat term developed by Ray Dalio of Bridewater Associates (Barron’s interview). The D-process is what happens (rarely) when too much debt is accumulated. Excess debt must be eliminated before growth can return. In the US case alone, excess debt load is $20-25 Trillion. Since global governments are unwilling and/or unable to wipe out the world’s creditors (they’ve been captured), the process will drag on and on. Stimulus and bailout packages, constructed in a way to protect the wealth of the world’s creditors/rentiers (looting), won’t work. It will only prolong and deepen the failure as the D-process feedback loop intensifies.

  • A large number of countries from Japan to Spain to Latvia are already in depressions. These failures will serve as a drag on the entire global system, catalyzing the feedback loops of the D-process.

John Robb
February 9, 2009
THE DEPRESSION SCENARIO IS HERE
[In selecting the QOTD I was tempted by “Dude, wtf? is it time to arm ourselves or join the mormon church?” in the comments to the above quoted post. But the main post won out.


Others (probably a crackpot, but who knows what could happen) are advocating the cancellation of all debt.–Joe]

Advice to anti-gun people

Posted on by

From Newbie Shooter: Arguing gun rights…a primer for antis.


A sample:



Finally, taking your ball and going home is just sad.  You are arguing that you know better than I do… and that you want to take away my civil rights.  That’s a pretty serious thing.  If you can’t stand the criticism from the people you want to disarm, than perhaps you shouldn’t threaten them in the first place.

Quote of the day–David E. Young

Posted on by

First and Second Amendment protections were always given the very strongest possible restrictive language – no law shall be passed – shall make no law – inviolable – not be deprived or abridged – not be restrained – shall not be infringed – nor shall the right be infringed. The Second Amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” language was clearly not intended to allow for extensive reasonable regulation. Rather, it was intended to prevent all laws and regulations that would result in the people being deprived, abridged, restrained, narrowed, or restricted in the exercise of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.


David E. Young
February 8, 2009
The Meaning of ‘Shall Not Be Infringed’
[Unfortunately, intent and result are two different things. We still have a long way to go.–Joe]

More AP ammo testing

Posted on by

As planned Caleb and I did some more tests with Ry’s test target. Video and commentary by Caleb.


We went to the Boomershoot site expecting to find little or no snow. We should have called ahead. There was about two feet of snow and we were unable to make it to the Taj Mahal with all our gear. We made do at the first berm. We used a paper target to zero the gun for this range (25 yards) then took a single shot with each caliber at the stack of steel plates at the base of the stump. The bullets at the steel plate went over the chronograph.


This was our setup.



In the following video you see the result of SS-109 and 30.06 blacktip ammo shot at the stack of steel plates each 0.25 inches thick. There is a gap of about 0.75 inches between each plate. Estimated velocity of the .223 bullet at the target is 2600 fps. Estimated velocity of the 30.06 bullet at the target is 2360 fps.


The .223 went through one and almost penetrated the second plate. The 30.06 went through three plates and partially into the fourth.



The .300 Win Mag pushing hand-loaded 162 grain military surplus black tip bullets was able to hit the target with a velocity of about 3315 fps. It went through all six plates:



Update: See also this paper on AP ammo. It’s just the first page (you have to pay for the rest of it) but it’s interesting reading.

Quote of the day–Breda

Posted on by

Why does the government assume that they are the only ones with a list?


[Overheard by] Breda
February 7, 2009
watchlist*
[If such lists exist I strongly suggest they be encrypted. Free (and probably quite secure) encryption software is available here.–Joe]

Boomershoot positions 3 and 4 to open

Posted on by

At 8:00 AM PST tomorrow, February 8, two more positions will become available. These positions are both in the .50 Caliber Ghetto, positions 3 and 4.


You can sign up for the position by going to the following web page and signing up when they became available tomorrow morning.


http://entry.boomershoot.org/


There is a restrictions on these positions. You can only shoot at targets on the hillside. The range of these targets is from about 550 yards to 700 yards.

What we have here is a failure to communicate

Posted on by

First I want to get something out of the way before I make my main points.

 

I’ve been laying it on Catherine pretty thick and she updated her blog post to include some of my comments such as suggesting she look up the definition of “shill”, and commenting on my equating our struggle for gun rights to other civil rights. I will partially concede one point to her. At least one dictionary defines “shill” merely as “to act as a spokesperson or promoter”. The definition I was working from required the person pretended no association with the group or organization being promoted. Except for the Merriam-Webster dictionary cited above all the other on-line definitions I found mention deceit (or similar such as “put under cover”) as a component of the definition:

 

 

 

Hence even though I promote the civil rights agenda of the NRA because I am open about being a (life) member of the NRA, an NRA certified instructor, and communicate with them fairly regularly I am not a shill of the NRA–except if you use Catherine’s and the Merriam Webster definition. Perhaps in our on-line war of words we should just drop the shill issue. We both have adequate justification for our positions and it’s a distraction from the important points.

