R.E.O. Deathwagon

Damn You, Ransom E. Olds!  And damn your interchangeable automobile parts giving rise to the modern automobile industry and mass production of death machines.

A person is three times more likely to be killed by an automobile than by a gun.  It's high time to ban the automobile.

The U.S. homicide rate was 4.7 per 100,000 persons in 2011.  That would be 14,570 homicides in a population of 310,000,000.  67.5% of homicides were by gun.  That is 9,835 homicides by gun.

The number of automobile deaths in 2011 was 32,367 in the U.S.  Over three times the amount of gun homicides.

Put another way, the number of automobiles in the U.S. is somewhere around 255,000,000.  With 32,367 deaths, that would mean that 0.0127 percent of automobiles are involved in a death in 2011.  A very small percentage.

With 300,000,000 guns in the U.S., we have 9,835 gun homicides.  That is 0.00328% of firearms involved in a homicide in 2011, about one-fourth the rate for automobiles.  A very, very small amount.

The rate may be even less due to an error of methodology which favors the automobile:  Most gun homicides are of a single person.  Automobile fatalities where one automobile collision results in multiple fatalities are common. 

The bottom line:  Chuckie Schumer, Diane Fineswine, Mayor Boob-berg, the Manchurian Hawaiian, and others of the anti-gun ilk are missing the boat.  If they really wanted to save lives, they would get straightaway to banning the automobile.

Sadly, Chuckie, Ms. Fineswine, Boob-berg, the Kenyan-in-chief, and other collectivist totalitarians are more interested in consolidating political power and subjugating the citizenry than in saving lives.

That also explains the burgeoning business in government contracts to supply black pajamas and large amounts of ammunition.


Thanks to Karl Denninger for planting the idea:  Why We Can't Have a "Reasonable Discussion" on 2A.

Federal Budget Sequester Begs This Question

I think we deserve an answer to this question from Reichsfuhrer Napolitano. And not in the form of more demagoguery about right wing extremists like me, gun owners like me, taxpayers like me, non-collectivist/communist/bloomberg-nannyist/democrats like me, nativists like me, and non-obama fans like me.  Also not in the form of jack booted thuggery, massive ammunition purchasing, public intimidating, and sexually molesting like Janet's employees.

How about how you are going to enforce the borders, quit allowing the importation of America's enemies, and actually investigate people who tells us that they intend to do harm to America, no matter what color their skin is or if they share the same religion as Barack Obama and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?

Shamelessly stolen from BareNakedIslam.

Comment on Obergruppenfuhrer Sebelius' Plan to Violate Your Health Care Records Privacy Rights

David Codrea has asked for concerned citizens to comment on Obergruppenfuhrer Sebelius' proposed HHS rule for changes to HIPAA, which would allow access to mental health records as part of a background check for firearms purchases.

Of course, I am opposed to such a violation of citizens rights.  My comment is as follows:

How Orwellian.  This is the same government that does not vet its presidential candidates, prohibits requiring identification to vote, and does everything it can to prohibit states and employers from ensuring that only US citizens are eligible for legal employment. 

It must be tough promulgating such a new rule.  While it may not have the support of gun owners such as myself, who are not likely to be communists, er...  democrats, don't you think you are risking alienating the mentally ill, who usually are democrats.  Cases in point:  Christopher Dorner and Jared Loughner.  I realize that Christopher Dorner is dead, but when did that ever stop a democrat from voting.  I mean, Kathleen Sebelius' career would not have even got off the ground without the dead, mentally ill, and fictional people voting.

OF COURSE I AM OPPOSED TO THIS NEW INFRINGEMENT UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF AMERICANS.

IF YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT "GUN VIOLENCE", THEN DISARM GOVERNMENT JACKBOOTED THUGS WEARING BLACK PAJAMAS ON THEIR FANTASY RAIDS.  THEY MUST BE MENTALLY ILL TO THINK THAT A BLACK PAJAMA RAID IS REQUIRED TO SERVE A SEARCH WARRANT AT A CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS (FLYING J CORP) IN BROAD DAYLIGHT.

I WOULD GIVE YOU MORE OF MY TWO CENTS, BUT I NEED EVERY PENNY I CAN GET TO PAY FOR THAT OTHER UNCONSTITUTIONAL OBAMINATION, OBAMACARE.

Yes, my comment is a bit extreme.  Someone once said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."  I agree.

Leave your comment here.

O, No! Loon Gunman finds The Smoking Gun!

I hope that Press Secretary Jay Cravenly got lots of overtime for this one.  Only he must have been so tired he forgot to airbrush out the steam locomotive coming through the woods.  You can see it just behind the  barrel of the shotgun.

Note to Loon Gunman:  Aim up at the clays, not down at Joe Biden.  Naw, I take that back. 

