Burning the midnight oil

An ATF agent gets arrested for murder and apparently the DOJ starts burning the midnight oil over it. Local time for this Google search by them was nearly 12:30 AM:




























































































Domain Name   usdoj.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address   149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice)
ISP   US Dept of Justice
Location  

























Continent  :  North America
Country  :  United States  (Facts)
State  :  District of Columbia
City  :  Washington
Lat/Long  :  38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
Distance  :  2,071 miles
Language   English (U.S.)
en-us
Operating System   Microsoft WinXP
Browser   Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; DOJ3jx7bf; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.5.21022)
Javascript   version 1.3
Monitor  









Resolution  :  1024 x 768
Color Depth  :  32 bits
Time of Visit   Jan 8 2009 9:27:55 pm
Last Page View   Jan 8 2009 9:29:10 pm
Visit Length   1 minute 15 seconds
Page Views   2
Referring URL http://www.google.co…rk january 7%2C 2008
Search Engine google.com
Search Words atf agent arrested william clark january 7, 2008
Visit Entry Page   http://blog.joehuffm…astItIsAnArrest.aspx
Visit Exit Page   https://blog.joehuffman.org/
Out Click    
Time Zone   UTC-5:00
Visitor’s Time   Jan 9 2009 12:27:55 am
Visit Number   416,532


I also received a similar search hit this morning.


It’s nice to know they care about what I think. But what I really wish is they would just go get legimate jobs instead of spending taxpayer money to infringe our rights.

Growing the Party by Making it Smaller

I normally enjoy listening to the Michael Medved radio show.  A couple of months ago, he was arguing with a conservative  caller.  The caller was tired of the Republicans “compromising” and “reaching across the aisle”, rather than  standing up for the basic principles of this country.  The caller suggested (rightly in my opinion) that it’s time to get the  RINO bums out of the party.


Medved was incredulous; “How do you grow the party by making it smaller?”  He was absolutely convinced that getting rid of the left-wing Republicans was a sure path to defeat.


Hence the problem.


Hence the defeat in the last election.


I say you can in fact grow the party by making it smaller.  If the Republican leadership would grow a pair, define what it means to be a Republican (and what it doesn’t mean) millions of Americans would have a real alternative to the Democrats.  We’d finally have a reason to vote.


I say you could get rid of nearly every Republican in Congress tomorrow, thereby “making the party smaller” by a couple hundred, and in so doing grow the party by millions of new, enthusiastic voters if there were some real Americans to take their place in the Republican Party.


Two landslides, Mr. Medved.  It can’t be repeated enough.  Reagan won two landslides.  Two landslides, and the people (Reagan Democrats included) were chanting, “Four more years!”  He didn’t do it by showing how Leftist he could be.  He did it by simply explaining the American principles and by sticking to them.  He didn’t do it by appeasing the media pundits.  He did it by laughing at them, and correcting them.  He did it by taking a stand on real principles as a leader.  He wasn’t born into it– he learned his way into it.  There is a lot of learning to do today.


I have not heard one Republican talk like Reagan (for more than a sentence or two) since Reagan.  I’m not talking about Reagan’s style– it was his understanding and love of this country’s founding principles.  Apparently some people want us to think it was his slick style.  I never though he was that slick.  I just think he was one of very few people who understood, and that it was his understanding of the basic principles that gave him the ability to articulate them.  That cannot be faked.  We’ll know.  Republicans try to fake it all the time.  Look at Schwarzenegger talk out of both sides of his mouth- and he doesn’t even know he’s doing it.  It’s just a shtick for him.  Fake.  This fakery has come to define the Republican Party.  The Democrats at least are consistent in their adherence to socialist theories and their willingness to fight to get them implemented.  Republicans have no such consistency. 


Fakes.


I submit that the American voters are starving for someone, even just one man or one woman, who can demonstrate an understanding of the basic principles and a willingness to fight for them.


Fighting for this country’s principles means defeating the Left (leftist Democrats and leftist Republicans) not “reaching out” to them.  Let them reach out to us.  Let the lefties prove their willingness to cut programs, to reduce others, to meaningfully cut taxes and lift restrictions on industry and trade.  Let that be the new measure of “bipartisanship”, of “compromise”, of “pragmatism” and all that rot.  Let the Democrats run a conservative candidate as “the one who can win” because he/she “reaches across the aisle”.


