Saturday, April 18, 2009

Small gun show at the fairgrounds

so I went by this morning. Quite busy for early morning. I have to say that some of the people with ammo are
A: Insane
B: Have no shame.
$30 bucks for a brick of .22. More at one table. And one guy had a 100-box of Winchester white box .380; he wanted $90.

Did see a couple of interesting things, more on that when I have time. Probably tomorrow. Schedule went to hell today.

For a couple of bits from across the pond,

we turn to the Englishman:
First, on pest control,
SINCE the Scottish Parliament building was opened in 2004, its officials have been battling against constant bombardment from winged menaces.
Now Holyrood bosses have finally admitted the only way to tackle the pigeons and stop them fouling the building is to introduce their own air force. They have asked falconers to tender for what could be a £40,000 contract to chase off the pigeons.

But the idea, originally conceived by independent Lothians MSP Margo MacDonald, has been taken up on the condition that the bird of prey used does not actually kill any pigeons
Well, I guess they could do surgery on the bird brains(the falcons, not the morons in charge of this. Although surgery on their brains would actually be a good idea) to change their behavior, but then the animal rights nutters would have further conniptions, so...

On involuntary servitude, it seems Brown likes the idea of a Brown Youth Corps(Shirt color? Three guesses) just like Obama's:
PM Gordon Brown intends to force every teenager in the country to carry out 50 HOURS of work to help the community.Last year the PM proposed the idea of a National Youth Service, which would channel young volunteers into community work. But now he plans to make it compulsory and include it in Labour's next election manifesto...."By building from compulsory citizenship studies in the 14-16 curriculum, we can create an expectation of national youth community service."
That's 'expectation' as in "Do your forced service or go to jail", something along those lines, I'd guess.

And last, looks like Napolitano has brethren in England as far as deciding who the 'enemy' is:
We were all shocked by the number and seriousness of injuries inflicted on demonstrators that day, and looking back, it is amazing that there were not more serious consequences. We are the first to echo the view that policing these events is fraught with difficulty, yet exactly one week after this incident 20,000 of us demonstrated in Brighton at the Labour Party conference. Tensions were high and the opportunity for ‘flash points’ even more numerous than before, but this time with real anger added to the mix. Sussex Police handled the event to perfection. It was controlled and peaceful; there were no arrests and no injuries, which suggests a clear distinction between the attitude of rural and urban police officers.

What is most worrying is that despite a detailed investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s (IPCC) nothing much seems to have changed within the Metropolitan police
I guess the Met sees people of a more traditional mindset as just as big a threat as Napolitano does.

Friday, April 17, 2009

Speaking of forgetting history,

or in some cases covering it up, Kevin posted this quote:
When a society loses its memory, it descends inevitably into dementia. Allowing the cultural relativists to annex the education system ultimately destroys the grown-up world, too. - Mark Steyn, The loss of societal memory
Which reminded me of something. So I went to a bookshelf and found Man-Kzin Wars VII. If you've never read any of the series, one of the basic points is that the UN, running the world, had decided that the best way to make things peaceful and everyone easy to control(they didn't put it that way, of course) was to change history and control all aspects of culture: take out of the histories mention of wars and any aggressive action, suppress any writings that hinted at fighting for something, no games allowed that used aggression to win(very bad attitude, wanting to win),the whole works. To the point that people finding old family stuff like unapproved books, weapons(VERY broadly defined), any kind of keepsake of the sort were often sent away to camps; they may have been contaminated with unapproved knowledge and had to be isolated. And they managed to mold people into a forced pacifism in which even an offhand remark of the improper kind would get you reported. And quite possibly taken away. All of which turned out to be a bit of a problem when the Kzin showed up for dinner.

Well, at the start of some chapters in this book are quotes from various people speaking of history being lost, or flatly changed. For instance:
One of the largest of all British local council libraries, at Brent, lately destroyed approximately 66,000 of its 100,000 books. The explanation which the council gave for this destruction was that the offending books were "books on war, history books and other books irrelevant to the community."
R.J. Stove, Where Ignorance is Bliss, 1993
My first-year politics tutorials this week dealt with Nazi foreign policy and the lead-up to the war. I decided to loosen things a bit and just generally chat....How strange that university politics students should never have heard of the little ships that took the British Expeditionary Force off the beaches in May 1940. Or de Gaulle. Or a Spitfire. No knowledge of any of it..... This was the stuff that was supposed never to be forgotten thirty, forty years ago. Next week we do the Holocaust....

Letter to the author, October 19, 1991

Or how about
One of Japan's ubiquitous television crews took to the streets last week to find out what people thought about the forthcoming fiftieth anniversary of Pearl Harbor.... Such has been the rewriting of history in Japan that many teenagers had not even heard of Peral Harbor and several expressed amazement Japan had fought a war with the United States.
Gareth Alexander "The War Japan Chose to Forget,", Press Itern, December 3, 1991

It's been a long time since I read any of these books, I can't remember if any of the others have such notes. But these alone point to something scary as hell: that there are people and groups who have made specific effort to remove some history from the record, and to slant what remains. Sometimes for reasons of pride, sometimes for shame, sometimes to push their own views and goals. Which, unsurprisingly, usually involve them and other 'enlightened' ones controlling us. All for our own good, of course.

And theirs, but the won't speak of that.

If you don't like snakes,

don't go here.

Isn't it interesting who the current administration does and does not

consider a 'terrorist', current or potential?
A. M. Mora y Leon at The American Thinker reported that the Obama Administration has reclassified the FARC killers in Colombia as insurgents and not terrorists:

The redesignation of FARC as ‘insurgents' is especially outrageous. The only people Obama could be talking about as ‘insurgents' are FARC because there is nothing comparable anywhere else in the hemisphere. What Obama is doing is exactly the same thing the msm did for the Iraqi AQs and terrorists, called them ‘insurgents'!