Note to Pseudo Constitutional Law Professor from Practicing Attorney who has actually read the Constitution:  I can do whatever I want to your photo.  It's called satire, dumbass.  Satire of a public figure is protected by the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution, a document you are utterly ignorant of.  Jerry Falwell found that out in 1982 or so when he sued Hustler publisher Larry Flynt.  If you were really a lawyer and/or professor of constitutional law, you would know that.

Inspiration from TL Davis, David Codrea (I stole the photo from him), and Pamela Geller (I stole "Loon Gunman" from her).

Of course, the best photo was the one Pamela Geller borrowed from BigFurHat

No. 1 Reason I am Voting Republican Nov. 6

The number one reason I am voting Republican in the November 6, 2012 election has to do with the political parties' national platforms on the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

The Republicans: 

We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense. We call for the protection of such fundamental individual rights recognized in the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago affirming that right, and we recognize the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. This also includes the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration. We support the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a law-abiding citizen has a legal right to be, and we support federal legislation that would expand the exercise of that right by allowing those with state-issued carry permits to carry firearms in any state that issues such permits to its own residents. Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend their homes and communities. We condemn frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and oppose federal licensing or registration of law-abiding gun owners. We oppose legislation that is intended to restrict our Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines or otherwise restoring the ill-considered Clinton gun ban. We condemn the reckless actions associated with the operation known as “Fast and Furious,” conducted by the Department of Justice, which resulted in the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent and others on both sides of the border. We applaud the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in holding the current Administration’s Attorney General in contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with their investigation into that debacle. We oppose the improper collection of firearms sales information in the four southern border states, which was imposed without congressional authority.

The Democrats:

We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious.  We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements – like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole – so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few. 

(As an aside, I find it ironic that the Democrats cite the fragility of life and the limited and precious nature of our time on this mortal plane as considerations in curtailing God-given rights, then abandon those considerations in favor of murder of the unborn children on demand.)

There you have it.  The needs of the collective.  The touchy-feely illogic of the majority giving up rights to control those "irresponsibile, law-breaking few".   The "commonsense" surrender of our rights.

I'm not going for it.  Although I think that Mitt Romney is not a good conservative and is far from being a Libertarian, he is not a collectivist, anti-Constitutionalist, personality cultist, pseudo-savior, unvetted Manchurian candidate.   He will be getting my vote on November 6, 2012.


Hat tip to Kurt Hofmann at The Examiner for the information on the parties' platforms.

Why I Don't Use Google Shopping

Google Shopping, like eBay, has gone down the PC road of removing gun-related merchandise from the shopping experience.  Actually, Google Shopping's new rules for product placement make eBay look like a sporting goods warehouse.  A lot of gun-related items are still available on eBay.

Ever since Google revised its privacy policy earlier this year, I refuse to use them as a search engine and have added their shopping service to my "do not use list."

For a quick and easy example of why I will not use Google Shopping, try the following.

1)  Go to Google.com;
2)  Click on the tab "More", then click on "Shopping";
3)  Type "Ammunition" in the search box and hit "Enter";
4)  See result;
5)  Next, type "gay sex toys" in the search box and hit "Enter".
6)  Case closed.

Yahoo Search and Yahoo Shopping seem to be a lot more gun-neutral, in my opinion.

Quote of the Day

"Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process."

Eric "Himmler" Holder, Attorney General of the United States of Amerika.

The above quote was Gestapomeister Holder's response to questions about whether or not the Obama regime felt that it could target Americans for assassination within U.S. borders.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/07/mueller-have-to-check-with-holder-whether-targeted-killing-rule-is-outside-us/#ixzz1oeGKOfOg


This story was covered by other blogs such as Zero Hedge and Mike Vanderboegh, but I did not see mention of this quote, which should scare the pants off of anyone with even passing knowledge of the Constitution and the concept of Due Process of Law.

Holder's statement is a very broad statement that exceeds the context in which it was given.  He states that there is a right to due process, but not to judicial process.  Think about this for a moment.  What is due process and how does a citizen obtain it?

The simple answer is that judicial process is an inseparable part of due process.  Without judicial process, the review of government action by the judiciary, due process is only the two words, a hollow shell of the idea that a person's rights under the Constitution are respected and enforced.  Without judicial process, due process is whatever the executive branch says it is, without the mechanism of judicial oversight and review guaranteed by the Constitution.  Due process would simply be a label plastered over the regimes practices, used to justify its actions, in this case the action being the sentencing to death of a citizen without judicial process.

How is judicial process essential to due process?  Judicial process is the real time application of due process, the proceedings which form the check  and balance on the power of the state.  It is the court procedure and case law interpretation of statutory law which, for example, examines whether the state has reasonable suspicion of a crime committed, probable cause to believe that a person committed the crime, whether the state violated the person's rights such as to remain silent, to ensure that proceedings are fair and that the accused has legal counsel, to apply the legal standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and to ensure that the punishment is not cruel or unusual.

Holder's statement, taken at face value, declares that none of the judicial process in the preceding paragraph is required.

