Hypocrisy

I remember under the Bush administration the wails of the loyal opposition about keeping prisoners in Guantanamo, about secret prisons, rendition, illegal wars. I'm not hearing that any more. Guantanamo is still open. Where's the outrage? Simple, they all got administration jobs. Those same high-minded liberals who blasted the Bush administration over their war-on-terror policies have all become hypocrites. Follow the link above and you'll learn about rendition, hellish prisons, and drone strikes. You'll also learn that those same folks screaming about Bush are doing that very work under Obama. The best summary I've seen so far comes from Glenn Reynolds.

Let me be clear: All you people who were playing the have-you-no-decency card under Bush, but who aren’t screaming just as loud now — which is pretty much all of you people who were playing the have-you-no-decency card under Bush — were and are miserable lying hacks. And I thank Obama for making that perfectly clear, at least.

Hypocrites.  It's easy to decry something then later learn you're wrong, but without a clear explanation and public apologies to those that you've stung, you're still a hypocrite. 

What Health Care Decision?

Reveling in my sloth this morning, I come upon this Washington Post article that talks about a recent Pew Poll concerning the information that people watch to be informed about current events. 

Inside the numbers was — not surprisingly — even more eye-opening. Among 18- to 29-year-olds, one of the electoral pillars on which Obama’s 2008 victory was built, 43 percent didn’t know anything about the court ruling, and other 20 percent thought the court had rejected most of the tenets of the law. That means that roughly two in every three young people didn’t know or were mistaken about what happened Thursday at the court.

That's reassuring. Still, I remember (faintly) being in that demographic. I was concerned about paying my bills, furthering my career, worrying about kids, sometimes I'd go days between reading a newspaper or watching the evening news.

Most people — especially those who are unaffiliated or independent voters — tend to be relatively low information voters. That is, they don’t have all the facts on an issue — and they don’t really care to find them out.

I doubt that I'll ever have ALL the facts on an issue, especially on those issues that really interest me, but I like to have as many of the facts as possible, especially if those facts support my prejudices. I like to think that I'm an informed voter, but this poll makes me wonder.

Independence Day

My calendar tells me that it's July 4th and my internets tell me that I should be celebrating.  The dog and I did go outside at daybreak and stand reveille, raising the flag in front of the house, but frankly, I'm not into the whole hamburger/hot dogs/fireworks thing today.

Milady went to Florida last week on a mission of mercy.  A family member had a stroke and we put her on a plane to do what she does best; minister to the sick.  The dog and I have been holding the fort, keeping the lamps burning, and frankly we're a bit adrift.   The dog is looking for Milady, he spends time where she normally frequents and comes to me wondering.  I've told him a dozen times that she ain't here, but I don't think he gets it.  Thankfully, we pick her up this afternoon.  She's coming home today and that's a cause to celebrate, although she'll likely be jet-lagged and fatigued from the journey. 

The family member is doing better, thanks, and seems to be "out of the woods".  Rehab continues apace.  We're praying for the best and expecting miracles.

I don't have any formal celebration planned except to be at the airport before she goes wheels-down.  Still, if our independence means anything, then I'm free to sloth.

Happy Fourth, everyone.  Take a  break today, have a little fun, and we'll get back to work tomorrow.

Swearin'

I'm just returned from a swearing-in, which happens when a Sheriff begins his term of office.  No changes to my duty assignment, but I'm one of the worker bees, not residing in the rarefied air of management.  For us worker bees, they used the picture from 4 years ago, and I don't look terribly different now than I did then.  A little less hair, a little more of it gray, the days take their tolls.  It was good to hang around and shake hands with folks I seldom see.

On reflection, when I worked for the state, I was sworn-in just once in 20 years.  With the Sheriff, it's every four years.

The Wobbly Tax

On the way to town this morning to rent a Rug Doctor (don't ask) I was listening to Glenn Beck on talk radio and he proposed a wonderful idea for another taxing scheme, and it fits wonderfully into Wobbly Roberts new tax initiative.  It goes something like this.

There are very many constitutional activities that some people don't participate in.  One of these activities is the 2nd Amendment protections on the owning and using firearms in the home for self-protection.  Now, we know that the Pittman Robertson act helps to fund many ranges, clinics,  educational experiences relating to the shooting sports.  Pittman-Robertson money also funds non-shooting pursuits that are available to those people who don't hunt or shoot.