Until I see this new Republican leader, I’m not donating and I am not voting Republican.  Fool me once, fool me twice, fool me thrice.  At some point back there I got bored.  We tried that with the two Bushes, and they, predictably, tried to outdo FDR on socialist spending.  We tried it on Dole and we tried it again with McLame.  Time and again we’ve been told that the “perfect candidate just isn’t here” with us, and that we should bite the bullet and vote for this or that confused, deer-in-the-headlights, apologetic, stumbling, fumbling, frightened, self-contradictory mush-mouth– the one who proclaims the virtues of a free market in the first half of a sentence, and declares a new entitlement program in the second half of the same sentence.  That sort of garbage is giving conservatism a very, very bad name.  If that’s the best we have to offer, we’ve already lost.  I’m done with these RINOs.


They’ve made the party smaller (by my one vote at least).  They can continue doing what they’re doing (trying to co-opt Democrat, i.e. socialist, policies) or they can get rid of the poison-pills, the dead-weight RINOs, and adopt the warrior spirit, once and for all declare war on socialism, laugh at the journalists (Reagan was quite good at that) uphold the virtues of capitalism (and mean it for once) and grow the party by millions.


And I can hear it all right now; “Lyle, don’t you understand how much we have to lose?  Don’t you understand what you’re saying?  We can’t just hand it all over to the Democrats!”


We’re ceding ground to the Left no matter who’s in office.  Lately it’s been a choice between more socialism, faster, and more socialism, slower.  It’s a choice between two arsonists– one who will burn down your house a little at a time, and another who will burn it all down at once.  Do I really care?  Maybe in the latter scenario I’ll be quicker to call the fire department.  Frog-in-the-pot theory says faster is better, given those two choices alone.


We may continue blaming the third party voters, keep voting for those “lesser of two evil” Republicans, never again hold the Republicans accountable for their astonishingly lame actions, and things will never change– we’ll get more of the sad sack of crap we’ve been getting.  Or we can demand some real principles and some real fight from the Republican leadership.  Those are our two choices.


Update Jan 08/09;  Regarding comments, I find this article quite relevant to the issue.

War plans

If there is a coming offensive against gun owners Alan Korwin has some of the likely details of their war plans. There is some scary stuff in there:



Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any “semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.” Note that Obama’s pick for this office (Eric Holder, confirmation hearing set for Jan. 15) wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home.


In making this determination, the bill says, “there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.”


In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.


..


If these near-total bans aren’t enough, the most dangerous part may be the phrase “pistol grip” because: “The term ‘pistol grip’ means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” In other words, any semi-auto long gun with a grip (that’s ALL semi-auto long guns) would be banned under the existing proposal. It’s not clear what they hope to achieve by deceptively banning guns with grips instead of just calling to ban the guns — even an idjit can tell it’s the same thing.


I didn’t cover here all the magazine bans, transfer bans, dealer record-keeping and centralized reporting, and a host of nuisance details — there will be time enough for that when the new lists are released soon: “As soon as President-elect Obama is inaugurated and the 111th Congress is sworn in,” according to Ms. Brady. Congress is set to be sworn in on Jan. 6, Inauguration Day is Jan. 20.


If they really are making war plans to engage us then we need to make our plans and prepare as well. I’m still debating what to work on first.

Gathering the troops?

I could just be parnoid but this search for Mothers Against Violence In America founder Pam Eakes (I last met and did battle with her nine years ago) by someone in the U.S. House of Representatives could be someone looking for support in a coming offensive:




























































































Domain Name   house.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address   143.231.249.# (Information Systems, U.S. House of Representatives)
ISP   Information Systems, U.S. House of Representatives
Location  

























Continent  :  North America
Country  :  United States  (Facts)
State  :  District of Columbia
City  :  Washington
Lat/Long  :  38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
Distance  :  2,071 miles
Language   English (U.S.)
en-us
Operating System   Microsoft WinXP
Browser   Internet Explorer 7.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30)
Javascript   version 1.3
Monitor  









Resolution  :  1280 x 1024
Color Depth  :  32 bits
Time of Visit   Jan 6 2009 5:49:37 am
Last Page View   Jan 6 2009 5:49:37 am
Visit Length   0 seconds
Page Views   1
Referring URL http://www.google.co…ence pam eakes email
Search Engine google.com
Search Words mavia mothers against violence pam eakes email
Visit Entry Page   https://blog.joehuffman.org/2006/06/
Visit Exit Page   https://blog.joehuffman.org/2006/06/
Out Click    
Time Zone   UTC-5:00
Visitor’s Time   Jan 6 2009 8:49:37 am
Visit Number   414,892

Quote of the day–Alan Korwin

Politicians, and government in general, are world economic meddlers and obstacles. They interfere with business, slow its progress, regulate its advances, tax its earnings and generally make it harder for business to thrive, saddling it with red tape, trade barriers, obstacles to entry, and eating out its substance.