Decades ago, the Supreme Court ruled that persons accused of misdemeanor traffic violations have the right to counsel where imprisonment was a possible penalty under the statute, even if it were unlikely that a defendant were to be sentenced to a day of jail time.

We have gone so far down the road to tyranny that, in a country that once upheld the right to a defense attorney for a misdemeanor traffic violation, there is no outrage when the nation's lead attorney declares that there is no right to judcial process (much less a defense attorney) when the government decides that a citizen's life is to be extinguished.

Holder is not only an embarrassment to the legal profession, but is a domestic enemy to the American people.  FBI Director Robert Mueller, himself an attorney and former U.S. Attorney, is a co-conspirator to Holder's crimes against the American people.  I only hope that the next administration prosecutes Holder and Mueller to the fullest extent of the law, but I will not be holding my breath in anticipation.

Sometimes I don't recognize this country that I was born and raised in.

The Reichsfuhrer's Peepshow

Interesting YouTube video on how to "Get Anything Through TSA Nude Body Scanners". Looks like there is only one reason for Reichsfuhrer Janet Incompetano Napolitano's airport body scanners:  perversion.

Thanks to both Karl Denninger (http://market-ticker.org) and David Codrea (http://waronguns.blogspot.com) for previously posting about this.

Retarded Politician of the Week: Rep. Lamar Smith, R-TX

Who would be vile enough to be in bed with Reichsfuhrer Janet Napolitano, otherwise known as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security? Now we know.

It's Representative Lamar Smith, Republican from Texas.

Many of us recall when Reichsfuhrer Napolitano came up with "If You See Something, Say Something", a collaboration with our Chinese masters at Wal-Mart suggesting that shoppers become snitches on their fellow Americans.  At the time I referred to it as "If You See It Twitch, Be A Snitch."

Well, Rep. Smith is not content to allow the Reichsfuhrer to bask in all of the National Socialist glory.   That's why he has introduced the "See Something, Say Something Act of 2011".  Read the text of this legislative abomination here.  In short, the bill proposes to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide immunity for reporting suspicious behavior that may be related to terrorism (my emphasis added). 

Or maybe Rep. Smith is jealous all of the attention that Obamoron extraordinaire Cass Sunstein received over his own proposals regarding "suspicious activity".

I can think of three reasons that Rep. Smith's proposed legislation is stupid.

First, can anyone demonstrate that a lack of immunity from suit  has caused a substantial decline in reporting of suspected terrorist activities?  One would first have to believe that some kind of liability arises from doing one's civic duty of reporting criminal activity.  I try my best to keep up with the news, and I cannot think of any reporting on this issue.  It appears that, once again, government is out to solve a non-existent problem.

Second, this is just more of the typical, big-government answer to every problem, whether real or perceived:  more legislation!  In this instance it is legislation to prevent the filing of frivolous suits against persons who report what they believe to be terrorism related activity.  Most proponents of government solutions are totally ignorant of the law of unintended consequences.   The likely unintended consequence of this bill, if passed?   Why, there is no reason not to snitch on every observation of suspicious activity.  In fact, this encourages the use of law enforcement to harass those we do not like, so long as the report of "suspicious activity" is not false.  One only needs to read the news each day to know that citizens are routinely violated by black pajama-clad agents of the state over "suspicious activity."  I guess Rep. Smith is either ignorant of the world around him or he believes we need more middle-of-the night visits from badge-adorned bogeymen.

Third, this type of legislation plays right into the hands of an increasingly paranoid, out-of-touch, control-freak President and his minions, who make the Nixon administration look like a bunch of nap-deprived pre-schoolers.  I'm tempted to report Rep. Smith to www.attackwatch.com for stealing The Won's thunder.   If Rep. Smith plans on being re-elected, he ought to focus more on being part of the party of Not Obama.  That means refusing to advocate snitching, Orwellian tactics, sexual assault of ordinary Americans who simply want to travel, and instead standing up for the civil liberties of all Americans, including those accused or suspected of crimes. 

That last part is the most important.  Post 9/11, everything is either becoming a crime or subjecting us to suspicion and rights violations.  Rep. Smith's proposed legislation, in my mind, purports to give citizens permission to rat on each other and invite what may be unwarranted government investigation, without fear of any liability.  As Ayn Rand once wrote, "We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission."  Ms. Rand should be glad that she is dead, because we are just about there, and Rep. Smith is one of its midwives.

It is retarded to grant permission in this way to citizens who should have no fear of reporting criminal activity if the legal system is performing as it should.  It is retarded to assist an administration in its Nixonian and Orwellian pursuit of punishment for its enemies.  And it is the height of retardation for a politician who is not a member of the administration to engage in its brand of Reichspolitik.

Hat tip to InfoWars, whose story caused my inflammation.

The Catman Has a Good Point

What the f**k is Eric "The Dick" Holder up to?

WalMart/DHS Snitch Program Fails Big Test

The widely reported snitch cooperative between WalMart and Janet Incompetano's Department of Homeland Security has failed its first major test.  "If You See It Twitch, Be a Snitch" failed to detect Arizona assassin Jared Lee Loughner when purchasing ammunition on January 8, 2011.

