Quote of the day—amiable

Clinton is probably one of the least crooked politicians currently running for office.  She came from a middle class family and married a poor boy who made good.

amiable
September 8, 2016
Comment to No matter how you spin it, crooked Hillary is still crooked
[Via Tam.

As Robert Heinlein’s character said in Time Enough For Love (page 241):

Delusions are often functional.  A mother’s opinions about her children’s beauty, intelligence, goodness, et cetera ad nauseam, keep her from drowning them at birth.

Lazarus Long
1916-4272

Still, the depth of the delusion is amazing.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Gura

A sober assessment of the Second Amendment’s present status must precede any attempt at predicting a “conservative” Supreme Court nominee’s impact on the Second Amendment’s future. Well before Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing, judges figured out that District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago are optional precedents. For all their powerful content, these decisions have in practice proven meaningless in the face of near-total resistance throughout the federal courts, in combination with the transparent lack of interest at One First Street in defending the Supreme Court’s eponymous position atop the judicial hierarchy. To be sure, some judges seek to apply Heller and McDonald in resolving Second Amendment disputes. But most treat the Supreme Court’s precedent as a hassle to surmount before rubber-stamping any legislative restriction on the right to bear arms. If not today, then very soon, it shouldn’t be too hard for any sufficiently dedicated and creative legislature to effectively ban firearms or just about any firearm-related activity, without worrying much about Heller. Appointing one “conservative” Justice to replace Antonin Scalia won’t improve matters. Indeed, “conservative” judges are part of the problem.

Alan Gura
September 6th, 2016
The Court after Scalia: The next “conservative” Justice may not save the Second Amendment
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

U.S. Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 101, Section 2071

Huh. Look at that. U.S. Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 101, Section 2071:

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.”

Well, what do you know…. It doesn’t say “upon conviction….”. Hillary is DQ from being Prez. That might be an interesting point to bring up in the debates, or perhaps a campaign ad or two…. Might be fun to watch the Dems tap dance around it.

(H/T to Capitol Gazette via Curmudgeonly and Skeptical)

On a related election note, the German anti-immigrant party the AfD went from 0% (zero percent) to 21% of the vote, second only behind the SPD and ahead of Chancellor Angela Merkel CDU party in her home region of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. Times they are a-changin’…

Quote of the day—Paul Ryan

These documents demonstrate Hillary Clinton’s reckless and downright dangerous handling of classified information during her tenure as secretary of state. They also cast further doubt on the Justice Department’s decision to avoid prosecuting what is a clear violation of the law. This is exactly why I have called for her to be denied access to classified information.

Paul Ryan
Speaker of the House
September 2, 2016
Statement on Clinton Investigation Document Release
[See also FBI files show Clinton claimed ignorance on classification:

According to the files, Clinton claimed to have relied on the judgment of her aides and other officials to handle classified material appropriately. She even told investigators — when asked what the “C” marking meant before a paragraph in an email marked “Confidential” – that “she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order.”

The FBI document notes that the email was in fact marked “classified at the Confidential level.” And when asked about different classification types like “Top Secret,” Clinton went on to say she “did not pay attention to the ‘level’ of classified information and took all classified information seriously.”

The documents also say Clinton claimed she could not recall “any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information.” Further, Clinton “could not give an example of how classification of a document was determined.”

Such passages could help explain why FBI Director James Comey said during congressional testimony in July that there were questions over whether Clinton was “sophisticated enough” to know at the time what a particular classified marking signified.

The markings on a classified document look something like this (in red):

Top Secret

(S)     We now have all the required guns and ammo for the attack.

(TS)   We attack at dawn.

Each paragraph is marked at the highest level of classification in that paragraph.* The marking at the top is the highest level of classification of any paragraph in the document.

Hillary Clinton, as described by the FBI, is not “sophisticated enough” to understand these markings. This makes it exceptionally clear that she is not “sophisticated enough” to be a president of a community book club, let alone the President of the United States.—Joe]


* A game I used to play with the classifier of the documents I created was to write the paragraphs such that no single paragraph contained any classified information. Yet when the paragraphs were taken as a whole they did qualify as classified. It was a far more amusing game for me than my poor classifier who didn’t know what to do with them and never thought to ask me to rewrite them to make it easier for her.

Oops

There are so many details in the gun and ammo industry it might be easy to overlook some little decision and the side effects of it. Some mistakes are minor. Some are a little larger.

The ATF accidentally banned ammunition manufacturing.