This is not really so surprising considering the news last year that democrats were reportedly holding meetings with the FARC
I seem to remember hearing something about that...
After his death Colombian forces raided his FARC camp and found two computers that belonged to the terrorist mastermind. The Colombian government later released reports on the contents of these FARC computers. One file on the computer discussed Barack Obama:

The gringos will ask for an appointment with the minister to solicit him to communicate to us his interest in discussing these topics. They say that the new president of their country will be Obama and that they are interested in your compatriots. Obama will not support "Plan Colombia" nor will he sign the TLC (Colombian Free Trade agreement).

It appears that democrats were associating with FARC terrorists even before the election.
And, now these FARC killers are no longer considered terrorists.
Funny how that works
Isn't it, though? Especially considering some of the crap that's come out about how the paper was released:
In fact, it was such a rush job that Janet Napolitano couldn’t wait to resolve the obvious civil-liberty concerns raised by her own lawyers before shoving it out the door. Napolitano would later have to backtrack on the exact same language flagged by the attorneys by claiming that she didn't specifically approve the report issued by her office and that she would have changed the language in hindsight. She had the opportunity to fix it before its release, but the completely threadbare report was deemed such a high priority that it went out anyway.
Now, what could have triggered that? Anyone know of events occurring just after April 7, 2009, that such an assessment could have painted as radical, extremist, and threats to national security? Hmmm
And now we have the President, and Napolitano and lots of other lying shitsdishonest politicians repeating the Mexican Gun Lie over and over, and the Pres. is in Mexico apologizing(he wants to take the title from Bill Clinton) and blaming us for Mexico's troubles.

Hey, they need somebody to blame, right? And who cares about facts when lies suit their agenda so well?

And if you want a good idea of how the striped-pants morons

in the State Department have helped screw us over and screw things up, read this.

You might want to place breakables out of reach.

I think it sums up the tea parties nicely

Had a comment about the Rules for Gunfighting,

so I thought I'd post the whole thing. As I mentioned, there've been different versions, so this one may have some new/different points:

1. Forget about knives, bats and fists. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns. Bring four times the ammunition you think you could ever need.

2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammunition is cheap - life is expensive. If you shoot inside, buckshot is your friend. A new wall is cheap - funerals are expensive.

3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss..

4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly.

5. Move away from your attacker and go to cover. Distance is your friend. (Bulletproof cover and diagonal or lateral movement are preferred.)

6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a semi or full-automatic long gun and a friend with a long gun.

7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.

8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running. Yell "Fire!" Why "Fire"? Cops will come with the Fire Department, sirens often scare off the bad guys, or at least cause then to lose concentration and will.... and who is going to summon help if you yell "Intruder," "Glock" or "Winchester?"

9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun.

10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.

11. Always cheat, always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
(similar thought from S.M. Stirling's Draka series: Win. And if you can't win, cheat.)
12. Have a plan.

13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work. "No battle plan ever survives 10 seconds past first contact with an enemy."

14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible, but remember, sheetrock walls and the like stop nothing but your pulse when bullets tear through them.

15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.

16. Don't drop your guard.

17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees. Practice reloading one-handed and off-hand shooting. That's how you live if hit in your "good" side.

18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. Smiles, frowns and other facial expressions don't (In God we trust. Everyone else keep your hands where I can see them..)

19. Decide NOW to always be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.

20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.

21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet if necessary, because they may want to kill you.

22. Be courteous to everyone, overly friendly to no one.

23. Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

24. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with anything smaller than "4".

25. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME. "All skill is in vain when an Angel blows the powder from the flintlock of your musket." At a practice session, throw you gun into the mud, then make sure it still works. You can clean it later.

26. Practice shooting in the dark, with someone shouting at you, when out of breath, etc.

27. Regardless of whether justified or not, you will feel sad about killing another human being. It is better to be sad than to be room temperature.

28. The only thing you EVER say afterwards is, "He said he was going to kill me. I believed him. I'm sorry, Officer, but I'm very upset now. I can't say anything more. Please speak with my attorney."

And, just because I like it,

Comments on some of Pres. B. Cartman Obama's plans

to save us:
Mega-props to our President Obama for yesterday's speechifying about simplifying and fair-izing the Infernal Revenue Service and all that.

Except for one small nitpicky thing: He's full of shit on this topic. How precisely is he or his Slugger's Row of policy mavens (you know, the idjits who can't even use Turbo Tax) gonna make the income tax more fair? As it stands, the top 1 percent of filers pay 40 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent pay 60 percent; and the top 10 percent pay fully 70 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 50 percent (5-0, Dano!) pay a whopping 3 percent of all income tax.

Kind sir, prithee, what the hell are you going to do to remedy this situation? You promise "tax cuts to the Americans who need them." Hey pal, I just shelled out tens of thousands of dollars so Citigroup can keep its fucking name on the 21st century's answer to Shea Stadium. Where in the name of Ray Sadecki and Bob Apodaca is my bailout?
And now this morning, Obama was on the tube again, yapping about traffic jams. What the hell is going on here? The president of the freaking United States is talking about traffic jams? Then again, in grammar school we did all learn that part of George Washinton's Farewell Address where he warned against entangling alliances and the dread menace of highway jughandles and traffic circles. That Obama's big solution is, ta-da!, "high-speed rail" is simply one more sign that he is simply not serious about anything other than paying off 19th and 20th century legacy special interests. I look forward to tomorrow's press conference, when Obama trains his laser-beam brain on the question of whether Razzles is a candy or a gum.

Well, gee, Sec. Napolitano, when we read stuff like

this, it just makes us think you're full of crap.
WASHINGTON -- The Federal Bureau of Investigation earlier this year launched a nationwide operation targeting white supremacists and "militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups," including a focus on veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, according to memos sent from bureau headquarters to field offices.

