Saturday, October 13, 2007

Reason #397 why so many people are thinking of lampposts and ropes

Or just building multiple gallows

Two things have been preying on my mind the last week or so. The oldest is the invitation of that treasonous slutconvicted felon Lynne Stewart to be on an ethics panel at Hofstra Law School. Besides all the other crap spewed by the school and her enablersdefenders to try and cover for this, I had the nauseating experience a few days ago of catching the Glenn Beck show on CNN. He had a clownofficial from the school on to talk about this. First thing, the contempt and disgust practically dripping off the screen from this jerk was amazing. You could see it running through his mind: "You're not even a lawyer from some state school, how DARE you question our actions?" That's strike one.

Strike two was that his answer to almost everything was to quote the defense at this post(read the comments). Repeatedly. When questioned as to why there was nothing in the information on the conference noting her disbarment, felony convictions, etc., and why- if she was a 'cautionary example'- basically everyone on the panel supported her in her actions, he went into the quote again.

Strike three was when Beck- seriously pissed off at this point- asked if he would condemn her and her actions; he said "I agree with that." Beck asked again would he say that? And here came the quote again. Beck finally asked "Do you think she was innocent?" and dipstick started the lawyerly "I did not sit in on the trial, I haven't reviewed the transcript," etc. Overall, enough to make you wish for some tar, feathers and a rail. For him and his 'panel'.

The other thing, which pisses me off even more, is the current hearings at the Supreme Court over that raping, murdering piece of walking shit Medellin. If you haven't heard about this mess, you've spent even more time in a hole than I have. If you're not familiar with it, look it up. The level of, not 'pissed off', but flat out rage this has caused is huge. And I wonder if some of the idiots pushing this have really thought it through?

Let's say the Supremes have a 5-4 decision in favor of the President and foreign court position: murdering dirtbag gets off the death sentence, and a bunch of other illegal aliens facing death for murders get the same, plus all the add-ons that will be connected to this. What happens then? A whole variety of things.

The attitude toward the Supremes goes down the toilet, and I'd agree. I think that any Justice- for that matter any politician- who says that foreign law trumps our Constitution, our laws in this country, has betrayed their oath of office, and should be treated appropriately. At least they should be thrown out of that office(preferably into the aforementioned tar), at most prosecuted(if possible, I don't know if you can and I'm too sick of this to search around for it) for it as well as being kicked out of office. If you think there's a lot of anger toward D.C. now, just wait for the announcement "The Constitution doesn't mean crap anymore."

Second, you think people are pissed at Mexico now? Bad enough having that corrupt government encouraging their people to violate our laws and then spitting on us for daring to object; here they're demanding that WE roll over for the sake of a raping, torturing murderer BECAUSE he's from Mexico.

Third, connected to the last, just what starts happening to some of these criminals in the future. Right now you've got people in border areas who have to go armed on their own ranches and farms because of the illegals and smugglers, while the border patrol and politicians play games so as not to offend Mexico. Just what the hell do these idiots think(if they bother) is going to start happening when people are faced with threats from illegals? Does the phrase 'shoot, shovel and shut up' ring a bell?

All kinds of consequences if the court makes this decision for foreign authority over our laws, these are just the big ones that come to mind right now.

Couple of days ago I heard somebody on a news show say that they think Mexico made a mistake pushing this issue for this particular murderer because the crime committed by he and his little friends was so nasty. Got a question: does anyone think it would be somehow better if Mexico had chosen a slightly less disgusting rapist/murderer for their poster boy? I don't. I think Mexico doesn't care about anything except destroying our border and our laws so they can keep using the U.S. as a safety valve to bleed off people and keep foreign money coming in. They've fucked up their own country so bad that despite huge resources people think it worth it to walk across a desert hoping for a $3/hour job, because that's better than they can get back home. Not to mention getting free health care because of our idiot politicians.

You think this is messy now? Just wait. If this comes down on the bad side, just wait until people start acting on the idea that "If the government won't do the job, we will!"

And it will happen.

While our damn-near useless, bigoted media

plays games, they just can't find time for some reason to mention someone like Lt. Michael P. Murphy.

But they don't have an agenda, noooo........

Added: here's more on some of the people most of the media prefer to ignore. Click on some of the links. It's worth the time.

An experiment with Microlon

Yes, I do go on a bit about this stuff. No, they're not paying me*.

One of the things the stuff is often supposed to result in is a bit higher velocity due to the slicker bore. In the past I didn't have a chronograph to test it with, and since I got one I didn't have anything I hadn't already used it on. However, remember that Sears .22 rifle I wrote about? It hadn't been treated, so I borrowed it to test out.

This thing has basic iron sights only and I didn't have a scope that would fit on it(note to self: 1" rings for grooved receiver, buy). Yeah, would have been better to wait 'till I did, but considering time and other factors I didn't know when I could do this next. So iron sights it was. I picked the Eley Sport .22lr ammo, simply because it shot well out of this rifle before and I had a box handy. Testing was done at 25 yards off a solid rest.

First I fired ten rounds to get a baseline. Velocities were

Average velocity 1119fps, standard deviation works out to 19.1. And here's the target.

Group is about 1.72".

I had the top of the front bead at the middle of the bull. After this ten, I pulled the bolt and after shaking hell out of the bottle(please note the stylish recycling of small booze container)

I wet one patch and swabbed the bore out thoroughly to clean it, then a couple of dry patches. Then I shook it again and ran a damp patch through the bore, replaced the bolt, loaded and fired(new target), and recorded the velocity. At which point I realized I'd held the bull on top of the bead on this shot. After practicing the use of several words, I decided to keep this sight/target alignment for the treatment target, and for the final ten went back to the 'bead in the middle' aiming point.