Well, not exactly, but sort of. The changed the regs and reclassified nitrocellulose as a high explosive. You know, nitrocellulose. The stuff that is used to manufacture virtually ALL smokeless powder? All the facilities that made or handled powder would have to be totally redesigned, and frequently relocated, and shut down in the meantime. Yeah, just a minor change. So, the ATF, having been informed of the effect of this minor update, issued a “it’s still on the books, but never mind for the moment” notice.

Joe, I know you say you’ve had nothing but positive interactions with the ATF field agents and personnel, but you must live in a odd location in the time-space continuum.

Yeah…. Top. Men.

Metadata is harmless…

… or so the government sometimes says.

OTOH, when you have Big Data, with enough MetaData, it turns into Creepy Data.

No, a shrink having her patients friending each other *based on FaceBlock’s reccomendation* isn’t creepy at all. It’s all totally harmless, and could never be misused, right? (and people wonder why I don’t do Book of Faces)

I wonder if they could sue FB for violating HIPAA?

Quote of the day—Kenneth R. Timmerman

As a life-long investigative reporter, I remain committed to the facts. But I recognize that the contest in November will be determined not by facts, but by faith, and by how many believers on each side come to the polls. That is the new reality of the two Americas of 2016.

Kenneth R. Timmerman
July 28, 2016
Democratic convention more about Fantasyland than America
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Hardin

So, Hillary now is the Reset Button?

John Hardin
August 26, 2016
Comment to Quote of the day—Liz Crokin
[I think this might be better rewritten as, “Hillary is the Reset Button.”

Back in the late 90’s, in the dark days of the Clinton presidency, I knew gun people who said we should vote for the most totalitarian administration imaginable, Hillary, for the next president. The thought was that the “water” would heat up so rapidly that “the frogs” would take action rather than die from the slow increase in temperature. There are people today saying similar things.

I don’t know whether that would have been the correct choice then or it is the correct choice now, but it might very well be the choice will be made for us. And if the election goes worst case for us it will be ugly. Not only are the anti-gun people openly talking of an “assault weapon ban”, and “the Australian example”, but also “a ban on semi-automatic firearms, which are often described as ‘assault weapons.’” Never mind semi-auto handguns were a significant component of the Heller decision and protected. As it stand the Heller decision is being essentially ignored. With another Clinton presidency it will be nullified in everything but our memories.

I’m preparing for the worst and hoping for an indictment of Hillary.—Joe]

16th Century Revolver

An eight-shooter from over 400 years ago. But those who wrote the constitution could never have imagined a multi-shot firearm.

Am I seeing a barrel-mounted, spring operated indexing pawl which engages tiny notches in the front of cylinder between the priming pan covers? On the other hand, maybe that lever on the right side behind the cylinder is part of the index locking mechanism.

Now what we need is a gas-operated, automatic firing, flintlock chain gun artillery piece.

Quote of the day—Liz Crokin

I began looking into how strong the bias and censorship runs in these forums after I did an interview on the pro-Trump podcast, MAGAPod. The show’s host, Mark Hammond, was disappointed Apple wouldn’t run his show without an “explicit” warning. Hammond’s podcast didn’t contain content that would be deemed explicit under Apple’s policy, and most other shows in the News & Politics category aren’t labeled as such.

On June 18, Hammond talked to Sandra, a representative from Apple. She explained that, since the description of his show is pro-Trump, his show is explicit in nature—because the subject matter is Donald Trump. So, an Apple employee concluded the Republican presidential candidate is explicit.

Liz Crokin
August 12, 2016
Tech Companies Apple, Twitter, Google and Instagram Collude to Defeat Trump
[H/T Michael Krieger.

Ry and I had breakfast together the other day and discussed some things tangentially related to this. I.E. Germany and Japan had culture issues that apparently could only be fixed by their complete surrender at the end of WW II and then the rebuilding of their government and social institutions with a different set of values.

Today there seem to be things in our society and/or government that appear to be so broken, corrupt, and/or deeply ingrained that they can’t really be fixed via normal means. One could make the case that a hard reset may be necessary.

[Heavy sigh]

I really don’t want us to go there.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

People in the United States of America want it understood that designating arms, ammunition and related accessories, which are currently legal to make, keep or bear in any state, which may later be declared illegal to make, keep or bear, or encumbered in any way by any means and for any reason, constitutes Second Amendment infringement.

Such actions are null and void, amount to prima facie violation of the oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, and are grounds for removal from office for failure to faithfully execute the duties of the office.

Any action or attempt by any person to enforce such infringement on property possessed in our state will be a class four felony for a first offense, and a class three felony for second and subsequent offenses.