The initiative, dubbed Operation Vigilant Eagle, was outlined in February, two months before a memo giving a similar warning was issued on April 7 by the Department of Homeland Security
Now, we all know she doesn't want to 'infringe on rights' or 'malign veterans', but what do we have next?
The documents outlining Operation Vigilant Eagle cite a surge in activity by such groups. The memos say the FBI's focus on veterans began as far back as December, during the final weeks of the Bush administration, when the bureau's domestic counterterrorism division formed a special joint working group with the Defense Department.
And among the 'warning signs':
A Feb. 23 draft memo from FBI domestic counterterrorism leaders, obtained by The Wall Street Journal, cited an "increase in recruitment, threatening communications and weapons procurement by white supremacy extremist and militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups."
You know, when so many people started buying firearms and ammo because they were worried about possible bans, taxes and restrictions being proposed by a bunch of Democrats and the past words of the President-elect? When a lot of people had started getting very damn vocal about their displeasure with the federal government, and lots of politicians?

Note this part:
The aim of the FBI's effort with the Defense Department, which was rolled into the Vigilant Eagle program, is to "share information regarding Iraqi and Afghanistan war veterans whose involvement in white supremacy and/or militia sovereign citizen extremist groups poses a domestic terrorism threat," according to the Feb. 23 FBI memo.
Well, since they've made it plain that saying "Respect the Constitution you swore to uphold, you damned politician!" makes you a 'right-wing and/or militia extremist', that's not exactly reassuring. And note the contradiction in the following:
Michael Ward, FBI deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said in an interview Thursday that the portion of the operation focusing on the military related only to veterans who draw the attention of Defense Department officials for joining white-supremacist or other extremist groups.

"We're not doing an investigation into the military, we're not looking at former military members," he said. "It would have to be something they were concerned about, or someone they're concerned is involved" with extremist groups
Can't have it both ways, Mr. Ward; you can't say you're looking at vets who 'draw the attention' AND say you're "not looking a former military members". Either very bad wording, or an attempt at CYA.

I know some of the people in this administration(and the State Department, for that matter) detest and even despise people in uniform; but to put out such a blatantly politically-biased mess... It doesn't speak well for their intentions or brains.

As an add-on:
The Department of Homeland Security released a pre-emptive “assessment report” on the dangers of “right-wing extremists” just a week before the tax protest rallies. According to DHS, these potentially include pro-lifers, supporters of border security and that notoriously unstable group - U.S. military veterans.

And I can report that there were, in fact, quite a few vets at our Tea Party at Long Wharf. But other than their crazy notion that spending our kids into an $11 trillion hole is wrong, they didn’t appear to be unhinged.

The same cannot be said for the reporters
And a wonderful line on some of the media ignoring the tea parties:
But as one Tea Partier quipped: “If Obama had been the king of England, the Globe wouldn’t have covered the American Revolution.”

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Those personal disarmament laws we've been assured

Obama doesn't have in mind? Might be more accurate to say 'that he doesn't have the integrity to come out and speak of, so he wants to hide behind the UN and people like Antonio Maria Costa.
The treaty requires countries to take a number of steps to reduce the illegal manufacture and trade in guns, ammunition and explosives.

In addition to making illegal the unauthorized manufacture and exporting of firearms, the treaty calls for countries to adopt strict licensing requirements, mark firearms when they are made and imported to make them easier to trace, and establish a cooperative process for sharing information between national law-enforcement agencies investigating arms smuggling
As Sebastian says, "Licensing requirements? Unauthorized manufacture? The answer to this, from the Senate, better not be no. It needs to be “HELL NO!” If Harry Reid even peeps that he’ll back this, I can guarantee he will be target numero uno in 2010. He’s already facing a tough race." Especially when you look at some of the aspects of this mess. Like I say, it's Obama & Co. trying to get their bans and other restrictions by hiding behind the UN.

The UN is using the Mexican Gun Lie to try to trash the 2nd,

right along with the gun bigots here in the US:
Last week President Barack Obama announced cooperative measures with Mexico, building on earlier initiatives launched by President Felipe Calderón. A few days later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged shared responsibility, stating that America’s demand for drugs funds the cartels, while the flow of U.S. guns into Mexico gives cartels huge fire power. As she said, even “if you’re the strongest pro-gun person in America, you have to stop and ask your self ... why should we be the source of their problem?”
Except we already know that this is a lie; the military arms the cartels are using, the select-fire weapons and machine guns and RPGs- are being smuggled into Mexico along their coasts and southern borders; NOT from the US. But they keep telling the lie, because it fits what they want to do: trash the 2nd Amendment.