After each shot I pulled the bolt, shook the bottle, damped a patch with Gun Juice and pushed it through the bore, replaced the bolt, fired and recorded velocity. Velocities were

Average velocity 1133.5fps, standard deviation is 22.1,and here's the treatment target:

Group .875", discounting the first shot which hit way low.

After checking it, letting the rifle sit with the bolt open to cool a bit, I went to the third target and fired ten rounds. Velocities

Average 1124.2, standard deviation 8.15, and target:

Group about 1.1".

By the time I finished this, after the earlier shooting, I was about done for trying precision so I stopped here. It's interesting that the group was tightest during the treatment, slightly larger after, and both were tighter than from the untreated barrel(I do have to say that some of the growth in the last may be due to me. Next time I'm able to do this test I'll make sure it's on a scoped rifle to remove as much error factor as possible). Velocity was highest during the treatment, post-treatment was higher than the original.
The deviation going up during the treatment isn't surprising really, considering the stuff that'd just been wiped onto the bore before each shot and possible variations caused by that. Deviation on the post treatment group was WAY down from the original.

Now that I think about it, my daughter's .22 rifle hasn't been treated. And it has a scope...

*Attention manufacturers: I am available for briberytesting of firearms and accessories. Somebody take note, please.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Does anyone else have the urge

to stuff a smelly old sock in Jimmy Carter's mouth? Arguably one of the worst Presidents in our history- possibly the worst- and the bastard just can't keep his damn mouth shut. Ever. Had a friend who thought he was one of the best presidents we'd had and I asked why: "He signed all those international agreements!"

"You mean like the ones with North Korea and the Soviets that they broke before the ink was dry?"

"But he did sign agreements with a number of countries!"

Didn't care that the 'agreements' were worth less than a good crap, the fact that he 'signed agreements with many countries' was all that counted. I guess if you judge by a bar that low, you might think he wasn't so bad. But I think he sucked rocks as President, and he's down to sucking sewage now.

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

On that World Council of Churches crap

The questions over that have been rattling 'round in my mind the last couple of days. I said before, I just cannot understand these people. Nobody I've ever met actually wants to kill someone else or even hurt them severely(though consideration of a kick in the ass is common); that doesn't mean that they won't pull the trigger or swing the bat or whatever and it doesn't mean they think doing so would be bad in those circumstances. Protection of yourself, your family and friends, your home, your country, these are not bad things. but we're dealing with people who've decided there's no such thing as violent and protective, that all violence is equally bad even in potential. Which I think is flat idiotic.

Anyone who actually believes that it's evil for a woman to use violence to protect herself from a rapist is freakin' insane. But they're out there. And they get a lot of latitude from people because 'their heart is in the right place' and such, or 'non-violence is not a bad idea'. I disagree on both points. 'Peace at any price' is NOT having your heart in the right place, and when it's used to excuse taking no action against evil then non-violence IS a bad idea. If you don't like calling it bad, then it's a much less good idea.

The thinking that to protect your family from an attacker is bad- actually evil in their minds- is insane. That protecting your country by force, or the threat of, is bad is equally so. But I've known a few people who otherwise seem quite intelligent who think so.

These people like to bring up Gandhi a lot. They don't like the quote I remember. He was being interviewed by someone and stated flatly that the only reason his non-violent methods worked was that he was dealing with a people as basically fair and civilized as the British; that if he'd tried it with the Soviets he, anyone else in a leadership role and quite a lot of followers would have disappeared into camps. Forever.

RobC wrote in comments "The WCC is filled with communists and athiests that deny God exists cloaked as Clergy." Which reminded me of one of the 'peace' people I've known. Back when I used to go to that folk dance group, it usually met in a Unitarian church. One night I said something about God and was told by the lady that I shouldn't say God here. I thought about that a moment and said "I can't say 'God' in a church?" "Some people don't worship God and it might make them uncomfortable for you to say that."

I might make them uncomfortable. Hearing the word 'God' said in a church.

I'll bet she just loves the WCC.

Monday, October 08, 2007

It's a new children's book!

Read all the pages!

Found thanks to the gentleman with the new license plate.

Sunday, October 07, 2007

Journalists should be trusted;

they don't let their personal opinions intrude on reporting the news.

I'm not going to excerpt from this garbage, I'm too pissed off by it. Read it. And remember it the next time these clowns tell us that we can trust them.

More on the al Dura blood libel

from Augean Stables and ShrinkWrapped.

I don't think it's any mystery why the major media doesn't want to break this. A: Some of them have a lot of personal emotion tied up in this. "Israel is to blame!" for pretty much everything, and showing what dirtbags and liars many of the palestinians are just goes against what they want to push. And B: they've got a lot of personal 'integrity' tied up in this story: if they break it, all the questions on why and why not start hammering them:
Indeed, when this story breaks, one of the great scandals will be the profound negligence and neglect of the MSM, which never asked a hard question, never followed up on the story… indeed, did their best to bury it. (The fellow at WGBH that Fallows sent me to as someone who might be interested in the story, even as he admitted the evidence was convincing, told me he couldn’t do “just this” story, he’d need to do something about Israeli cameramen staging news.) When you read the comments of ClĂ©ment Weill Raynal on how everyone in the MSM does it and knows it’s done, combined with the responses of France2 higher ups to the three journalists who saw Talal’s tapes, and Enderlin’s to meit happens all the time — you begin to realize that this kind of staging, editing, and presenting as news is a public secret among the MSM as well.

To put it crudely, the shitstorm that will fall on them will be wonderful to behold. So even those uncomfortable with what they've done and why, will try to prevent it. They'd rather not have to deal with it than do the painful work to clean up their trade.