Saturday is here

Bet this irritated the hemorrhoids of the UN, the EUnuchs,

and Obama all together.

President Trump announced on Friday that the U.S. will halt ratification of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, a remnant of the Obama era.

In a dramatic moment during his speech at the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action event, Trump announced his decision to sign an order instructing the Senate to halt the ratification process begun under his predecessor. President Obama submitted the treaty, which aims to regulate the $70 billion international arms trade, to the Senate for ratification in 2013, but it was never signed.

Trump's caught a lot of heat for that idiot bump-stock ban and his talk about 'red flag' laws, and rightly so.  But whether this was done to help take said heat off, or was just planned on its own, it's a good thing.

Tab clearing

'Why is my teenage girl picked on for NOT being gay or trans?'
The whole article is full of being sensitive and caring, etc., but does hit on something really important:
‘But there are an awful lot of children who are also uncertain at the same age, feeling they have to identify themselves by saying which camp they belong to. There’s a possibility that because some girls of this age think: “Oh I quite like that older girl” — as has always happened — or they are not yet interested in boys, they are rushing to categorise themselves or put themselves in a box. It’s as if we’ve forgotten that children go through phases.’
And it's become fashionable and 'correct', therefore if someone doesn't ID themselves as a member of an approved category, they're out.  Makes you wonder how many of the kids with troubles related to this are being pushed into the troubles by the PC idiots.


Oh yeah, it'll be GREAT with this squirrel running 'gender relations'.


I'd have said 'SOME of the most telling failures of socialism', but works either way.


Next time a Sanders supporter starts talking about Denmark...


In Seattle, people are losing patience with city leadership over the homelessness crisis, but the frustration is running in both directions: the city’s political, cultural, and academic elites are conducting their own revolt—against the people.

A lovely Friday night

If you're not out enjoying it, here's something to look over

'The Hill' doesn't exactly count as a right-wing conspiracy site,

so this has to be giving some people heartburn:
Most Americans were unaware of the enormous damage to morale at the Department of Homeland Security, where I worked, his condemnation caused. His words infuriated many of us because we knew his administration had been engaged in a bureaucratic effort to destroy the raw material—the actual intelligence we had collected for years, and erase those dots. The dots constitute the intelligence needed to keep Americans safe, and the Obama administration was ordering they be wiped away.

After leaving my 15 year career at DHS, I can no longer be silent about the dangerous state of America’s counter-terror strategy, our leaders’ willingness to compromise the security of citizens for the ideological rigidity of political correctness—and, consequently, our vulnerability to devastating, mass-casualty attack.

Just before that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to “connect dots.”  Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database.

Had a chance to hit the outdoor range

the other day and try some loads, re-zero a scope, and generally be out on a very nice day.

Main thing wanted to try was some .45-70 loads using that Lyman Postell bullet.  Lyman says it's 535 grains, out of this mold using 20-1 it comes out 522 grains.  First five were used adjusting the rear sight(this was at 200 yards; yes, should've started at 100); trajectory definitely different from the Lee 500-grain with the same load.  That put it on target, first being that at the bottom:

Dialed in a touch more elevation, that got the two in the ten ring.  I saw those through the scope, thought "Hot damn!", took a minute to talk to the guy I was there with, and then put the next two in the ten-nine ring pair.  I'm pretty sure the separation is my fault.  The light conditions put the target in shadow, and were changing with the sun; throw in the left lower edge of the target coming loose and blowing...  I should've looked at the second shot and then done the third and fourth without taking that break to admire.  The first pair are 1" center to center, second 1 3/4", if you measure across all four it's 5 1/2".  Considering everything, not bad.

I had a load using the Lee 405-grain hollowbase bullet that's shot very well at 100, but the first shot with it wasn't on the target, and I couldn't tell low or high.  Next time I have the chance to do this, I need to take a piece of cardboard about four feet long, and put the target in the middle so low or high will show.  Maybe paint it white, too.