I know that the last thing many Americans want to hear is a senior U.N. official telling law-abiding citizens to curtail their Second Amendment right to bear arms. I’m not doing that. At the U.N. we fully understand the fundamental importance of constitutional rights and respect for the rule of law.
And when they lube you up like that, you know what's coming next:
But there’s a big difference between upholding the right to bear arms and illegally smuggling weapons across the border. Gun-running presents a clear and present danger to law-abiding citizens in Mexico and the United States, and to vulnerable communities in Central America that are caught in the cross-fire of violence.
Nice; the UN bigshot equates us defending our right to arms with smuggling and murder. And not one damn word about where and how the arms are actually getting into Mexico. And here comes the part where he shows his true regard for our Constitution and the rights we hold dear:
It is therefore heartening to hear recent statements by senior U.S. officials in favor of more vigorous enforcement of national laws that prohibit sales of unlicensed firearms to foreigners. We especially encourage the debate on the issue of reinstating the 1994 U.S. ban on assault rifles that expired in 2004. And we support further debate within the United States on whether to close the gun show and private sale loopholes in existing U.S. laws, which create boundless opportunities for criminals to acquire illicit weapons. These legislative changes do not affect law-abiding hunters and sport shooters in any way.
I'll add to what Sebastian already said: Screw you. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say one damn thing about 'hunting and sport shooting'; it speaks of the right to arms that belongs to all free people. And, in particular, that right being the 'doomsday provision' in the face of a government become tyrannical. And you want to trash that right, a little at a time, and you'll lie to do it, because you don't like the peasants having arms(it can make them all uppity and hard to order around).
But the problem requires a broader solution — one that is consistent with the new U.S. commitment to cross-border cooperation. There is a tough piece of international law that can help. In 2000, U.N. member states adopted a Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, to fight jointly international mafias of all types — including the Mexican drug cartels. Congress ratified this convention in November 2005, but not the specific protocol against the manufacturing and trafficking of firearms(which, as I recall, basically says "You are not allowed to own one). Indeed, although the U.S. was active in negotiating the protocol it has not even signed it yet. Becoming a party to this protocol would help stem the flow of weapons that are wreaking havoc along America’s border.
"You have to do it, for the children and for Mexico!"
And here it is:
How? By recognizing that the gun laws of individual nations alone cannot solve the problem of cross-border crime and therefore must be mindful of international standards.
Translation: "You have to let the UN have control of your law enforcement, and the writing of your laws, so that international standards(you know, those oh-so-progressive ideals to disarm all but government minions) can prevail." Take a look a the next paragraph: they want registration, they want all sales to have to go through official channels, they want control of our law enforcement so things will work well 'across borders'.

Go to hell, Mr. Costa. We have no desire to, and will not allow anyone else to, destroy our Constitution and throw away our rights just to make you and all your statist friends happy.

"Oh my, we can't believe you actually think we mean

what we said!"
The US Homeland Security Department, under fire for saying US forces returning from the Iraq and Afghan wars were potential right-wing extremist recruits, said Wednesday it honors US veterans.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano sought to douse anger among conservatives and veterans groups like the American Legion over a report from her department warning of a rising threat of right-wing extremism.

"We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not -- nor will we ever -- monitor ideology or political beliefs," Napolitano said in a statement amid charges that the department had done just that
Which is exactly what they're doing, according to the piece, but they sure-hell don't want to admit it. Or have the integrity to admit it. Or something.

A local radio guy, Mark Shannon, has this on his blog; no link to the article, so I'm going to post a bunch of it(have to scroll down a ways to get to it):
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.

But the top House Democrat with oversight of the Department of Homeland Security said in a letter to Ms. Napolitano that he was "dumbfounded" that such a report would be issued.

"This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans - including war veterans," said Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, in his letter sent Tuesday night.

The letter was representative of a public furor over the nine-page document since its existence was reported in The Washington Times on Tuesday
So people in Congress were a bit upset with what came out, on multiple levels. Napolitano says
"I was briefed on the general topic, which is one that struck a nerve as someone personally involved in the Timothy McVeigh prosecution," Ms. Napolitano said.
I may be being a bit unfair, but I may not: did then-President Clinton blaming talk radio and the people who listen 'strike a nerve' also?

For people at NBC to actually think they're known as the 'Obama-bashing'

network... the level of idiocy and dishonesty is just amazing.
THE top suits and some of the on-air talent at CNBC were recently ordered to a top-secret meeting with General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt and NBC Universal President Jeff Zucker to discuss whether they've turned into the President Obama-bashing network, Page Six has learned.

"It was an intensive, three-hour dinner at 30 Rock which Zucker himself was behind," a source familiar with the powwow told us. "There was a long discussion about whether CNBC has become too conservative and is beating up on Obama too much. There's great concern that CNBC is now the anti-Obama network. The whole meeting was really kind of creepy."

Well, if 'kissing his ass, covering up and giving him tongue baths' counts as 'beating up', then yes; otherwise, bullcrap.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Handloading the .32acp

"Get me a magnifier and some tweezers"

Helping turn some of these out, I discovered
1. Those cases are little suckers.
2. Those bullets are even littler suckers.
3. They use tiny amounts of powder. As in 2.something grains.

But the task was accomplished, despite my fingers having a tendency to drop things that small. Now I get to help shoot them.

Since it would be a shame to let corrupt politicians pass

without comment on this day, let's look at Sen. Chris Dodd(Slimeball-CT):
Two years ago, presidential candidate Chris Dodd announced that he wouldn't be running for the Senate in 2010 but he didn't mean it.

He only said it to get the Federal Election Commission to let him use leftover millions from his 2004 Senate race to run for president. (The FEC requires a presidential candidate to say he's not going to run for the office for which the funds were contributed but doesn't hold him to it. It's a very thoughtful rule.)

As things turned out, using up his Senate campaign money was a mistake, Dodd's second, if you consider the first was his decision to run for president. There was a lot of money involved, $4.7 million, and it went toward the $16 million Dodd raised to attract 1 percent of the Democratic Iowa Caucus before quitting the race and moving his family out of their Iowa home and back to Connecticut
And it goes from there.
The report might have added that some of Dodd's most generous supporters aren't really in a position to give for the very good reason that they (Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns) no longer exist or aren't exactly desirable (AIG) donors at the moment.
My, such connections!
As part of that effort, he's currently taking bows for getting a long overdue crackdown on credit card abuses through his banking committee. The bill deals with well-established practices like usurious interest rates, hidden fees and the tendency of credit card companies to foist their cards on anything that moves. But these abuses have been around for a decade or more, affording one more opportunity to ask Dodd where he's been.

The answer to that question will frequently be, “He was off running for president while the economy was burning.”

And there remains the growing need for campaign money. In late March, John Paulson, described as one of the world's richest hedge fund managers, scheduled a fundraiser for Dodd at the same time his committee is involved in hedge fund regulation, raising the usual questions. Then, the fundraiser had to be moved when reporters asked why Dodd was having the party at New York's Harmonie Club, which has been criticized for having no minority members
But it's got members with lots of cash, which Dodd is very willing to kiss ass for.