MSNBC reports that Loughner purchased "bullets" (likely meaning "ammunition") on January 8, 2011, hours before he grievously wounded Representative Gabrielle Giffords, killed a federal judge, and wounded or killed fourteen other persons.

It is unknown as to whether the Big Sis Industries TeleScreen was malfunctioning in the WalMart store where Loughner purchased the ammunition.  Loughner had earlier been turned away when he attempted to purchase ammunition at another WalMart store.

It is clear, however, that Loughner had previous run-ins with the law in Pima County, Arizona and was known to the Sheriff's Office of Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik.  It is alleged that Loughner was also known by the Sheriff's Office to being treated by mental health professionals.  Despite those run-ins, which are alleged to include threats against persons at a local college and drug paraphernalia charges, Loughlin was cleared to purchase a Glock pistol in Pima County after a background check.    If that check was performed by the Pima County Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Dupnik has some explaining to do.  Sources:  Fox News and James Kelley.

What to take out of all this?  Local law enforcement had the tools and the information to prevent Loughner from purchasing the gun likely used by him in the massacre, but did not due to apparent incompetence and/or corruption.  Heavy-handed Orwellian federal "snitch" programs fail to produce the security that is promised in return for that surrender of liberty.

Continue to be vigilant for liberty's sake.

Retarded Politician of the Week: Pima County, Arizona Sheriff Clarence Dupnik

Sergeant Joe Friday, no known political affiliation, LAPD:  "Just the facts, ma'am."

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, Democrat, Pima County Sheriff:  "Just let me vent my spleen about you right-wing bigots."

Actually, the quote from Sheriff Dupnik was:

"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," he said. "And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry." 

The above-quote was made by Sheriff Dupnik following the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona and other innocents by Jared Lee Loughner on January 8, 2011.  It appeared in the Newsmax story, here.

How retarded.  At a time that the citizens of Pima County need Dupnik to dispassionately perform his duties as the chief elected law enforcement officer, he engages in the type of hate-based political discourse that he decries.  Persons with political views that don't match Dupnik's own leftist ideology have now been libelled as bigots.  According to Dupnik, their political speech is considered prejudice and bigotry, and renders them responsible for the violence perpetrated by extremists.  The use of political office by Sheriff Dupnik to espouse such views reveals him to be the sort of intolerant petty despot who is a threat to liberty and unfit for office.

Was Sheriff Dupnik aware that the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner (always three names for an assassin) was a loony lefty whose favorite books included Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto and that Mr. Loughner had rants about as intelligible as Keith Olbermann's?  That Mr. Loughner's political views appear to be those associated with Sheriff Dupnik's own political party?

It appears that Sheriff Dupnik's office may have been aware that Mr. Loughner was unstable and prone to violence.  Karl Denninger reports on this in his excellent post on the shooting of Representative Giffords and the reaction of the left:  The Shameful Left and Revisionism.  The paragraph on Sheriff Dupnik is a ways down in the post, so I will reproduce the relevant paragraph here:

"See, there are also, unfortunately, reports in the media that the suspect had expressed homicidal ideation - that is, a desire (or threat) to murder. That's in the press at this point, and it's a problem. If this was known to the local law enforcement community, why wasn't he evaluated with regard to his mental stability? That may explain why the Pima County Sheriff was talking trash yesterday - he knows he's got himself a bit of 'splaining to do once people figure out that they had this guy in custody at least once, knew he was potentially unstable and that he was a threat to others. If they had done their job perhaps this wouldn't have happened - you see, it is already illegal for someone who is mentally ill to purchase and/or own a firearm, which begs the question: did every opportunity exist to interdict this individual at some point in the last couple of years, including direct contact with law enforcement who were aware of homicidal threats and his behavior at his college, and yet either the procedures were not in place to refer him for evaluation or they were not followed?"

Representative Giffords was the victim, along with other innocents, of a crazed criminal gunman.  I hope that Representative Giffords and the other wounded innocents have a speedy and full recovery.  The survivors of those who were murdered by Mr. Loughner have my sympathy.  This was a tragedy.

The citizens are the victims of outrageous statements made by the media and elected officials including Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik.  These statements, following this false-flag event, will undoubtedly be used by tyrannical fascist politicians to further limit the Constitutional rights of Americans to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the right to keep and bear arms.  Mark my words.

False-flag event.  I have chosen those words carefully.  When a politician from the left exploits the murderous actions of a leftist extremist for the purpose of demonizing persons who had no connection to the murderous actions of the leftist extremist, I consider that to be a false-flag event.

The only reason to demonize persons who had no connection to the murderous event is to limit their freedoms.  It isn't hard to figure out.  Sheriff Dupnik has already told you that some political speech should be limited because it is, in his left-wing opinion, hateful, prejudiced, bigoted, and responsible for the violence of left-wing nutjob Mr. Loughner.  That is but one example of freedoms to be limited.