Alan Korwin
December 2, 2008
Politicians Aren’t Businessmen
[Very few people will understand this once Obama has been crowned. Unless his $775 Billion stimulus plan is about cutting taxes by billions rather than spending billions he is going to fail to improve the economy. Most people believe more rather than less government is the solution to their problems. If Obama says it even if it is all lies and jest people hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Michael Gaddy

Americans are purchasing firearms and ammunition in record numbers, not because they believe 2009 will offer unusually good duck hunting, but because they fear the fallout from the coming economic storm and the state’s reaction to that fallout.


Michael Gaddy
Buy, Buy, Buy
January 5, 2008
[H/T to Say Uncle for the pointer. There will be more QOTDs from this piece over the next few weeks and months.–Joe]

Carry in Post Offices

Robb posted about being irked that he can’t legally carry his firearm into a Post Office. He can carry at the hospital, shopping malls, his kids soccer games and virtually all public places. What is so special about a Post Office that he is disallowed from carrying their? Of course the answer is there is nothing special about the Post Office that should be grounds for disallowing the carrying defensive tools while picking up your mail. Just as prohibiting blacks from public swimming pools and using the same water fountains as others had no basis other than the bigotry of those making the rules. Still, spending time in a Federal prison isn’t my favorite way of standing by my principles.


That said I had looked into the guns in Post Offices before and had heard others talk of the law being somewhat ambigous. With that background I was going to point out to Robb that according to 18 USC 930, which I’m fairly certain is what I have seen posted on Post Office doors, there are exemptions to the part about fines and imprisonment for “whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility”. These exemptions are never posted on the wall of the post office:



(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—



(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;


(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or


(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.


Notice the last three words of (d)(3), “other lawful purpose”. Self defense–isn’t that a lawful purpose?


But as I was doing my research on the topic, just to make sure, I ran across this post from a lawyer which says that 18 USC 930 isn’t the controlling law. 39 USC 410 says (emphasis added):



(a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, and except as otherwise provided in this title or insofar as such laws remain in force as rules or regulations of the Postal Service, no Federal law dealing with public or Federal contracts, property, works, officers, employees, budgets, or funds, including the provisions of chapters 5 and 7 of title 5, shall apply to the exercise of the powers of the Postal Service.


(b) The following provisions shall apply to the Postal Service:



(1) section 552 (public information), section 552a (records about individuals), section 552b (open meetings), section 3102 (employment of personal assistants for blind, deaf, or otherwise handicapped employees), section 3110 (restrictions on employment of relatives), section 3333 and chapters 72 (antidiscrimination; right to petition Congress) and 73 (suitability, security, and conduct of employees), section 5520 (withholding city income or employment taxes), and section 5532 (!1) (dual pay) of title 5, except that no regulation issued under such chapters or section shall apply to the Postal Service unless expressly made applicable;


In the Postal rules I found that bringing a firearm onto the property is a rule violation but apparently it is not a felony:



  (l) Weapons and explosives. No person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.


…


  (p) Penalties and other law. (1) Alleged violations of these rules and regulations are heard, and the penalties prescribed herein are imposed, either in a Federal district court or by a Federal magistrate in accordance with applicable court rules. Questions regarding such rules should be directed to the regional counsel for the region involved.
(2) Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and regulations in this section while on property under the charge and control of the Postal Service is subject to fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both.


Further reading of the rules revealed you give up your Fourth Amendment rights once you set foot on U.S. Postal Property (232.1 (b)):



  (b) Inspection, recording presence. (1) Purses, briefcases, and other containers brought into, while on, or being removed from the property are subject to inspection. However, items brought directly to a postal facility’s customer mailing acceptance area and deposited in the mail are not subject to inspection, except as provided by section 274 of the Administrative Support Manual. A person arrested for violation of this section may be searched incident to that arrest.


I am not a lawyer. You are receiving this legal review for free and my own personal entertainment. It’s probably worth every penny you paid for it.

Plotting Hitler’s Death

Barb and I just finished watching Valkyrie. It was a good movie. Barb buried her head in my shoulder for a few scenes but it was interesting and to the best of my knowledge historically accurate.


More historical details and information on numerous other plots to kill Hitler can be found in the book Plotting Hitler’s Death which I highly recommend.


See also this post for more information on the content of this great book.

Quote of the day–Milton Friedman

The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit.


Milton Friedman
[As opposed to a government run market where exchanges take place at the point of a gun.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Tom Palmer

I know people who don’t understand why anyone would have a gun. They don’t have guns, they didn’t grow up with them, and they assume people who did must be some sort of primitive barbarians.


