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.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
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.
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:
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:
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 memoryWhich 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, 1993andMy 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 aboutOne 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.
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 otherlying 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?
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
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.
You might want to place breakables out of reach.
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:
RULES FOR A GUN, KNIFE, BASEBALL BAT OR FIST FIGHT
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,
RULES FOR A GUN, KNIFE, BASEBALL BAT OR FIST FIGHT
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.
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.”
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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."
A little more on the "We're scared of people who like the Constitution!"
DHS report:
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)