Kudos to my own Representative, Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, who reacted as reported by Fox News:

"Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., who appeared with Clyburn, said she is not aware that alleged shooter Jared Lee Loughner is tied to a political movement or engaged in a politically motivated act.

"You know, his favorite books are 'the Communist Manifesto' and 'Mein Kampf.' I think it's important that we recognize that this is an individual that had -- that has mental challenges, and we need to act appropriately in dealing with him and making sure that justice prevails here," she said."

A criminal act was committed by a criminal in Arizona yesterday.  Sheriff Dupnik turned a criminal act into a political action for the purpose of libelling a particular brand of political speech, turning the actions of a criminal into a false-flag event that will likely affect the freedoms of a generation of American citizens.  Again, how retarded.

Questions for WaPost Hoplophobes

I would not have noticed the blatant editorialization (as opposed to genuine news reporting) in As Mexico Drug Violence Runs Rampant, U.S. Guns Tied to Crime South of Border by Washington Post Hoplophobes James Grimaldi and Sari Horwitz, except that I found it summarized at Newsmax last night.  I notice that since David Codrea exposed Newmax's repetition of the WaPost muck at The War on Guns, Newsmax has dropped the link from its front page. Go read the WaPost editorialization here, then see if you agree that the following questions need to be answered by Grimaldi and Horwitz.

1)  They mention that certain data is confidential under a law passed by Congress in 2003.  Are they referring to the Tiahrt Amendment?  If they are, why don't they just come out and say so.  I get the feeling that these two hoplophobes are using the old journalistic trick of injecting mystery into their editorialization to attract attention.  They act as if they know something we don't, that they are privileged to know, and that we should just trust them to explain the mystery without them having to produce a source.  If these two pseudo-reporters are referring to the Tiahrt Amendment, it is the same law that provides for gun trace data to law enforcement when a gun has been  recovered in a crime investigation, but prohibits law enforcement from peeking into gun transfer records to determine what guns are owned by law-abiding citizens.  The gun trace data allowed by the Tiahrt Amendment are the likely source of information obtained by Grimaldi and Horwitz.

2)  If this information is confidential, how did Grimaldi and Horwitz obtain it?  Are they BATFE stooges?  It's not enought to say they reviewed documents and court cases.  Cite the sources, or your "reporting" is suspect.

3)  Grimaldi and Horwitz state that FFL dealer Bill Carter's Carter's Country stores are the sellers of guns found at Mexican crime scenes.  Was Carter's Country the last recorded seller or somewhere in the stream of transfers?

4)  Who were the last recorded purchasers of the guns and were the guns stolen?  What "transfers", both legal and illegal, occurred after the recorded transfers at Carter's Country?

5)  What definition are Grimaldi and Horwitz using for "high-powered"?  My understanding of the term does not include intermediate rounds such as .223 Remington/5.56x45 and 7.62 x 39.  Grimaldi and Horwitz appear to be referring to these rounds as high-powered.  Are they doing so to inflame the reader against guns chambered for these rounds?

6)  What do Grimaldi and Horwitz mean when they refer to AR-15 and AK-47 rifles as "assault rifles"?  Assault rifles in the military context are selective-fire or full-auto.  Besides mixing the apples and oranges of semi-auto AR-15's and presumably full-auto AK-47's, are Grimaldi and Horwitz simply confused or trying to confuse the reader. 

7)  Do Grimaldi and Horwitz know that AK-47's are Class III firearms and that Carter's Country was not likely licensed as a Class III dealer?  Do they even know what Carter's Country was licensed to sell?  Would they tell the reader the truth even if they did know?

8)  What is the source of Grimaldi's and Horwitz's claim that Mexican drug cartels are turning to the U.S. for their supply of guns?  Do Grimaldi and Horwitz even know that under most circumstances Mexican nationals cannot purchase firearms from FFL dealers?

9)  Are Grimaldi and Horwitz alleging that FFL dealers in Texas, and in particular Bill Carter, are selling firearms to Mexican nationals/non-U.S. citizens in violation of federal law?  What information do they have that such transactions are actually occurring?

10)  If criminal drug cartels from Mexico are obtaining firearms in the United States, what is the federal government doing to prevent Mexican criminals from entering the United States and illegally obtaining guns here?

11)  Since state-issued identification is required to purchase guns from any FFL dealer in every state in the United States, how many states are issuing state identification cards and drivers licenses to non-citizens?   How many non-citizens have used these state-issued identification cards and licenses to purchase guns from FFL dealers?  How many governmental entitities have approved purchases by non-citizens under the the mandatory (for FFL dealers) instant-check system?

12)  How many of these guns were purchased by entities or persons affiliated with the United States government?

13)  When Grimaldi and Horwitz refer to laws supported by the "gun lobby" which supposedly make prosecutions of law-breaking FFL dealers difficult, who is the "gun lobby" and what laws are they referring to?

14)  If Carter's Country is one of the largest volume firearm dealers in Texas, just what percentage of their sales are involved in crimes?  What percentage of sales are never involved in crimes?  Can Grimaldi and Horwitz actually show a causal connection between any behavior by Carter's Country and the guns found in Mexico, or just a conclusion based on innuendo?

15)  If there is no indication that any of the FFL dealers, cited as the source of guns in Mexico, did anything wrong, what is the point?  It sure does not seem to be that the government is competent at arresting Mexican drug cartel members and illegal aliens.

16)  Do Grimaldi and Horwitz even understand what a straw-purchaser is?  Have either of them ever examined the form that must be completed by a firearm purchaser?  Purchasing a firearm for one's spouse is not considered a straw purchase.  The form that must be completed by the purchaser asks if the purchaser is the actual buyer.  Obviously, lying about this is a crime.  That is where the problem lies, no pun intended.

17)  Considering that BATFE routinely harasses FFL holders, including threats of revoking licenses (and actually succeeding) for minor paperwork errors, why should anyone believe that BATFE lacks the ability to investigate and prosecute FFL dealers who violate the law?  For instances of abusive and extralegal conduct by the BATFE in its investigations, consider the fates of the General Store in Spokane, Washington and Red's Trading Post in Idaho.  If anyone still doubts the power of the federal government to investigate illegal firearm transfers, consider what happened in Ruby Ridge, Idaho in 1993.

18)  Grimaldi and Horwitz imply that FFL dealers are the problem.  To what degree did they investigate the failure of the U.S. government to enforce the immigration laws and the border with Mexico?  It seems that preventing illegal aliens from entering the U.S. and having tough border controls would prevent a substantial amount of the supposed gun trafficking.  It could reasonably argued that a substantial amount of the blame could be placed squarely on the U.S. government, and Janet Napolitano in particularly, for the utter failure to prevent illegal aliens from freely crossing the border, with and without guns.

19)  Why is there little mention of the extensive corruption throughout the Mexican government, including the complicity of Mexican police in drug and weapons trafficking?  It seems that Mexican President Calderon could clean house, enforce its side of the border, and take on the drug cartels.  Mexico is loudly attacking a symptom of a larger problem that it has the power to control, but lacks the will to do much more than complain to the U.S.

20)  Why do Mexicans not have the right to possess firearms for self-defense?  Is there government of the side of the people or the drug cartels.  Denying citizens the ability to defend themselves against organized crime indicates which side the Mexican goverment is on.

There are many other questions I have after reading the work of Grimaldi and Horwitz, but I figure that 20 questions is enough.  My point is that every trumped-up account of guns found in Mexico tries to lay the blame on FFL dealers who are stringently regulated and have no more control over the end use of the product than a sporting goods store does over a Louisville Slugger.  So-called reporters rarely seem to turn the scrutiny back on to their government sources, for whom these "reporters" are often nothing more than sycophants.

Of course, the aforementioned commentary consists of my opinion.  Many years ago I had some training in journalism and I work in the legal profession, so I am not making any claim to objectivity.  Nor am I making a claim to being a Washington Post news reporter.

Paging Winston Smith

Press Office
U.S. Ministry of Truth
Dec. 6, 2010

WASHINGTON -- Commissariat of Repeated Airport Perversions (CRAP) Reichsfuhrer Janet Napolitano today announced the expansion of the Commissariat's national “If You See it Twitch, Be A Snitch” campaign to hundreds of ChinaMart stores across the country—launching a new partnership between CRAP and ChinaMart to help distribute brown shirts and Orwellian lingo to the American public.

“Government intrusion starts with hometown snitchery, and each of us plays a critical role in turning against our friends and neighbors for the benefit of the government,” said the owlish, big-assed, Reichsfuhrer Napolitano. “I applaud ChinaMart for joining the ‘If You See it Twitch, Be a Snitch’ campaign. This partnership will help millions of government-dependent Obamacare recipients across the nation identify and report indicators of unacceptable exercises of free-thinking, liberty, and Constitutional rights.”

The “If You See it Twitch, Be a Snitch” campaign—originally implemented by Bloomberggrad's Metropolitan Transportation Authority and funded, in part, by $13 million from CRAP’s Transit Security Grant Program—is a simple and effective  mass mind-control exercise for the proles and key ChinaMart drones to identify and report unacceptable exercises of free-thinking, liberty, and Constitutional rights.

More than 230 ChinaMart stores nationwide launched the “If You See it Twitch, Be a Snitch” campaign today, with a total of 588 ChinaMart stores in 27 states joining in the coming weeks. A short video message, available here, will play at select checkout locations to remind buyers of cheap crud to snitch on their friends and neighbors to the Commissariat of Repeated Airport Perversions.

Over the past five months, CRAP has worked with its federal gestapo, state stormtroopers, local paramilitary black-pajama thugs, and private sector collaborators, as well as the Ministry of Fairness, to expand the “If You See it Twitch, Be a Snitch” campaign and Nationwide GROPE (Get Raunchy On PeoplE) Initiative to communes throughout the country—including the recent state-wide expansions of the “If You See it Twitch, Be a Snitch” campaign across Frankensota and New Lautenberg. Partners include the Mall of China, the American Hope & Change Association, ScAmtrak, FEMA camps, state penitentiaries, the department of motor vehicles, and state and local "fusion" centers across the country.

In the coming months, CRAP will continue to expand the “If You See it Twitch, Be a Snitch” campaign nationally with public re-education materials and visits from black-pajama clad thugs designed to help America’s businesses, communities and citizens keep on snitching for Reichsfuhrer Napolitano.

The actual press release is here.

Coward-In-Chief Obama Abandons Japan and South Korea While Reichsfuhrer Napolitano Promises to Violate More Women and Children

The disgusting bunch of bastards that comprises the Obama administration is at it again.  Abandoning our allies while violating the citizens at home.  Even the original Nazis didn't act this fast.

Obama essentially abandons Japan and South Korea after act of war by North Korea.  Read it here.  Way to go, Barry.  Now the Chinese, who are likely behind the whole thing, know what you are made of.  Or more accurately, full of.  Shit.  Same goes for your abandonment of Lebanon, which has dropped the UN trials for the assassination of Rafiq Hariri.  Not to mention your telegraphing your exit strategy to the Taliban in Afghanistan, your unreasonable demands on Israel, and your continued spinelessness in dealing with Iran.  No, Barry, 'ole Ahmadijihadi is not charmed by your very presence.  Leadership is not the same as a Justin Bieber concert; when leading a country, a bunch of screaming, fainting girls indicates that you are a vapid twit, Barry.

Meanwhile, Sektion Sicherheit-Vaterland Reichsfuhrer Napolitano announced that the violation of women and children by her Gropenfuhrers may extend to other forms of public transportation, such as trains, boats, and buses.  Story here.  The Gropenfuhrers apparently put their own security first, as numerous anectdotal accounts have surfaced of  SS-V troops using the same gloves for groping the private parts of multiple passengers.  Story here.   Adding insult to injury, SS-V Reichsfuhrer Napolitano exempts from these "security procedures" the persons who have caused more harm to this country than all of the known and suspected terrorists to date:  government officials including Timmy "Turbo Taxfraud" Geithner, Robert "I'm hunting tewwowists" Mueller, and the Reichsfuhrer herself.  Story here.

And if you object, dear reader, to the tender ministrations of the Gropenfuhrers?  You will be labelled a domestic extremist.  Story here.  Submit to the gate-rape by the Gropenfuhrers or face the fury of the Reich.

What the f*** happened to my country?

Patty Murray the Coathanger Queen

This post concerns abortion and due process of law.  If you have a problem with my pro-life, pro-due process opinions, stop reading now.

I saw another political spot on TV this morning for and approved by Patty Murray.  Actually, the spot was another pack of lies attempting to defame Dino Rossi, but it says volumes about Murray.  In the ad, Rossi is portrayed as a relic of a better-forgotten era when abortion was disfavored and illegal.  Of course, liberals never say they are in favor of abortion, they say that they favor "a woman's right to choose".  By stating that Dino Rossi is against "a woman's right to choose" and portraying that as a bad thing, Patty Murray has essentially stated that she is pro-abortion.

A fetus is a living human being not yet born.  It is a life, and no matter how the libtards try to frame an unborn baby's existence, I believe that the unborn human has a right to life.  Jurisprudence has not quite caught up to this, but it will as soon as the politics are taken out of the analysis.  The political roadblock to the ethically and scientifically sound reasoning that a living unborn human being has the right to life is the liberal position that the "woman's right to choose" is superior to the living unborn child's right to life.  Thus the liberals have been successful in denying the living unborn child's right to due process of law before it's right to life is terminated.

We readily acknowledge that a person accused of a capital crime has the right to due process of law before his right to life is taken away by the state.  We actually allow the judicial system to become the world's longest running circus once the accused has been found guilty and sentenced to the termination of his or her life.  Although many of us express displeasure at the numerous and lengthy appeals that follow in most cases where a death sentence is imposed, we respect the judicial system we have with its standards of innocence until proven guilty, no cruel and unusual punishments, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to due process of law prior to deprivation of rights.

Patty Murray has demonstrated that, at the most benign interpretation of her actions, she does not understand the concept of due process of law.  She supports granting of rights to causes she favors, but does not support due process of law for rights she does not favor.  Her active support for the denial of due process of law to living unborn human beings prior to the termination of their lives tells me volumes about Ms. Murray having no respect for the right to life when it does not match up with her political beliefs.  A person who has respect for the right to life and the concept of due process of law prior to the termination of the right to life supports these concepts regardless of his or her political beliefs.  Ms. Murray's disrespect for the right to life and due process of law is why I referred to her as the Coathanger Queen.