County Sheriffs and law-enforcement agencies in this state will be authorized to enforce this Declaration and to deputize as many residents as may be necessary to enforce this Declaration.

This Declaration, circulated widely by people who support it, is provided as a courtesy and notice of protected civil rights to candidates, politicians and people working in any capacity in government. It will be introduced as state legislation to authorize peaceful enforcement of those civil rights. Model legislation is in the draft stage and will be circulated soon.

Consider yourselves notified of impending disaster, if the headlong rush to infringe the public’s right to arms — and all the other blatantly unconstitutional abuses — continues on its current path. Don’t shoot me, I’m only the messenger.

Alan Korwin
August 21, 2016
American Protection of Arms Declaration
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Gary J. Byrne

Terrorists can recognize the difference between actual security and it’s mere appearance. You think they can’t see past a gun free zone sign? It might as well say, “Terrorists welcome! Ready access to undefended scores of innocent children.” Please get over the gun-control distraction. Ask yourself, “What stops four men from going to a school with knives or bombs?” I know that by the time a threat reaches me on an airplane there is no time for hesitation, talk, quarter. I want to win more than I can tolerate losing.

In 2016 federal agencies are training their law enforcement personal to respond to active shooter scenarios. Concealed carry permits for civilians are going up. That’s great!

But we need a more honest discussion. By the time a terrorist or a criminal boards a plane with ill intentions we’re past the time for obfuscating their plans or negotiating them down. Either FAMS personal is on the plane when it takes off or its passengers and crew are marked for death and they better know it. The Federal Air Marshal, the passengers, the flight crew, and pilots are truly the last line of defense. Public spaces and schools need the same approach.

Let’s cut the feel good politics and recognize by the time someone with dangerous plans reaches your doorstep it’s too late to ponder root causes of anti-social behavior. It’s time to act. All of the thinking should have been done beforehand. And the level of commitment to stop grotesque violence in its tracks, stone cold dead, has to exceed theirs if protecting the principal is going to succeed.

Have no misconceptions. Any outcome at that point will be bloody, ugly, and lowdown. It’s like nothing you have seen in any Hollywood movie. It’s going to be bad breath and fingernail close. But it’s a fight that is coming our way whether we get ready for it or not.

Let’s get ready.

Gary J. Byrne
2016
Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They Operate
[I listened to this as an audible book so I probably have some punctuation messed up and maybe some spelling and other minor stuff. But it’s pretty close.

The book, as you can see, isn’t just about his time as a Secret Service Officer for the Clintons. It briefly covers his time in the Air Force, time with the Bush’s before the Clintons, testifying during the investigation by Kenneth Star, and time with the Federal Air Marshals.

There are some quotes I’m going to pull out about the Clintons too. But I thought this was higher priority. I really like it.

It’s a good book. I highly recommend it.—Joe]

Why people become terrorists

Via Bruce Schneier:

young people adrift in a globalized world find their own way to ISIS, looking to don a social identity that gives their lives significance. Groups of dissatisfied young adult friends around the world ­ often with little knowledge of Islam but yearning for lives of profound meaning and glory ­ typically choose to become volunteers in the Islamic State army in Syria and Iraq, Atran contends. Many of these individuals connect via the internet and social media to form a global community of alienated youth seeking heroic sacrifice, he proposes.

Preliminary experimental evidence suggests that not only global terrorism, but also festering state and ethnic conflicts, revolutions and even human rights movements — think of the U.S. civil rights movement in the 1960s — depend on what Atran refers to as devoted actors. These individuals, he argues, will sacrifice themselves, their families and anyone or anything else when a volatile mix of conditions are in play. First, devoted actors adopt values they regard as sacred and nonnegotiable, to be defended at all costs. Then, when they join a like-minded group of nonkin that feels like a family ­ a band of brothers ­ a collective sense of invincibility and special destiny overwhelms feelings of individuality. As members of a tightly bound group that perceives its sacred values under attack, devoted actors will kill and die for each other.

He says it applies to the U.S. civil rights movement in the 1960s. Why shouldn’t it also be applicable to present day politics in the U.S.? Perhaps the Black Lives Matter movement and the police shootings?

Interesting. Very, very, interesting.

What media bias?

Via Paul Koning we have The Unknown Olympic Champion Kim Rhode has won medals in six games. Cue the non-coverage:

How do you manage to win a medal at six straight Olympics and remain more or less unknown? The answer: win by shooting a gun. American skeet-shooter Kim Rhode last week became the first athlete, male or female, to win a medal at six summer games and the first on five continents, but don’t look for her on a box of Wheaties.