'Free speech' isn't at a lot of universities;

unless the speech is PC, of course.
CHAPEL HILL -- UNC-CH police released pepper spray and threatened to use a Taser on student protesters Tuesday evening when a crowd disrupted a speech by former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo opposing in-state tuition benefits to unauthorized immigrants.

Hundreds of protesters converged on Bingham Hall, shouting profanities and accusations of racism while Tancredo and the student who introduced him tried to speak. Minutes into the speech, a protester pounded a window of the classroom until the glass shattered, prompting Tancredo to flee and campus police to shut down the event.
"We are the children of immigrants, and this concerns us," said junior Lizette Lopez, 22, vice president of the Carolina Hispanic Association. "So we would at least like to hear what he has to say if you want to hear what we have to say."

The protesters relented, and Tancredo began to speak, describing failed state and federal legislation aimed at providing in-state tuition benefits for undocumented immigrants.

Two women stretched out another banner, first along one of the aisles and then right in front of Tancredo. Tancredo grabbed the middle of the banner and tried to pull it away from one of the girls. "You don't want to hear what I have to say because you don't agree with me," he said.

The sound of breaking glass from behind a window shade interrupted the tug-of-war.

Tancredo was escorted from the room by campus police.

And, as part of their idea of 'free speech', we have the death threats:
About 200 protesters reconvened outside the building. "We shut him down; no racists in our town," they shouted. "Yes, racists, we will fight, we know where you sleep at night!"
Yeah, UNC students can be proud; only allowing speech they agree with. Of course, that's not free speech, but it undoubtedly makes them feel good.

UNC graduate student Tyler Oakley, who had organized the protest, said he regretted the broken window but not silencing Tancredo. "He was not able to practice his hate speech," said Oakley. "You have to respect the right of people to assemble and collectively speak."
Oakley, you are a fucking moron. You just PREVENTED someone from speaking by violence, AND were involved in death threats, and you're equating your actions with free speech. That you are a graduate student speaks of how low standards have fallen. And just what kind of idiots we have teaching in our schools.

Couple of additions to Rules for a Gunfight

There's been various versions of this floating around, but a friend(a cop) sent me a version(from another cop) that included these:
8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running. Yell "Fire!" Why "Fire"? Cops will come with the Fire Department, sirens often scare off the bad guys, or at least cause then to lose concentration and will.... and who is going to summon help if you yell "Intruder," "Glock" or "Winchester?"

27. Regardless of whether justified or not, you will feel sad about killing another human being. It is better to be sad than to be room temperature.

28. The only thing you EVER say afterwards is, "He said he was going to kill me. I believed him. I'm sorry, Officer, but I'm very upset now. I can't say anything more. Please speak with my attorney."

Navy math

Thanks to Theo

A little more on the "We're scared of people who like the Constitution!"

DHS report:

But Part Two of what pisses me off is the second bullet up there, to wit:

A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”

And what “prominent civil rights organization” are they citing to? The Southern Poverty Legal Center, SPLC. I’m not going to go too far into SPLC, but everything you need to know about them should be summed up by this: last year the SPLC listed The American Legion as a hate group because of its position on Immigration. The American Legion even (GASP!) gave an award to Lou Dobbs. You bastards!

To the SPLC anyone who doesn’t believe that our Southern Border should be manned by Walmart greeters handing out happy stickers and water while welcoming them to our country is a racist, a nativist, a white supremacist. So, if The American Legion is a hate group, and the DHS agrees with the SPLC, seemingly enough to cite to them anyway, can we assume that we should root out all those bastards in the military who belong to The American Legion?

Isn't it just so interesting that all these people who have a problem with illegal immigration, or the Constitution being trashed, or want to remind our elected boobs in Congress just who the boss is, are now classed as 'right-wing extremist hatemongers' in an official government report? And just in time for all the April 15 tea parties? Hmmmmm?

DHS lies and bigotry, and another strike on the Mexican Gun Lie

JustOneMinute has some details on debunked crap the DHS report bases some of the 'warnings' on, including:
At a May 1 bail hearing, ATF agent Adam Nesmith seemed to testify that the government had evidence of the five militia members plotting a machine-gun attack on Mexican immigrants in the nearby town of Remlap. Nesmith described a reconnaissance mission the militia allegedly conducted in Remlap and told the judge, "There was a plan to attack a group of Mexicans in the Remlap area with their machine guns." The judge denied bail, and the alleged backwoods militia machine-gun plot made news across the country. One typical headline the day after the bail hearing read, "Alabamians planned to machine gun Mexicans."

But there is no mention of any specific plan to kill Mexicans in the search warrant affidavits or any other court document related to the Alabama Free Militia defendants, and the ATF says Nesmith's testimony was misconstrued. [ATF regional director] Cavanaugh told the Intelligence Report that Nesmith did not mean to suggest that the defendants plotted to machine-gun Mexicans. What Nesmith meant to convey, Cavanaugh said, is that the militia members were planning to steal machine guns from Mexicans in Remlap — not to shoot the Mexicans with machine guns. "The purpose of the [reconnaissance] trip described by the agent in the testimony was to go to those Latinos and take their machine guns, which the militia believed them to possess," Cavanaugh said.
Yeah, he was 'misconstrued'; which, from an awful lot of these agents seems to mean "He lied to pump up the case, but we're trying to downplay that now." And so on.

On the Mexican Gun Lie, the Daily Mail has this picture of stuff seized in a raid in Mexico:
I'll put it bluntly: I defy anyone to show me one gun shop in the US where I can walk in and legally buy a 1919A4 Machine Gun by laying down cash, filling out a yellow sheet and going through the NICS check, and carrying it out. The semi-auto version, sure, because it's not a machine gun; but a real 1919A4? Not a chance, and the gun bigots know it. They just lie.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Guess what? Lots and lots of electric cars

might cause power problems. Whoda thunk it?