Murray's disrespect for due process of law is apparent in other areas as well.  At a time when mortgage-holding banks are trespassing on private property and changing locks on homes prior to completing foreclosure proceedings, where is Patty Murray?  Should she not be stepping up and standing up for the the common man against the big banks when they act without due process of law?  She will not because she is in the pocket of the big banks and does not care about individual homeowners.  Murray supported bailing out the big banks with taxpayer money and supported the "financial reform" that was a giveaway to the big banks.

When Obama care had not yet passed and the Democrats were angling to shove an unconstitutional mandate to purchase insurance down our throats, where was Patty Murray?  Oh, that's right, she was voting in favor of shoving this unconstitutional mandate down our throats.

When Chrysler Corporation was being shoved through bankruptcy proceedings and parties who had a contractual and legal right to be paid from the bankruptcy estate were cast aside in favor of the United Auto Workers Union and Libyan-owned Fiat Motors, where was Patty Murray?  Certainly not standing up for the common man who had money invested in Chrysler.  She was busy backing the union that contributed to her campaigns.

It is disturbing when a politician has no respect for the Constitution and for due process of law guaranteed by the Constitution regarding the ordinary affairs of Americans, such as choosing health insurance and investing money.  It is downright appalling when a politician seeks to supplant the right to life, guaranteed by the Constitution and by our Creator, with an invented right not appearing in the Constitution and which appears downright silly when juxtaposed with the supplanted right.  Which do you want, the right to live or the right to choose.

If I follow Murray's position to the logical extreme and decide that due process of law is no longer necessary when its application interferes with one's political principles, there would be no end to the carnage that would ensue.  I don't like politicians that vote for Marxist policies and enact taxes upon me that I am unwilling to pay.  My right to choose what works for me supplants the right of that politician to live.  Hmmm, just where do libtards like Murray think that one would end?  Especially if we call it the "right-to-choose-later-on", rather than the ugly truthful term retroactive abortion.

As tempting as it would be to adopt liberal principles in that scenario, I'll stick with supporting the right to life and the concept of due process of law.


Remember in November.

Obamacare: It Ain't Over Yet, Commie Bastards!

Alternate Titles: 

Just Try It; I'll Give You a Proctology Exam With Your Obamacare and

Obamacare Causes Increase in Hot Lead Injections to Lyin' Liberal Swine

As frustrating as the decision by George Caram Steeh III is upholding Obamacare, it ain't over yet.  I believe that Steeh, a lowly U.S. District Court Judge in Michigan, issued a poorly reasoned and unconstitutional decision in upholding Obamacare.  Some things have to be kept in perspective.

U.S. District Court judges are generally political hacks.  They have generally been aligned with one political party or another throughout their legal career.  Most judges started out as private attorneys or working for some organization.  They got involved with various political causes to get noticed.  Often some political entity, such as the governor, picks them to fill a judicial vacancy of some sort.  Just as often a local judge will retire and the opportunistic lawyer will run for the seat.  It is somewhat rare for a sitting judge to be defeated at election time, and my observation is that sitting judges are rarely replaced by challenge in the election.

Steeh was appointed by Bill Clinton.  Consider the source.  Sleaziest, most disrespectful to the office president in modern history appoints constitutionally illiterate judge (likely a political hack) to be a U.S. District Court Judge in Michigan.  Like appointer, like appointee.

It is natural that with a marxist administration seeking to add legitimacy to one of its marxist agendas, the first judicial decision upholding the marxist agenda would come from a marxist political hack appointed by a sleazebag member of the marxist president's political party.  I can only wonder what political and other pressure was applied to ensure that Steeh's decision was the first one on Obamacare.

U.S. District Court judges are the lowest level of the judiciary.  They are the equivalent of the Superior Court or District Court judges in Washington.  In Washington we have the Courts of Appeals above Superior and District Court, then the Supreme Court of Washington.  If it weren't for boneheaded decisions by judges at the Superior Court and District Court level, we would not have most of the appellate court and supreme court decisions we rely upon every day.  The same is true in the federal courts.  Steeh is a bonehead judge who made a bonehead decision that will be reviewed.  The Court of Appeals for that circuit might not be any brighter than Steeh, but the U.S. Supreme Court is where I am looking for the decision, as a Supremes decision will be the law of the land, not requiring any reconciliation among the federal circuits.

Obamacare will be like Heller and McDonald, having to weave its way through the federal courts of appeals to have the U.S. Supreme Court make the final determination, only in the case of Obamacare that it is an unconstitutional mandate.  In the meantime, I will hold onto my stainless steel insurance policy and my prescription of 230 grain copper capsules.


To Washington voters:  If you do not want the marxist agenda of government health care shoved down your throat, and would instead like to shove it back up Obama's ass, vote Dino Rossi for U.S. Senate on November 2.

Remember 9/11

Never forget what the followers of the moon god did in the name of their religion on September 11, 2001.  Those bastards don't even qualify to be called animals.

Religion of Peace, my ass.