Tom Palmer
Page 30, Gun Control On Trial by Brian Doherty
[Just like gays in the 80’s Silence = Death. We need to come out of the closet if we want to survive as a free people.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Alan Gura

Look at their literature. About all they say is ‘guns are bad, they kill children and other living things.’ Look at their website. It clearly posits gun ownership as a social evil. He can say what he wants; I like Dennis, and I’ve never had a negative interaction with anybody with his group, but sorry, that’s a bunch of crap. His dream is dead; the idea of prohibition is dead. They need to tell their constituents to find something else to do with their lives, go be productive members of society, stop attacking our individual rights.


Alan Gura
From Gun Control On Trial, page 114.
[First off I would like to +1 Gura’s experience with the gun grabbers. All of the paid and even volunteer staff of the gun-grabber organizations that I have talked to have been nice people. I believe they were sincere and truly had no wish for anything other than the well-being of innocent people. They may not have been very smart or very well informed but their intentions, however misguided, always seemed to be congruent with mine–the protection of innocent life. They just had a problem with data collection and processing.


But on to my main reason for the quote.


I love the last sentence of Gura’s. Gura was referring to the Brady Campaign (and Dennis Henigan) but it could just as well apply to 98% of our politicians. Especially this year–the year of the coronation of the Light Bringer. It’s going to be rough times ahead for freedom and individual rights. We don’t have enough Alan Gura’s and friendly courts to protect us. If only we could enforce a declaration such as Gura’s.–Joe]

Another book reference

I’m spending New Years Eve reading Gun Control On Trial by Brian Doherty. I previously mentioned a direct reference to me in the book from a quick scan I made. A few minutes ago I found another reference on page 53 which almost for certain is about me (and others) and Boomershoot:

I talked to lots of people in the “pro-gun” community, from those who enjoy detonating explosives with semiautomatic rife fire to dealers in highly regulated states like California.

I find it interesting that I am placed on the extreme end of the spectrum. I suppose it is fitting. And it reminds me of two quotes:

Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice.

Thomas Paine

And:

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Barry Goldwater

Update (23:15): I finished the book a few minutes ago. I found my name in the index too.

Also of possible interest to some is that my friend and Boomershoot promoter Stephanie Sailor was mentioned in the acknowledgments. It was via her encouragement that Doherty contacted me.

I’ll have more on the book tomorrow. And I have a great quote for the first day of the new year from the book.

For what purpose?

One has to wonder why someone wants the answer to the search query posed below (“best ammunition for penetrating body armor”).




























































































Domain Name   verizon.net ? (Network)
IP Address   68.160.179.# (Verizon Internet Services)
ISP   Verizon Internet Services
Location  

























Continent  :  North America
Country  :  United States  (Facts)
State  :  Massachusetts
City  :  Boston
Lat/Long  :  42.3425, -71.0677 (Map)
Distance  :  2,249 miles
Language   English (U.S.)
en-us
Operating System   Microsoft WinXP
Browser   Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)
Javascript   version 1.3
Monitor  









Resolution  :  1400 x 1050
Color Depth  :  16 bits
Time of Visit   Dec 29 2008 10:27:49 am
Last Page View   Dec 29 2008 10:29:43 am
Visit Length   1 minute 54 seconds
Page Views   2
Referring URL http://www.google.co… body armor&aq=f&oq=
Search Engine google.com
Search Words best ammunition for penetrating body armor
Visit Entry Page   https://blog.joehuffman.org/2008/10/07/educating-the-media-on-body-armor-and-rifles/
Visit Exit Page   https://blog.joehuffman.org/2008/10/07/educating-the-media-on-body-armor-and-rifles/
Out Click    
Time Zone   UTC-8:00
Visitor’s Time   Dec 29 2008 10:27:49 am
Visit Number   408,429


It is from within the People Republic of Massachusetts so I can see why it might be a legitimate question.

Quote of the day–W. Somerset Maugham

It is salutary to train oneself to be no more affected by censure than by praise.


W. Somerset Maugham
[While I agree it appears to me that most people don’t have the philosophical background and/or brain power to make decisions on their own. Sometimes I wish we could just let Darwin settle the issues.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Susan Martin

A handgun is a gun that police use, that the military use but ordinary people do not use unless they’re out to kill somebody. There’s no reason to have a handgun.

…

The police should be able to, they see this guy standing in the street and they you know, looking at whatever, they should be able to frisk them and if they have a gun, that gun should be removed and they should go to jail.