One of my standard questions to people pushing electric cars has been "Ok, so you've now got a million new electric cars on the road; where's the electricity to charge them come from? It doesn't just appear at the socket, you know. So if you pump out lots of such vehicles, where are you going to build the new power plants to take care of the new load? Because turning off your monitor isn't going to take care of it."

I've yet to hear a good answer, because the people pushing the electric roller skates don't want to build power plants. Of any kind. Anywhere.

Monday, April 13, 2009

Some information on how the pirate-whacking occurred

from Blackfive:
I just finished listening to the press conference w/ ADM Gortney about the rescue of Captain Phillips. At the time it happened the USS Bainbridge was towing the lifeboat to calmer waters as the sea state was deteriorating. One of the pirates was on board the Bainbridge as the talks about obtaining Phillip's release continued. The lifeboat was approx. 25 m behind the Bainbridge when snipers on the fantail observed one of the pirates in the pilot house of the lifeboat pointing an AK-47 at the back of a tied up Phillips and the other two pirates on board were visible (at least shoulders and heads). The standing authority gave them clearance to engage the pirates if the life of the captain was in imminent danger. The on scene commander deemed this to be true and gave the order to fire. All three bad guys were taken out and then a rigid inflatable boat went to the lifeboat to retrieve Phillips. Iti is unknown at this point whether the shooters were SEALs or Marine Scout Snipers as both would have been available. This was not a rescue attempt ordered by National Command Authority i.e. the President. It was a reaction by the on scene commander under standard authority to safeguard the life of a hostage.

The AP is reporting that President Obama gave the order to use military force to rescue the hostage, that is misleading.

Also, further thoughts on the Rules of Engagement in effect, and some of the questions about them. Including:
The legal standard for the use of deadly force is a legitimate fear for your life or the lives of others. That same standard is infused into all military rules of engagement (ROE) I have seen. The commander of the Bainbridge had the authority to kill the pirates at any time he felt the lives of US citizens were in imminent danger. What President Obama did was to confirm that authority. There is some question as to whether his initial orders restricted the ability of the military to intervene while the negotiations were going on. This comes from the fact that no action was taken when Phillips jumped off the lifeboat and attempted to escape. It is unknown whether there were actually restrictions placed.
Bold mine. I think that's an important question, and one we may never know the answer to; not for a long time, at least. Possibly things happened fast enough that no effort was possible; but it's possible that there was a 'negotiate at (almost)all costs' order that prevented them acting. I mean, considering the watch that must have been going on, how long would it take for a gunner to hose the boat to protect the hostage in the water? Yeah, I know, long-distance quarterbacking, but it is a legitimate question as to the ROE the President ordered.

Our President is a magnificent-level

yesterday that the First Family ordered pizza – all the way from St. Louis. ... pizzeria [Pi] ownerChris Sommers’ ...flew to the nation’s capital Thursday to make 20 pizzas for the Obama family and staff… San-Francisco-style pies…

...“We can’t drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times, and whether we’re living in the desert or we’re living in the tundra, and then just expect that every other country’s going to say OK.”

And so is their (apparently)celebrity-type chef:
...“Pi is committed to environmentally benign success. Doing good while doing well is fundamental to our work, and is manifested in our commitment to create an ecologically sustainable restaurant.”

...1428 miles round-trip

On all the congratulations currently being given to the President

for the pirates being whacked, I now find that not only did he wait a damn long time to give the order to go ahead, but it was interestingly limited:
What they saw was the head and shoulders of two of the pirates emerging from the rear hatch of the lifeboat. Through the window of the front hatch they saw the third pirate, pointing his AK-47 at the back of Captain Phillips, who was seen to be tied up.
That was it: the provocation that fulfilled the president's order to act only if the captain's life was in imminent danger, and the opportunity of having clear shots at each captor. The order was given. Senior defense officials, themselves marveling at the skill of the snipers, said each took a target and fired one shot.
Ok, so we've got pirates who attacked a ship, took the captain hostage, and when the President finally gave approval to act is was ONLY on that condition that the action was allowed.

And I'll bet he was upset that the captain wasn't injured to prove the need to fire.(why no, I'm not feeling generous toward the President on this)

Yeah, Jimmy Carter II.

Sunday, April 12, 2009

Back to the pirate problem, updated

good piece by Mark Steyn.
It’s also a low-risk one. Once upon a time we killed and captured pirates. Today, it’s all more complicated. The attorney general, Eric Holder, has declined to say whether the kidnappers of the American captain will be “brought to justice” by the U.S. “I’m not sure exactly what would happen next,” declares the chief law-enforcement official of the world’s superpower. But some things we can say for certain. Obviously, if the United States Navy hanged some eyepatched peglegged blackguard from the yardarm or made him walk the plank, pious senators would rise to denounce an America that no longer lived up to its highest ideals, and the network talking-heads would argue that Plankgate was recruiting more and more young men to the pirates’ cause, and judges would rule that pirates were entitled to the protections of the U.S. constitution and that their peglegs had to be replaced by high-tech prosthetic limbs at taxpayer expense.

Meanwhile, the Royal Navy, which over the centuries did more than anyone to rid the civilized world of the menace of piracy, now declines even to risk capturing their Somali successors, having been advised by Her Majesty’s Government that, under the European Human Rights Act, any pirate taken into custody would be entitled to claim refugee status in the United Kingdom and live on welfare for the rest of his life. I doubt Pirates of the Caribbean would have cleaned up at the box office if the big finale had shown Geoffrey Rush and his crew of scurvy sea dogs settling down in council flats in Manchester and going down to the pub for a couple of jiggers of rum washed down to cries of “Aaaaargh, shiver me benefits check, lad.” From “Avast, me hearties!” to a vast welfare scam is not progress

Read it all. And reflect on the fact that not only did the President refuse to talk about the attack/hostage situation for days, he had people making excuses for him: "It's only a distraction from important things", "It's like the Nork missile launch, not a big deal, he has a government to deal with things like that", and so forth. Like American-flagged ships being attacked and Americans taken hostage is 'no big deal'.