Although Pittman-Robertson is financed wholly by firearms users and archery enthusiasts, its benefits cover a much larger number of people who never hunt but do enjoy such wildlife pastimes as birdwatching, nature photography, painting and sketching, and a wide variety of other outdoor pursuits. Almost all the lands purchased with P-R money are managed both for wildlife production and for other public uses. Wildlife management areas acquired by the States for winter range also support substantial use by hikers and fishermen, campers and picnickers. Wetlands for summer waterfowl nesting are useful to nature lovers in other seasons. Recent estimates indicate about 70 percent of the people using these areas are not hunting, and in some localities the ratio may go as high as 95 percent.

What? These people (birdwatchers, nature photogs, painters and sketchers, hikers, fishermen, campers, picnickers, nature lovers) are not participating, and they're enjoying the benefits of this money. In the words of Nancy Pelosi, they're free-riders and should pay a ta-penalty.  See, even Nancy Pelosi is on-board with  similar taxing schemes. 

So, how would we do this?  Simple.  Save your receipts when you buy guns, ammo, archery supplies, arrows or bows.  When you do your taxes at the end of the year, add all those supplies and put them on a block on your 1040 form.  If you don't have anything to put in that block, simply put in 50% of your adjusted gross income and send it to the government to fund the Fish and Wildlife service.  Even as little as one box of ammo a year would prove participation and would save you from the confiscatory Wobbly Tax.  However, non-participation is now taxable if you're taking benefits and walking through the woods without paying Pittman Robertson is now subject to a tax penalty.

Sounds reasonable to me.   It's time for another letter to my Congress-critter.

Wobbly Roberts

Unless you've been living in a culvert, or actually doing something that matters.  Or for that matter, if you're in DC and don't have any power at all, you've probably heard about the hard-hitting CBS News report that Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote during deliberations.  The article even goes so far as to report that a source called him wobbly.  Wobbly Roberts.  It rolls right off the tongue.

Some pundits have opined that Wobbly was worried about the Court's legitimacy.  Others have opined that he is susceptible to news reporting and had come under intense pressure from liberals, even from the floor of the House.  Maybe so.  Forbes goes so far as to say that Roberts caved to left-wing pressure to uphold the law.  Heh!  So much for his legitimacy.  Turns out he's simply pandering for acceptance.  He's concerned about his legacy, which is now irrevocably damaged.

So, Mr. Roberts, how's this for your legacy?  You're wobbly.  Nominated by President Bush as a solid conservative, you've shown yourself to court the admiration and adulation of the liberals. You care what some people think and will go to great lengths, twisting logic into a pretzel to find a way to make plainly bad law into good law.  During your opinion, you will say that you have no interest in policy, yet your decision forms policy of the worst kind.  You are a turn-coat, sir, a deceiver.  The simple Google string,John Roberts Wobbly, returns 163,000 results, and this is just Monday morning.  That's your legacy, sir.  Some pundits are even now calling your tax-and-switch scheme the Roberts Tax.

And, if I ever get the opportunity, I'm going to piss down your leg and tell you it's raining.  You are about as worthless a person who ever was appointed to the bench, and there are many worthless jurists on the bench.  Screw you, sir.

I think I'm going to write my Congress-critters and talk about impeachment.  Even Supreme Court Justices can be impeached.

Sunday

Normally, I go to church on Sunday morning, but this morning my daughter was broke-down on the side of the road.  They suspected the throwout bearing.  So, instead of slacks, I pulled on some old jeans and called my buddy, who runs a UHaul place.  In short order I had a towing dolly and we were enroute to my son's house where we pushed the vehicle into his shop.

By 10:30, we had the transmission out and a new bearing installed.  By 12:30 the truck was being test driven.  PawPaw took the truck dolly back to the lot and came home to pour myself a stiff drink and make a big pot of red beans with rice, a meal I've been craving for several weeks.  Then, a nap.

I woke to thunder.  It's raining out there.  I'll probably have to mow grass tomorrow.

Sunday Morning Dawg

Last week the dog was fairly fuzzy. Hirsute.  Here's a pic of him scrounging for morsels following a grandkid birthday party.