Mrs. Rhode, who won a bronze medal in Rio, has received little media attention despite her historic feat. The 37-year-old also lacks a single major corporate sponsor, though her ammunition and training costs are offset with sponsorship and donations from such firearms companies as Beretta and Otis Technology.

Her agent told Bloomberg he had pitched the sharp-shooter to more than 20 companies, with no luck. Our guess is they don’t want to risk a backlash from the progressive antigun culture. It probably doesn’t help that Mrs. Rhode is an outspoken critic of gun-control laws and a Donald Trump supporter.

What media bias?

Interesting times

It appears there are people, besides me, who really, really don’t want Ms. Clinton to be our next president. Yet another hack at her:

Bill and Hillary Clinton’s charitable foundation hired the security firm FireEye to examine its data systems after seeing indications they might have been hacked, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

So far, no message or document hacked from the New York-based Clinton Foundation has surfaced in public, the sources said.

One of the sources and two U.S. security officials said that like hackers who targeted the Democratic National Committee, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democrats’ congressional fundraising committee, the hackers appear to have used “spear phishing” techniques to gain access to the foundation’s network.

I need a bigger bowl of popcorn.

Quote of the day—Chris Rock

I don’t want to live in a world where hacking comes in second to ISIS.

Chris Rock
August 6, 2016 at Defcon 24
How to Overthrow a Government
[This is the white Australian Chris Rock, not the black U.S. Chris Rock.

This was his response to someone who said the biggest threats the world currently faces are, in order, ISIS, Hacking, … some other stuff. His point was that he thinks hacking should be number one in the list of threats to the world. Why should hacking come in behind a bunch of incompetent amateurs? So, he showed how hacking was used to create changes in the government of Kuwait a few years ago. At least that was strongly implied. It wasn’t clear to me whether this actually happened or was just a plausible explanation of what might have happened.

Here are some pictures from his presentation:
WP_20160806_10_06_08_ProWP_20160806_10_08_16_ProWP_20160806_10_17_45_ProWP_20160806_10_25_49_Pro

Interesting stuff.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tatiana Schlossberg

Crime is one example where a rebound in carbon emissions could be an issue, according to this study. While there is an energy cost to operating prisons, the study notes, inmates generally consume less than an average citizen in the country, so fewer prisoners might mean higher overall energy consumption.

Additionally, the money saved from reducing crime would go into the government’s budget and people’s pockets. All that money could be spent in other ways — infrastructure, buildings or goods — that may require more energy to produce or operate, possibly adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Tatiana Schlossberg
August 3, 2016
How Lowering Crime Could Contribute to Global Warming
[H/T to Anonymous Conservative.

I found this very telling. The violation of the rights of people by criminals is secondary to the concern about carbon emissions. And, most importantly, they now have the idea that putting lots of people in prison is good for the environment. Think about what that might lead to.—Joe]

Data gets in the way of legislation

Interesting data:

A recent study by Temple University researchers found that wearing body cameras was actually associated with a 3.64% increase in fatal shootings of civilians by police officers.  Perhaps even more surprising is that no increase in fatalities was noticed in police interactions with Whites/Asians but police were found to be 3.68% more likely to kill Blacks/Hispanics while wearing body cameras.  The study suggests that police officers are actually more likely to pull the trigger if they have video evidence to support their use of force.

As Tyler Durden says in his post, “Don’t you just hate it when data gets in the way of legislation?”

Quote of the day—Roberto Foa and Yascha Mounk

In the United States, among all age cohorts, the share of citizens who believe that it would be better to have a “strong leader” who does not have to “bother with parliament and elections” has also risen over time: In 1995, 24 percent of respondents held this view; by
2011, that figure had increased to 32 percent. Meanwhile, the proportion of citizens who approve of “having experts, not government, make decisions according to what they think is best for the country” has grown from 36 to 49 percent.

Roberto Foa and Yascha Mounk
July 2016
The Danger of Deconsolidation
The Democratic Disconnect

[This could be part of the explanation for our current candidates for U.S. President. Sometimes people get what they ask for.

Maybe I need a seaworthy boat instead of a farm in Idaho.—Joe]

Where’s my popcorn?

The presidential election just got a lot more interesting.

Remember how the Obama admin blocked FBI probe of Clinton Foundation corruption?

Things just changed:

Multiple FBI investigations are underway involving potential corruption charges against the Clinton Foundation, according to a former senior law enforcement official.

It couldn’t have happened to a more appropriate set of people.

Where’s my popcorn?