 

The more important point is that despite being a lawyer and a BA in English magna cum laude she has a reading (and spelling but I don’t hold that against her) problem. For example she stated:

 

Some NRA proud propagandists (they displayed a badge stating “NRA propoganda” [sic] blogger)

 

But the actual badge doesn’t say that. The badge is:

 

Unorganized Militia Propaganda Corps

 

The badge does not say what she claims it says. Furthermore it does NOT have ANYTHING to do with the NRA. Not only doesn’t it say NRA, it is not affiliated with the NRA in any way other than there is a strong correlation between people that have those badges and a NRA membership.

 

Another example. She stated:

 

They only seek to ridicule viewpoints different from theirs in the most base and crude ways.  I will not engage in that.  See my comments.  That is my right.

 

She implies someone was trying to infringe her rights in some way. No. They, and I, tried to point out the flaws in her statements and I asked her Just One Question. She refused to engage on those issues and shut off the comments. Fine, it’s her blog she can do whatever she wants with it (within legal limits such as libel and certain limits on pornography, extortion, blackmail etc. which are not at issue in this case). As near as I can determine she had trouble reading the actual words said and imagined they said something completely different.

 

Because of her refusal to engage people did ridicule her and I did call her a bigot in regards to which had the following to say:

 

I have been referred to as a “bigot” because I have a different opinion. They equate gun ownership with the struggle for civil rights that African Americans had in this country, which is why I am a bigot?  Yet they say my view is narrow?  Such chutzpah to even to equate gun ownership with the struggle for civil rights.  That says a lot about just how extreme and fringe they are.

 

No. Not because she had a different opinion. It was because she without thought, is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from her own. She wants to ban “assault weapons” but refuses to address the facts they are probably protected by the Second Amendment, and restrictions on them have never been shown to improve public safety. Facts, as near as I can determine, are irrelevant to her beliefs and she continues to push her beliefs. That makes her a bigot.

 

In still another example that can be explained by her inability to read we have the issue of the D.C. v. Heller ruling. I gave her a link and quoted from it. This ruling clearly states the Second Amendment is a specific enumerated right that protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. That means gun ownership is, beyond any doubt, a civil right. Either she cannot read what the ruling clearly states or something else is going on. In any case that I can think other than some sort learning disability it is further confirmation she is a bigot.

 

Also of note is that my posts regarding the bigot at hand generated some hate mail. It’s been so long that this really made my day:

 

From: Skujins Andre [mailto:askujins@shaw.ca]
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 2:43 PM
To: blog@joehuffman.org
Subject: Comments on: Shills

Boy your title says it all mouth-breathing knuckle-dragger.  What a  complete asshole.  Hope your dog gets shot by your drunk buddies.

 

First off, I don’t have any dogs (my wife and kids have two small dogs that I occasionally interact with when I go home to Idaho). And two, I almost never drink anything with alcohol nor do I hang around with friends that are drunk. So what is appears what we have here is another person that is willing to apply false stereotypes to someone they don’t know because of their bigoted beliefs.

Quote of the day–Mark Philip Alger

Posted on by

Joe Huffman has his Just One Question. I have another:

 

If it is proper for a citizen to use force — even lethal force — to prevent or halt the commission of a felony (in the interest of preserving the life and property of the innocent), how much more-so to prevent an ongoing violation of a provision of the Constitution — given that the latter is the source of authority for the former?

 

When is it proper, for example, to use force to stop a legislator engaged in unconstitutional actions? Indeed, when is it required of those who have sworn oaths to… protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic…?

 

Mark Philip Alger
February 7, 2009
Our Curmudgeon…
[See also my Civil Disobedience web page. When you have an answer please share.–Joe]

And the bigots were made to pay

Posted on by

Via the Apex of the Triangle Of Death we get to read about San Francisco Paying NRA $380,000 for Successful Proposition H Lawsuits.


While it makes me happy the bigots had to pay up for conspiring to deprive people of their rights they should have been arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to time in jail as well. This sort of nonsense is going to continue until the laws against this sort of outrageous behavior are enforced.


Other bloggers have their view on the issue as well: