Category Archives: Current News

This is about stuff in the mass media that generally has a short interest life span. Speculation about an election outcome a few days before the election is an example.

Good timing

Posted on by

As reported by others, “It’s now becoming clear that just about all of the injured in today’s mass shooting outside the Empire State Building were injured by the police response rather than by the shooter himself.

It turns out that months ago I signed up to provide the USPSA stages for the Lewiston Pistol Club match next weekend. Guess what I had planned?

Here are the two stages adapted (preliminary, there may be slight changes after the stages are reviewed) from the LAPD Combat Course.

LAPD Phase 1 and 4.
LAPD Phase 2 and 3.

If you compare the actual courses of fire to what I adapted to USPSA rules you will find I actually created a more difficult test. USPSA rules do not allow the shooter to touch a gun between the “Standby” command and the buzzer going off. The LAPD course of fire requires the shooters to, in some cases, have the gun pointed at the target with their finger on the trigger when the timer starts. In other cases the gun is held at the low ready position. Because the times were so long that I expect many shooters to have excess time I did not lengthen the time to accommodate the differences in start positions.

What this means is that in a little over a week we will have data on how the shooting skills of “a bunch of beer guzzling, uneducated hillbillies” stack up to the qualification course for a major metropolitan police force.

Barron and I will be there with video cameras running and will provide YouTube video of the results within a day or two.

My expectations is that nearly all the shooters will pass and most will pass with a very high score.

If things turn out as expected Mayor Bloomberg should be called upon to send NYC police officers to Idaho for training by us “uneducated hillbillies.”

‘Stunning interview’

Posted on by

We see that term, “stunning” too often.  This interview with Dinesh D’Souza however was actually stunning.  Please watch the whole thing.  Wow!  In any other circumstance this stuff would dominate the headlines for months and then linger for generations.


Actually, this is dominating the headlines, but not in the Old Media.  You have to look elsewhere.  Forget about the Old Liars (ABC NBC CBS MSNBC NYT et al).  They are done.  How did they get away with it for so long?  That, I hope, will be one of the big topical questions in history classes for the next hundred years.


It’s been done, but I second the notion that we stop worrying about about the Old Media.  Some people still bitch about them, wringing their hands over the latest dumb thing they did, always reacting and rarely acting.  No, Young Grasshopper; move past them, like the wind.  They are nothing.


We have our own media and our own culture.

Quote of the day—Ronald C. Dozier

Posted on by

I believe these facts to be incontrovertible:



  1. No State that has gone from no-carry to concealed-carry or open-carry of firearms has experienced a significant increase in firearm violence.
  2. Any evil or deranged person who is intent on killing others will find a way to do so, no matter how strict our laws.
  3. Murder is already against the law and carries very serious penalties. If that is not enough to deter someone from committing the crime, why would they be deterred by laws against gun possession?
  4. The police can’t be everywhere to protect us. Only on rare occasions is a policeman present to prevent a violent crime. Mostly they arrive after the fact, to investigate and apprehend the offender if possible.

People who don’t like guns—who don’t want to own or carry a gun for protection, have the right to rely on the government to do that for them. They do not have the right to require everyone else to do so. The Supreme Court has so decided.


As the State’s Attorney, I have to make a choice. Do I continue to enforce laws that I believe to be unconstitutional, a belief that is supported by decisions of the highest court in the land, or do I continue to prosecute citizens who run afoul of State gun laws but have no evil intent or purpose in mind? Certainly the more cautious approach to such controversial issues is to keep enforcing the law, whenever possible in the least harmful way, until enough higher court cases are resolved against them that the anti-Second Amendment folks are forced to change. I’m not willing to do that anymore—too many good people will be harmed.


…


Our message is this: we will no longer use the power and authority of our office to criminalize and punish decent, otherwise law-abiding citizens who choose to exercise the rights granted to them by the Second Amendment of the United States’ Constitution to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and their families.


Ronald C. Dozier
(Illinois) McLean County State’s Attorney
August 21, 2012
Emphasis in the original news release.
[Contrast this with what Handgun Control, Inc. (now Brady Campaign) had to say about Illinois a few years ago. Illinois was their model for laws on the (prohibition of) carrying of guns.


Brady supporters should read the writing on the wall, the net, and in the courts, and weep.—Joe]

Don’t bring a sword to a gun fight

Posted on by

Why would you need a gun at Dairy Queen?

A masked man wielding a sword tried to rob a central valley Dairy Queen on Sunday afternoon but was shot and killed by an employee, Las Vegas police said.

Oh. That’s why.

Quote of the day—Z. Byron Wolf

Posted on by

The Brady Campaign, named after Ronald Reagan assistant James Brady, wants to reboot the national conversation and part of that, it seems, means taking its name off the masthead. The group will launch a new website later tonight called wearebettterthanthis.org (it’s not live yet)  that will play down its sponsorship by the Brady campaign.
 
The idea, he said, is rescue the debate from the poles on either side of the gun control issue.


Z. Byron Wolf
July 23, 2012
In Wake of Colorado Massacre, Gun Control Supporters Seek Reboot
[Interesting…



  • The Brady Campaign wants to “rescue the debate from the poles”. But aren’t they one of the “poles”?
  • The domain appears to have been grabbed by someone in Switzerland before the Brady Campaign got it:
    Domain ID:D166164496-LROR
    Domain Name:WEAREBETTTERTHANTHIS.ORG
    Created On:23-Jul-2012 21:49:15 UTC
    Last Updated On:25-Jul-2012 09:46:52 UTC
    Expiration Date:23-Jul-2013 21:49:15 UTC
    Sponsoring Registrar:1 & 1 Internet AG (R73-LROR)
    Status:TRANSFER PROHIBITED
    Status:ADDPERIOD
    Registrant ID:SPAG-41356127
    Registrant Name:Andre Schneider
    Registrant Organization:DomCollect AG
    Registrant Street1:Zeughausgasse 9a
    Registrant Street2:
    Registrant Street3:
    Registrant City:Zug
    Registrant State/Province:ZG
    Registrant Postal Code:6300
    Registrant Country:CH
    Registrant Phone:+49.22199555323
    Registrant Phone Ext.:
    Registrant FAX:+49.22199555310
    Registrant FAX Ext.:
    Registrant Email:info@domcollect.com
  • The Handgun Control and Brady Campaign main websites link to what appears to be a webpage with the same concept:
    WeAreBetterThanThis
    But the target page is still on the Brady Campaign site. And all the webpage does is ask you to sign a petition that will be forwarded to President Obama and Governor Romney:

    As an American who was shocked and horrified by the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado, I am committed to joining a meaningful conversation about how we can prevent the future loss of innocent life.


    I appreciate the very appropriate expressions of sympathy for the victims from both of you. However, I think anyone seeking the highest office in our nation is responsible for doing more.


    I am asking you to offer to the American people specific solutions that will prevent tragedies like this from continuing to happen in our nation — because, I firmly believe, we are:


    [Image of people holding a sign saying “BETTER THAN THIS”.]


Compare the above to this from 1997 when they called themselves Handgun Control, Inc.:



Although 31 states have now denied their law enforcement officers discretion in the issuance of concealed weapon licenses, the gun lobby lost every attempt to further liberalize these systems last year.


Handgun Control, Inc. and their supporters were able to block shall issue in every state legislature that year.


Since then:



  • HCI became The Brady Campaign to get more public acceptance.
  • The Brady Campaign attempted to hide behind an ambiguous domain name to “take its name off the masthead” so it won’t be as obvious they are behind.
  • They fail to obtain the domain name they wanted.
  • They proceed anyway with the web page on their own domain.
  • A Federal judge says a valid reason to carry a concealed handgun is (paraphrasing), “because f*k you”.

It should be very telling that we don’t see the NRA, SAF, CCRKBA, or any other pro-gun owner rights organizations changing their names to get more support.


If this were a business they would sell out to one of their competitors for about a fourth their annual gross sales and close up shop. But I suppose that isn’t really an option in this case. The only thing of value the Brady Campaign has these days is a few names on a mailing list and I suspect a good percentage of those are NRA and Second Amendment Foundation members trying to keep a watch on the anti-gun people.


Update: The link to their web site had a typo in it (in my original source). The statement about the domain being owned by someone else is not true. Whois reports the correct one was registered by Domains By Proxy, LLC via Go Daddy.—Joe]

Shoot me first uniforms

Posted on by

Paul Barrett at Business Week has weighed in on the Aurora theater shooting. I was pleased with what I didn’t see but expected. In the past and as recently as last Friday he as pushed for a 10 round maximum on magazine capacity. This is despite me showing him a video of me shooting 35 rounds in less that 16 seconds with 10 round magazines.

In his most recent editorial he suggests something else:

If you really want to stop mass shootings in public places, demand that owners of movie theaters, supermarkets, playgrounds, and you-name-the-venue hire armed security guards to keep watch for people dressed in body armor and carrying weapons. We know how to do this. We do it at airports. It’s not foolproof: Remember the would-be underwear bomber and the shoe bomber, stopped not by X-ray machines but by their own incompetence and alert fellow passengers? Still, rent-a-cops are a step toward greater security. Heck, every major professional sports venue checks fans for outside alcohol and weapons. Why couldn’t every movie theater?

If there had been a guard at every door of the multiplex in Aurora, the killer would not have been able to stroll out and back in through the emergency exit. This mass killing would not have taken place.

Barrett is a smart guy and acknowledges it’s not foolproof. Obviously the security guards are wearing “shoot me first uniforms”. There is a reason Air Marshals are always in plain clothes. But this obvious loophole in the idea is not the biggest problem. The problem is economics. Since Occupy Wall Street did their thing last fall with ground zero Seattle being across the street from where I work the sidewalks and lobbies of many of building have unarmed security guards. What does it cost for one security guard per year? I can’t imagine that after all the overhead it would be less that $50K/year. Add training and equipping guards and insurance for what probably would be higher risks would probably add another $5K per year.

Does anyone think every playground, market, and theater is going to be able to afford that?

But the suggestion is a step in the right direction. If people accept the concept it’s a smaller step to accept “volunteer” security guards wearing plain clothes. Signs stating “Concealed Carry Welcomed Here” and discounts for people open carrying might be a bigger deterrent than the unaffordable, easily defeated, uniformed security guards.

Let’s Roll!

Posted on by

Guest post from Rolf.


“Let’s Roll!”
Or
Re-defining the “no-win” situation and dealing with sociopaths intent on mass shootings and murder


The “Kobayashi Maru” scenario has become a famous “no-win” situation. It is presented as a situation where no matter what choice the person makes, lots of people die, and they “lose.” Facing a “no-win” isn’t anything a person ever wants to face, but seeming no-wins do happen, so, what DO you do? Lie down and die, already? That, to my mind, is never the right answer, so then… what IS? Is it possible to think like Kirk and change how things play out, so something like a win is possible in a seeming no-win situation?


The first thing to do is to re-evaluate how you define “win,” particularly in light of the perpetrators likely goals. If “all the bad guys get caught/killed, and no innocents get hurt” is impossible, then what is the best you can aim for? Maybe all that is possible is to make the final outcome suck less. Maybe it is laying the groundwork for a future win – after all, the battle of Thermopylae was a loss for the Greeks (with the 300 Spartans and another thousand or so Greeks dying to a man, and their king butchered), but it laid the foundation for major defeats of the Persians later. Maybe it is nothing more than reducing number of total casualties, even at the possible (or perhaps likely) loss of your own life. Todd Beamer and the passengers of Flight 93 stormed the cockpit after it had been taken by hijackers, knowing that they were already headed for near certain death after hearing of the WTC crashes – their actions likely reduced the total number of deaths by denying the hijackers on their flight the opportunity to crash into a crowded target. His last known words in the counter-attack were “Let’s Roll!”


Looking at many of the modern mass shootings, such as Columbine, Stockton, Virginia Tech, Aurora (Batman), Luby’s Cafeteria, Ft Hood, and more, there are some similarities that may help change how we think about responding to them:



  • The shooter is not targeting just a particular person or two, they are simply looking for high drama, high-visibility notoriety and personal involvement in the body count

  • There are a lot of people present and close together, most or all of whom are unarmed

  • The target is chosen specifically because of the expectation of an unarmed crowd of easily intimidated and controlled victims

  • They demonstrated by their actions (shooting) that they intend to keep killing until stopped

Essentially, anything that denies the attacker HIS goals should be considered a point on the defenders score-card. If he wants to see immobilizing terror, let him face the fury of righteous anger instead.


Obviously, if you are carrying a gun and you are close enough for it to be practical, drawing and returning fire at an appropriate time would be a great option, but what if the situation is more complicated? Most teachers are not allowed to carry guns on school grounds; in a crowded theater, cafeteria, office, or mall, there may be LOTS of moving no-shoots; and so-forth.


In a case where a nut wants a body-count and associated media attention, what might constitute a “win?” I’d say anything that meets one or more of the following (in no particular order):



  • Reduces the body count, either or both injured or dead

  • Stops him at the scene, preferably by his intended victims

  • Prevents suicide by cop

  • Causes him serious bodily harm or death

  • It humiliates the sociopath shooter, making them an object of derision and contempt rather than fear, respect, or emulation

  • Prevents him from leaving one shooting scene to go and start another

  • Makes others who might contemplate such a action think it’s not worth it

  • Denies them a media victory, such as a wild chase with news cameras following, a platform for spouting their agenda, or whatever

  • Empowers rather than cows the surviving victims to harden them for future encounters

  • Creates heroes out of some of the intended victims

I can only think of one course of action that would apply in most lone-gunman mass shooting cases: EVERYONE on the scene channel the inner Super Hero, Marine, mama grizzly, Todd Beamer, or whatever amps up their kill instincts to 11, and as a group do a mass “charge the ambush!” with the express intent of taking his screw-cap off, ripping off his arm and beating him to death with the bloody stump, or stopping him in any way possible. Grab, bite, hit, pull down his pants, pull his hat over his eyes, jam a finger in the action of his gun, blind him, throw things at him, shine a flashlight in his eyes, do anything and everything you can to slow him down, tie him up, foul his vision, screw up his aim, distract him, cause him pain or disability. Assume others are coming and doing the same. If just one person does this, sadly, it may just hasten their demise; but if even a handful do it, he’s done for, he can be dragged down and halted.


In a true worst case scenario, like the Beslan Siege (dozens of heavily armed religious fanatics not only willing but almost eager to die, with large quantities of explosives, suicide vests and fully automatic weapons) there are going to be a lot of bodies in any case. In a “nearly” worst case scene, such as the Aurora Batman shooting, where he was well-armed, in a crowded theater in the dark, wearing some body-armor, used gas/smoke bombs, and he started shooting during an action scene, the transition will be hard to recognize. But if everyone, once they recognized the threat for what it was, had yelled out, thrown cell phones, flashed lights at him (such as cell phone camera flash), and CHARGED, he could have been dragged down, and many innocents saved. It would have been ugly, but possibly over quickly; it is extremely unlikely that it would have been worse than the 70 killed or injured that occurred.


In a typical school “gunman seen, lock down!” scenario, normally they have all the teachers close and lock classroom doors, draw the blinds, turn off the lights, and hunker down and wait… but there is NO plan for what to do if the gunman actually comes in your door, beyond pray, comply, and hope you get shot last! The best course is to follow procedure as far as it is, but then make sure you surround the door a little ways back, with the teacher and biggest / strongest closest. Everyone picks up something they can throw – textbook, chair, can of soda, laptop, or whatever (my favorite is the big heavy iron three-hole punch). The “front row” around the door has chairs or desk handy. If the gunman comes in, then everyone throw what they have and CHARGE! The front row holds their desks/chairs in front ( or up high in front of their chests) and CHARGES, with intent to batter, beat, rip apart, and disassemble the gunman. This sort of training and mindset MUST start in the schools


What does this do?



  • Deprives the gunman of his feelings of superiority (he was dragged down by his targets)

  • Gives the victims a psych recovery tool (hey, I CAN overcome adversity!)

  • Reduces body count by getting it over quickly

  • Gives us heroes to help restore our faith in our fellow man

  • Reduces media glorification and coverage

  • Likely to instantly cause serious bodily harm to the gunman- an excellent flavor of justice

  • Empowers the intended victims to realize THEY can do what they need to, they need not depend on state actors to take care of them.

It has been known at least since the early Greek phalanxes 2500 years ago that massed infantry charges can be very effective, especially when they outnumber their opponents. Even heavily armored mounted knights feared to enter into a mass of infantry standing their ground with simple weapons, because once they were dragged off their horses the mass of grasping hands and clubs would crush them. Many on the political right will see this as common sense; many on the left may find it abhorrent (even though THEY are always the ones talking about solidarity and collective action). While the average man-on-the-street is not to be confused with a hoplite of yesteryear, I believe that the average American IS capable of learning that sometimes individuals taking collective action for the common good really IS the best course.


When a psycho is looking for sheep to slaughter, intending to see terror in their eyes and ready compliance at gunpoint, hoping to have his twisted ego stroked by his control over them, let him instead see the blazing rage of righteous anger, and feel the pain of furious defense ripping at his flesh, and know the pain and fear he had hoped to inflict on others. Let his battered and beaten face be shown on the screen, swollen and without arrogance or contempt, because HE GOT BEATEN TO A BLOODY PLUP BY THE VERY PEOPLE HE DISPISED. That will knock his psyche down more than a crowd of cops taking them would, where he can brag about how tough he was to stop. Let the sociopaths have no more than a moment of victory, like the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, before suffering a crushing, absolute, and total defeat at the very hands of those they wronged. Deny them any hint of a win in the final score. The next psycho will decide it might be safer and less humiliating to choose another path.

Quote of the day—Joe Waldron

Posted on by

It can happen anytime, anywhere. Even on an Army post like Fort Hood, or a police station, as happened in Washington D.C. back in the 90s.

Are YOU ready?

Armed?

Proficient?

Or is it your day to play sheep?

Joe Waldron
July 21, 2012
Email to the Yahoo WA-CCW list: Reporting and preparedness.
[I’m expecting a guest post for tomorrow that will amplify greatly on this theme.—Joe]

Doing it wrong

Posted on by

I’m over a 1000 miles away and as far as I know don’t know anyone that was in the theater that was shot up last night. But still it’s very upsetting and my sympathy goes out to all those who were injured, killed, and/or had family and/or friends there. I’m just glad the murderer didn’t think past getting and using guns to do his evil deed.

The following is from putting on my “black hat” to do a threat assessment of our vulnerabilities to mass murders in public spaces.

It could have been much worse had the murderer chosen to use something other than guns as his weapon of choice. In a sense we could say that it’s a good thing guns are readily available because if had he used other tools the carnage could have included everyone in the theater.

There are indications the guy that shot up the theater in Colorado had mental health issues so we may never know and/or understand what the motivations might have been. Trying to make sense of the actions and/or thoughts of the mentally ill is a fools errand. But assuming the goal was maximum carnage there were better ways to accomplish this.

What follows is one way that someone could have killed more people in the same exact location. This is modeled on the plan used for the Happy Land Fire (87 dead) and by the Columbine murderers. The Columbine bombs failed so they made up an alternate plan on the spot when the first plan failed. The first plan was actually pretty good but really needed more people and they should have tested their explosive devices. Read the book Columbine for a much better understanding of what happened and the motivations. Had “Plan A” worked there could have been thousands dead.

If the murderer was able to get long guns into the theater then getting multiple backpacks into the theater should have been possible too. For example one could prevent the emergency exit from latching (duct tape for example) and then make multiple trips to the parking lot to retrieve a set of backpacks. Place the backpacks at each of the exits. The backpacks contain a timer, thermite, and propane tanks. Set the timers for simultaneous ignition of the thermite. The thermite (easily made from iron and aluminum) will melt a hole in the propane tank and ignite the propane. The theater patrons are trapped in a fiercely burning room. If the fire doesn’t get them the smoke inhalation and/or mass panic will.

Using easily available materials the murderer could have been a mile or ten away when the event happened and may have never been caught. When using a gun the odds of them getting caught are much greater and they are much more likely to be stopped before they run out of victims.

People that care about the victims should be glad we have guns in this country and encourage more sane and law abiding people to carry them almost wherever they go. It gives the crazy and the stupid an easy path to being caught and/or stopped before they can do the maximum damage.

Archaeologists find a 600 year-old bra

Posted on by

I didn’t know there was this much interest in the history of underwear:

A revolutionary discovery has hit the world of underwear: Women 600 years ago wore bras.

The University of Innsbruck said Wednesday that archeologists found four linen bras dating from the Middle Ages in an Austrian castle. Fashion experts describe the find as surprising because the bra was commonly thought to be little more than 100 years old as women abandoned the tight corset.

MedievalBra

I have always wondered about the motivation for bras. I’ve always been skeptical of the claim that “it hurts to have them bouncing around unsupported all the time”. I can see that being an issue once a woman wore a bra for any length of time but the same claim would be made about your arm if you carried it in a sling for a few years.

If it were true unsupported breasts were painful even for women that had never worn a bra it would have been an evolutionary handicap 10’s or 100’s of thousands of years ago. Under those circumstances “Darwin” would have selected for breasts that met the nutritional needs of the young while not inhibiting mobility.

So I have always thought there must be some other evolutionary point to bras. Was it some sort of sexual attractant to change the shape and make a woman appear more youthful and/or healthy like red lipstick and other makeup? Or perhaps it could have been just the opposite; A means of suppressing visible clues as to the gender of potential victim in situations where the risk of assault was high.

And even more intriguing is that the latter hypothesis could mean that the invention and acceptability of the easily concealable firearm will reduce and/or remove the need for bras. We can only hope and keep teaching our women to be able to effectively defend themselves.

Quote of the day—Ted Nugent

Posted on by

The United Nations is flea-infested, hygiene challenged hellhole of soulless despots, tyrants, anti-freedom, human-rights violating global gangbangers who wish to shore up their power by having the United Nations put forth a treaty that would restrict the access to guns by their people, thereby ensuring the tyrants can continue to kill, control, rape and plunder innocents with impunity.

Let’s get one thing straight: more access to guns leads to more freedom. Limiting access to guns leads to more innocent death, destruction and tyranny.

Once again, the United Nations is on the wrong side of freedom. This isn’t surprising since the United Nations has a statue of a handgun with a barrel tied in a knot in front of their rat-infested New York building. We should melt that statue and turn it into bullets for free Americans.

Ted Nugent
July 17, 2012
More guns equal less goons
[I suspect Nugent may be exaggerating. I’m not convinced the UN is flea-infested.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Cliff Schecter

Posted on by

They distinguished themselves by being the first group of ruffians to hold a sitting Attorney General in criminal contempt over the so-called Fast and Furious “scandal”. Let me translate: They pandered to the ageing-fat-white guy demographic that makes up their base and the Board of the National Rifle Association (NRA), by attacking the black Attorney General who happens to work for the black President.

Cliff Schecter
July 15, 2012
Fraudulent and fictitious
Congress’ latest vote is another example of political nihilism – this time with Democrat support.
[Let me translate: Argumentum ad hominem is the best he can do. And, no surprise, he has a history of this when it comes to the NRA.

But what do you expect from a bigot? 300+ dead Mexicans, as planned by this administration (H/T Kevin and Robb), just don’t matter to them or Schecter.—Joe]

Didn’t he get the memo?

Posted on by

Going back as least until the 1960’s it has been common knowledge that you could always tell who the FBI informants were because they were the ones in any group encouraging people to illegally blow something up.

Apparently this guy didn’t get the memo and is going to be spending many years in prison because he is stupid as well as want-to-be terrorist:

The man accused of plotting to use model airplanes loaded with explosives to attack the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol agreed Tuesday to a plea deal.

Rezwan Ferdaus, a 26-year-old from Ashland, Massachusetts, will plead guilty to two of the six charges against him and faces 17 years in prison followed by 10 years of supervised release, according to a statement from the Justice Department.

Ferdaus, a U.S. citizen, will plead guilty to attempting to damage and destroy a federal building by means of an explosive and attempting to provide material support and resources to al Qaeda for attacks on U.S. troops overseas, authorities said.

That didn’t work for G. Gordon Liddy

Posted on by

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?

That’s it then

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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]

More Zimmerman evidence

Posted on by

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.

Check Your Premises

Posted on by

I thought we knew what we were fighting for, and against.  I thought we were in favor of the right to keep and bear arms.  I thought we understood what a right means and how it works in the world.  Instead, it seems we have Chief Runs-with-a-Premise in charge of setting our narrative (and the fact that it seems we even have a narrative, meaning repetitions of the same fool nonsense over and over, is fairly disturbing in itself).


I thought we had dispelled the left’s highly imaginative premise that says a criminal can’t get a gun (and therefore can’t hurt anyone) unless our “lax” gun laws “allow” criminals to get guns, but it turns out that most of us are embracing that very premise with regard to Fast and Furious, and embracing it with relish.


Posit; You see a video of some jihadists sawing the head off of a captured American.  Is your first reaction; “Well Goddamit, I want to know who made that saw!!!  We must also find out who sold that saw and see to it that they are punished.  Enough is enough!  Enough of these lax saw laws!  The National Saw Association is just as guilty of murder as anyone!”  Really?


No, Young Grasshopper; check your premises.  Please.  It’s not about where the saw came from is it?  Yet that’s the very case you’re making against Obama, Holder and the gang.  You are ceding one of the primary, false premises to the Enemy.  Stop it!


The Mexican drug gangs get their guns any damn where they want to, and they sure don’t need anyone in the U.S. for that.  They will kill one way or another, and they will get their guns one way or another (and our drug Prohibition law will ensure that this never stops– Oh yes, our drug laws, gun laws and gang are inseparable, though you thought this three way, authoritarian-feeding racket was all about “helping people”, reducing crime, or some such blather).


Grasshopper; are you listening?  Snap out of it, Man!


The point is; Our President along with his carefully hand-picked attorney general, the BATFE and the FBI, collaborating with Mexican gangsters, initiated a fraud against the American people.  They initiated and perpetrated a fraud so as to garner support for more infringements on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.


If you want to point out the deaths from infringements on Americans’ gun rights, point to the multitudes who’ve been victimized in gun free zones, or anywhere or any time someone who would have had a gun for defense was prohibited by law from having a gun for defense, and died or was seriously injured or otherwise victimized as a result.  THAT is your body count.


We need look no farther than here;
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/242fin.htm
Read those words very, very carefully.  I now doubt that many of you have been paying a lot of real, serious attention.  I believe that you’ve been caught up in the game, or with your blogs and radio show businesses, or something else I don’t know about.


Read.  The.  Words.


Forget about what you feel, or the business aspect, or the silly political game or whatever it is you’re playing, or what you want to see and hear verses what you actually see and hear.  I’ve been seeing a trend among our ranks– a lot of assuming, inferring and…I don’t know what to call it except failing to understand the basics and failing to see and hear what’s being written and said, and I don’t like it.  I don’t want to be everyone’s friend, or accepted in this or that group or whatever, so I can say it– you’re missing the point and it’s sad.


And you Republicans; Why is it so damned difficult to see a crime, CALL IT a crime, and prosecute it as a crime?  Seriously.  Wasn’t that supposed to be your job?  I mean, isn’t the fact that we have downright criminals in high places in our government pretty much an overriding concern?  Get busy, you slackers!  Or do you have too much to hide, yourselves?  Or are you just cowards?  I think we’ve had just about enough of cowards in government, haven’t we?


ETA: It seems the DOJ took down the link, so here are the words, right in your lap;


DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
Summary:
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.


For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.


The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.


TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Quote of the day—Samuel Der-Yeghiayan, United States District Court Judge

Posted on by

[T]his court finds that the strict scrutiny balancing test would be the most appropriate test to apply in the instant case, since “the right to possess guns is a core enumerated constitutional right” and Section (b)(3)(iii) of the Chicago Firearm Ordinance completely restricts that right.

Samuel Der-Yeghiayan
United States District Court Judge
Gowder v. City of Chicago (N.D. Ill. June 19, 2012), Page 24.
[Strict scrutiny!

The Brady Campaign, VPC, CSGV, and others are on the wrong side of history. They are no different that those advocating for ignoring or repealing the 13th Amendment years after it was passed.—Joe]

Marxist—No ethics and no shame

Posted on by

Don’t believe anything people or “news” organizations on the left tell you. Check it out for yourself:

Introduced by Andrea Mitchell saying: “I get the feeling–take a look at this– that Mitt Romney has not been to too many Wawa’s along the roadside in Pennsylvania,” Romney says: “I was at Wawa’s, I wanted to order a sandwich. You press the little touch tone keypad, alright, you just touch that, and you know, the sandwich comes at you, touch this, touch this, touch this, go pay the cashier, there’s your sandwich. It’s amazing.”

Momentarily speechless, Mitchell repeats, “It’s amazing,” as her guest breaks into sharp laughter.

Too bad the clip was taken wildly out of context.

In reality, Romney was illustrating the difference between private and public sector efficiency. After telling a story where his friend had to fill out a 33-page form twice to complete a change of address with the government, Romney holds up touch-tone sandwich-ordering as an example of private sector efficiency– not as a marvel of how the “common” man lives.

They claim they fired the producer that did a similar edit in the Zimmerman case. But the last time I looked they did not give the name of the person fired. Perhaps he got reassigned instead.

I have to suspect the ethical environment at MSNBC/NBC is the problem rather just one or two people drinking the communist Kool-Aid with no shame. “Communist?”, you ask. Yes. In both cases it was about promoting a “class struggle” view of our culture. These people promote a Marxist view of our culture and belong in dustbin of history with Marx and Marxism.

I don’t really trust non-liberals all that much either but I haven’t ever seen anything close to this level of misrepresentation in supposed news outlets.