Susan Martin
December 26, 2008
A conversation on gun control with Susan Martin, Mario Elia, Karen Ellis-Elia and Sean Daly
[Ignorant of the millions of incidents each year in the U.S. where handguns were used to protect innocent life Ms. Martin imagines a police state as being a better place to live. She lives in Canada where they already have censorship and a (never mind it has failed) gun registry. With those already in place she may get her wish sooner than she thinks. I think she should be careful what she wishes for.–Joe]

Update: They let my comment go through (comments were moderated):

I have a great deal of sympathy for those who have suffered such losses but there is Just One Question (https://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/14/just-one-question/) that needs to be asked before advocating more restrictions on firearms. That question is: “Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?”
Until that question can be answered in the affirmative those that advocate for more restrictions on firearms are actually advocating for an unjustified taking of freedom.

Update2: I left another comment (12/30/2008):

I find it very telling that those advocating for more gun control claim it will reduce “gun violence”. This claim is doubtful (the counter example of the U.K. experience is just one reason to doubt it) but furthermore they do not claim it will reduce violent crime. But by carefully choosing their words they lump praiseworthy violence in defense of innocent live in the same category as criminal acts. Those same carefully chosen words also overlook that the total violent crime rate can (and frequently does) increase when people are prevented from using firearms for self defense.

And also telling is the same advocates for gun control repeatedly refuse to answer Just One Question, “Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?”

Because they cannot answer this one question it shows that safety is not the objective of their advocating for increased restrictions on firearms. They have some other agenda which they are not sharing.

Yammering to ban air guns now–yawn


In the U.K. they have banned handguns, some long guns, have heavy restrictions on all long guns, and restrictions on knives. There should be no surprise there are now calls for the banning of air guns:




A POLICE chief has backed stricter controls on selling BB guns after a teenager was shot in the eye at close range with one of the replica firearms.


Angry mum Lynn Colley called for a ban on the weapons after her daughter Paige, 14, was left temporarily blind by a ball bearing fired at her face.

Quote of the day–Alan Korwin

This reading of the Bill of Rights is potentially a very dangerous thing.


The government is not likely to take kindly to direct threats to its powers — which the Bill of Rights specifically represents — especially as it is held in hand by an angered people. The very idea that the people would take it upon themselves to examine government’s abuses, usurpations of powers, abuses of authority, and contraventions of the very Bill that is meant to constrain government actions, is inflammatory.


At what point do the people, oppressed and incensed by the abuses of government, act directly to limit and yes punish those responsible? When are “public servants,” feigning to guard us against infringements, brought to justice?


Alan Korwin
December 23, 2008
Bill of Rights Day
[Read the whole thing. Especially the part about heads on pikes.–Joe]

Quote of the day–John Kenneth Galbraith

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under Communism, it’s just the opposite.


John Kenneth Galbraith
[While true this overlooks the net result of the people living under the two different systems. Under capitalism there exists a wider disparity between the richest and the poorest. But the poorest of the poor is no worse off than if they were living under a communist regime. And the average person is far, far better off living in a capitalist system. But many people don’t make it this far in the logic chain. Their is a strong tendency to stop after reaching the point about there being a wide disparity between the richest and poorest. As near as I can determine their is a belief that this is “not fair”. Pointing out to them that “life is not fair” does not remedy the situation. Apparently there is some deep seated belief that things can be made to be “fair”. I think the problem must be attacked at a lower level–that is the definition of “fair”. It is not “fair” that the government should take (at the point of a gun) the property and/or services of one and give it to another. That “unfairness” can only be reduced by reducing the size of government and the taxes paid.


I’m reminded of this quote by Phil who posted about Arianna Huffington saying Capitalism should be as dead as Communism. I’m tempted to say something comparing the status the brains of both Huffington and Marx but most people should be able to draw the obvious conclusion without me leading them there.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Jerry M. Burger

The conclusion is not: ‘Gosh isn’t this a horrible commentary on human nature,’ or ‘these people were so sadistic. It shows the opposite — that there are situational forces that have a much greater impact on our behavior than most people recognize.

 

Jerry M. Burger
December 20, 2008
Shocking revelation: Santa Clara University professor mirrors famous torture study
[This is a reproduction of the infamous Milgram Experiments. I must conclude that this is either a facet of human psychology or at least a facet of multiple cultures. These results have tremendous impact on everything from the Holocaust, Jonestown, and civil rights to gun confiscation. Do not count on people to “do the right thing” if they are given the option of using the excuse “I was just following orders”.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Bruce Schneier

Why be rational, when you can stoke fear instead?


Bruce Schneier
December 16, 2008
Buying Fake Nintendo Consoles Helps Terrorists
[This applies to so many things.–Joe]