In case you're interested, the sight setting for 100 yards that put the Lee 500-grain in the lower half of the bull at 100 put the Postell about 3" higher, so the initial 200 yard shots were probably high as well.  And yes, I wrote the settings down.  I get this all settled with the selected load, I'll scribe marks on the sight for the different distances.

The EUnuchs strike again

European human rights chiefs have told the British press it must not report when terrorists are Muslim. 

The recommendations came as part of a list of 23 meddling demands to Theresa May’s government on how to run the media in an alarming threat to freedom speech.
Yes, 'freedom speech' is a typo, but a very fitting one.

The suggestions sent to Downing Street urging the UK Government to reform criminal law and freedom of the press and in a brutal criticism of the British press, the report recommends ministers 'give more rigorous training' to journalists.
(formerly Great)Britain isn't exactly a free speech zone(see 'people jailed for saying something on Fecesbook or Twatter), but this was a step way too far for them, at least for now.

And if you think the left wouldn't love to be able to give such an order here...

Why gun licenses are a really stupid idea

if you give a damn about freedom:
According to The Times, in a message to his 17,000 YouTube subscribers, Mr Long-Collins said: 'I was told that due to repeated comments from other people on the videos, [the police] felt that the channel was a forum of extremism and it was promoting views that were not in line with legal firearms ownership in the UK.' 

He told the paper: 'The main issue was a video that I made around the Paris attacks where I advocated the French to be able to use handguns for self-defence because of the frequency of attacks that were happening at the time.'
And because of his 'social media output', license gone.  "Some of your commenters caused us to decide you're an extremist!  No license for you!"

Next time someone tells you licensing is just a no-big-deal thing, like a drivers license, ask them when was the last time someone lost a drivers license because of their 'social media output'.

When they didn't want blacks to vote, one of the things they tried

was poll taxes: "You have to pay this tax or you can't vote."  And if most of the people you didn't want voting were poor...

Anti-rights people still like the idea, although they want to use it on the right to self-defense nowadays:

"Oh, no, we're not restricting the 2nd Amendment, we're just enacting/raising this tax on owning a gun."  Same people who'd scream bloody murder if this was mentioned on voting think it's a great idea.  And it doesn't bother them- they probably consider it either a bonus or the point- that poor people will be the ones screwed by this.  Especially poor blacks.

Assholes haven't changed, have they?

What? Women can be violent predators too?

Whoever could've imagined that?*

Two years ago, Lara Stemple, Director of UCLA’s Health and Human Rights Law Project, came upon a statistic that surprised her: In incidents of sexual violence reported to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 38 percent of victims were men––a figure much higher than in prior surveys. Intrigued, she began to investigate: Was sexual violence against men more common than previously thought?

Some two years later, Stemple and her colleagues published a report titled  “Sexual Victimization Perpetrated by Women: Federal Data Reveal Surprising Prevalence.” (Editor's Note: The study is available only by purchase.) It is based on data pooled and analyzed from the years 2010 to 2013, and it reveals a “surprisingly significant prevalence of female-perpetrated sexual victimization, mostly against men and occasionally against women.”

And very little study of the matter.  Gee, I wonder why?

To date, no existing clinical studies examine large numbers of female sexual perpetrators. As a result, we understand less than we might of a category of sexual perpetrator that, while not the most common, will still victimize many thousands each year.

Why not? Part of that answer can perhaps be found in the nature of the narrative itself. The idea of sexually aggressive women doesn’t fit our stereotypes, researchers of the study pointed out:

Stereotypes about women “include the notion that women are nurturing, submissive helpmates to men,” they write. “The idea that women can be sexually manipulative, dominant, and even violent runs counter to these stereotypes….”
The result is that “perpetration is downplayed among professionals in mental health, social work, public health, and law, with harmful results for male and female victims.”

When studies showing women started domestic violence about half the time came out there was lots of screaming; it may have been solid science, but it really screwed with the 'women are always victims' narrative.  Now "This information about female sexual predators doesn't fit, and so hasn't been studied."  And the same Usual Suspects will throw fits when it is.



*Other than people with a grasp on reality, at least