Of course, maybe to Obama & Co. it's NOT a big deal; after all, it was only some US citizens at risk, and to a Citizen of the World...

Update: Yep, wasn't exactly a high-priority item:
The Defense Department twice asked Obama for permission to use military force to rescue Capt. Richard Phillips from a lifeboat off the Somali coast. Obama first gave permission around 8 p.m. Friday, and upgraded it at 9:20 a.m. Saturday……

White House officials on Sunday said Obama received regular updates by phone and in person at the White House - including 11 memos - and during his daily intelligence briefings with senior officials. (Emphasis added)

And then this killer close:
To that end, White House officials said the Justice Department is looking at evidence and considering whether to file criminal charges against a Somali pirate captured during the standoff. (Emphasis added)

I guess the left-wing, socialist and communist domestic terrorists

just aren't considered a threat anymore. Until they burn down another auto dealership, or lab, or blow some houses or businesses up.

In which case the next report will probably blame it on us "antigovernment rightwing extremists."
Here are some of the highlites lowlites:
The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.
Perhaps they read Neil Strauss' Emergency? We now need to be afraid of pissed-off military veterans!
Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.
Well, we knew they were keeping track of the Three Percenters already. That is, after all, their stated goal of being loud, proud, and in-your-face; to make sure the .gov knows there's a line that shouldn't be crossed.
A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled "one world government."
Right. This is in keeping with "The Nazis and eugenics were right-wing" meme that Jonah Goldberg so thoroughly debunked in Liberal Fascism. But Goldberg is a JEW, so, um, nevermind. . . (Liberal Fascism will be out in paperback in June, just so you know. Strongly recommended.) Yeah, this nut, probably off his SSRI meds, decides to shoot three cops to death because of his paranoid fear of having his guns taken away, therefore he's the poster-boy for "rightwing extremism."

Isn't it wonderful? Pirates seize American citizens, the Iranians want to nuke Israel, last I heard the FBI still listed ALF and ELF as among the most dangerous domestic terrorists, but this is what's put out.

It's a given that where large predators and people both exist,

occasionally a predator is going to chomp a human, or a human is- where not disarmed- have to shoot a predator. Or some combination thereof. But if you're stupid enough to annoy the predator in a zoo, the keepers have to try to save your dumb ass.
Zoo keepers saved the life of a German woman who jumped into a polar bear enclosure at Berlin Zoo by pushing away of one of the animals when it attacked her.

The keepers' bravery was praised after they dragged the 32-year-old out of a moat for the animals. They had to shove the animal out of the way after one of four polar bears dived into the water and attacked her, inflicting serious bites to her legs and arms
Zookeepers 1, bear .3; it only got a taste.
Police did not say why the woman jumped into the enclosure. She had to climb over a fence, a line of prickly hedges and a wall to get in.
Ah, but were there signs? Huh? Any signs saying "Enter this enclosure and you'll probably die!"? Insufficient precautions, get a lawyer!

For a bit of understatement and truth, we have this statement from the cops:
"The woman has proved herself to be careless by jumping into the enclosure," a police spokesman said afterwards. "Logic tells us that polar bears will do this type of thing in this situation."
Well, yeah, they will. Which means, probably about a day before some 'animal rights' weenie starts calling for the bears to be
A: Released into the wild as zoos are terrible places, or
B: Since these animals have been corrupted by contact with humans, they should be killed. Turn them loose, and they might corrupt the others.

To prove you can find a website on just about anything,


No, I didn't; daughter ran across it and sent me the link

Three pirates dead, one wounded and in custody

("Dammit, he moved just as I fired, I couldn't help it!" Supposed quote from SEAL), so this mess is finally ended. For now.
Three of the pirates holding him were killed in the US Navy rescue operation. The fourth was injured in the firefight and is in US custody.

Mr Phillips was not hurt in the rescue, and was taken to the USS Bainbridge, one of three US Navy warships that had been involved in the tense stand-off.

He was then flown to the nearby USS Boxer for a medical examination, and is now "resting comfortably", a US Navy spokesman said.

Reports said Captain Phillips dived over board, and then US Navy Seals moved in.

Officials said he was in "imminent danger" of being killed before the rescue took place
First, Ooorah SEALS! And Go Navy!

Second, why do I say 'for now'? Because, after some of the idiot comments from our Attorney General("We should ban guns, but I don't know if we could or would prosecute captured pirates who attack U.S.-flagged ships", to paraphrase), what happens with the captured one? And
Sky News US political analyst Jon-Christopher Bua said President Obama gave the order to use the US military in the rescue - but the gamble paid off.

He added: "This is good news for Obama for sure. He is in command, and a tragic outcome for the captain and crew could have been disastrous politically
First thought here: how long did it take for him to decide to give the order? And if he wasn't getting so much heat for looking like a patsy, would he ever have? That 'could have been disastrous politically' line tells you all you need to know about the basis for the decision.
"The question is will these pirates become emboldened from all of this international publicity?

"Also, how will there ever be a reconciliation and resolution to the problem when such failed states as Somalia and Sudan continue to produce desperate individuals with little hope and opportunity for a real life?"

Answer to the first, yes. It took days for this to be ended, and they'll see that as weakness. I know, the four are dead or captured, but to the others "They had the unbelievers running in circles! It took days before their President would give orders!", etc.

To the second, there's the lead-in to "We need to give lots and lots of aid to those countries." I'll bet you. Talk about encouragement...

Anti-piracy expert Nick Davis told Sky News: "They (the pirates) will learn from this. They're not going to stop piracy in any way, shape or form. They will up the ante, they will get better organised.

"The only people that would have been shot here are the foot soldiers. They're not the people that make the decisions and have the controlling interest.

"It's now going to fall back to the chain of command in the Somalian network of piracy, both ashore and in different countries, as to how they want to up the ante."

Which means we either start blasting pirates- screw the international law weenies and the socialist morons- and go after their bases, or it'll just get worse.

I'll give credit to Obama for giving the order; I'll take credit away for it taking days to do it.

Quote of the Day

I'll register my guns after the courts rule it's legal to require registration of blacks, Jews, and homosexuals. Oh, and I'm out of ammo.
Joe Huffman

Brit gun laws vs. U.S. gun laws:

which country is safer? A few days back Rachel had a post on a fairly horrific crime in the UK; in the comments was some back & forth between "If you people were allowed arms for self-defense, it would help stop this" and, from one man in particular, "More guns would impede my freedom and make things worse." This led to Kevin challenging the guy to debate the matter, which led to this post; it's a long one, but well worth reading through.

VERY short version: Brit gun laws have done a fine job of disarming the honest, and left them at the mercy of the predatory and violent. Stats and charts included.

I'll add this: in Rachel's comments Kelly had insisted that you are allowed to use 'proportionate' force to defend yourself in the UK. I pointed out a couple of days ago that while that may be technically true, the fact is- documented in lots of reports in the British press- that if you use ANY level of violence to protect yourself and/or family and home, you stand a very good chance of spending at least as much time in jail as your attacker. Maybe more. And, in current news, we have this:
The family of a man who was stabbed to death by teenage thugs after he asked them to keep the noise down have been denied compensation - because he tried to fight off his killers.

Kevin Johnson, 22, was brutally murdered by the gang who invited him to 'meet Mr Stanley' during a confrontation outside his home moments before plunging a blade into his chest, arm and back.

The young father collapsed a few feet from his front door whilst the trio - aged 19, 16 and 17 - ran off in 'triumphant mood' before stabbing their second victim a short distance away.

But after applying for a maximum £11,000 in compensation Mr Johnson's family have been told that they do not meet the criteria as he tried to fight off the gang who took his life.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority has twice rejected John Johnson’s case. They ruled that the demolition worker had 'significantly' contributed to his own death
And just how did he 'significantly contribute' to his death?
Mr Johnson was stabbed to death after he and his fiancee returned home from a night out on May 19, 2007. Woken by raised voices outside he went down to ask the teenagers to keep the noise down.

The gang beckoned the father over with their hands, enticing him to come forward. Then they surrounded him. One pulled out a Stanley knife and repeatedly stabbed him until he fell to the floor.

As he lay dying the gang ran off and celebrated by damaging parked cars before stabbing a second man in the chest. The killers - Dean Curtis, 19, Tony Hawkes, 17, and Jordan Towers, 16 - were later jailed for life
Self-defense in the UK; wonderful, ain't it? And at the same time,
Recent figures showed that inmates in British prisons were awarded £6.5million for injuries between 2005 and 2007, for claims including assaults, medical negligence, unlawful detention and sports injuries.

Drug-addicted prisoners at some jails received compensation because their human rights were breached when they were denied drugs such as heroin and substitute substances

Yeah. All those personal disarmament laws, all the 'knife amnesty' actions, really make you safer, don't they?

Two I enjoyed so much,

I wanted to share them

Both found thanks to Theo, who got the top one here.

As the man says, 'an attempt at common sense on a university,

opposed by all the usual suspects.'
(No, that's not how he put it, but it covers it).
The Missouri House has passed a bill allowing concealed carry on college campuses in the state. Of course, the universities (or at least U Missouri) respond with the usual idiocy:
Which he then provides samples of. You know, the usual: "Universities should be free from guns(in legal hands)!", etc. Total disregard for non-pc facts, including- as Volokh noted the other day and I ran out of time to point out:
Many universities ban firearms, but some research I’ve been doing reveals that some universities ban firearms and stun guns and chemical defensive sprays, either in dorm rooms or in the university as a whole. This basically leaves students entirely without any defensive weapons, and also has the effect of disarming dorm residents when they go off campus property, since they have no place to store the defensive weapons when they’re back on campus.

This strikes me as quite shocking, especially with regard to women students who are in the age range where the danger of rape is at its highest. The university basically leaves them as sitting ducks, unless they’re willing to violate the university policy. Even if the university tries to compensate by offering a good deal of on-campus policing (some do and some don’t), it surely can’t protect the students when they leave campus
Hell, to a large extent they don't want to be held too strongly to protecting you ON campus(unless it's 'protecting' people from non-existant racism, etc.); why would anyone think they care what happens to you when you step over a line and leave their territory? Some years back, looking through a LE magazine, found an article on crimes on college campuses, and one of the big problems listed was the universities trying very hard to suppress reports of all- but especially serious- crimes, including, in many cases discouraging the campus security people from giving actual figures to local and state agencies; that the crimes happened was 'regrettable', but having people actually know about them was downright horrible. In an atmosphere like that, not only is allowing students effective means of self-defense not PC, successful defenses are much harder to cover up than non-dead victims(dead ones having a horrible habit of producing bereaved families and such).

And, as the man points out, this excuse for opposing the measure
"Watring said…that the biggest concern with the concealed carry provision is the tactical problems it would create, such as the ability for police to identify a suspect in a situation where many people are carrying weapons."
That’s not an argument against allowing guns on campus. There is nothing unique about a college campus in that regard. It’s an argument against allowing concealed carry anywhere. Which is, of course, what many law-enforcement types would like, because it gives them more power over the sheep.

Good article, well worth checking out.