While we're at it, another shot of him actually up on the table.  Shameless, no?  The dog's gotta find his treats where he finds them.

This week we found our groomer, who didn't answer the phone last week, and we made an appointment for the mutt.

That's a little better.  I bet that he's cooler, although his appetite for treats hasn't diminished any.  He looks like he's lost weight.

Somewhere

Somewhere, probably on a range, either formal or informal, Bill Jordan is crying right now. From Fox News:

Border Patrol agents in Arizona are blasting their bosses for telling them, along with all other Department of Homeland Security employees, to run and hide if they encounter an "active shooter."

What? Oh, Bullshit. Run and hide? Are you serious?

“The Department of Homeland Security takes very seriously its responsibility to protect all of its employees from threats that may surface in the workplace,” U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Michael Friel said in a written statement to FoxNews.com

Hey, Friel, you're a disgrace. Check your manhood at the door and quit now, before someone comes along and takes your White Rain.  There is only one response to an active shooter.  Close on him with fire and maneuver and stop the threat with extreme violence.  That's the response.  Violent intervention.

Run and Hide?  Only if you're a girly-man.  Oh, and I know plenty of female law enforcement officers who would be covering my back during that whole "fire and maneuver" thing.  It isn't about your gender, bud, it's about doing your job. Your job, obviously, is to wimp-out and cower in the darkness like the cowardly, worthless, stinking, cowering bastard that you are.  Man up or get out of the business.

For those of you who don't remember Bill Jordan, he was a Border Patrol agent and a Marine during WWII.  He served on the southwest border and retired after 30 years.  He was responsible for convincing Smith and Wesson to chamber the Model 66 in .357 magnum and was a per-eminent advocate for the use of the double-action revolver in law enforcement.  He designed holsters and served on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association.  He also wrote a marvelous book on gunfighting, No Second Place Winner. 

Run and Hide?  You make me sick.

Hat tip to Termite for the link.

Steel

When I started working on the gong target I knew that I had two different steel types to work with.  Some locally produced 13/16th mild steel plate and some AR500 steel gongs made by Quality Targets.  This morning was the first chance I've gotten to hang them side-by-side and the difference in the two is interesting.  First, the commercial target is a lot lighter, mainly because it's made of thinner steel.  They both "whack" satisfactorily, but the thinner targets seem to be tougher on the strapping I used to hang them.  Maybe something about the transfer of momentum when the bullet smacks the gong, but the heavier mild-steel target seemed to be easier on the hanging straps.  Both of these are 9" diameter gongs.

Still, the difference is easily seen.  First the mild-steel target, shot with a variety of deer-rifle calibers at about 150 yards.

As you can see, and you can click on it for a bigger version, the deer-rifle calibers cratered the steel fairly severely.  So, next we'll consider the hard-steel commercial targets.

No cratering at all.  Yeah, you can see where the bullets hit the plate, but it left tiny, smooth-faced dimples.  I'd say that the damage sustained was far less against the hard-steel plate.  Interesting, both gongs where painted the same color last week.  The impact from the bullets whacked nearly all the paint from the hard-steel target.

Another interesting tidbit is that at the end of the day, the bolts holding the steel to the strapping were loose, way loose.  What loosened those bolts?  Maybe the shock of the impact?  Heck, I don't know.  They're tight again, farmer-tight.

Field Trials

My sons and I took the Target Hanger (ver 2.0) out to the lease today to give it a field trial. We set it up down a logging cut, about 150 yards from the firing point, as far as we could see in the summertime woods.  It worked great. There are a few little glitches, but I think that it's ready for installation at my private berm at Momma's house.

I didn't get any pictures of the gongs, but I did manage a couple of snaps of my daughter-in-law, Kim, trying her hand.  Below, she's lining up using my Ruger 77 in .25-06.

Then, just after she pulled the trigger.

Yeah, she hit it.  There were several of us there, including step-grandson Jeffery, who did really well with a Remington 700 in .308.    We ran the gamut of centerfire deer cartridges this morning, from .35 Remington, to .243 Winchester, .25-06, .30-06, .308 and 7mm Rem Mag.  We even function tested a 12 gauge shotgun and a .40 cal SW Sigma.

Hot out there this morning, and yes, we sprayed everyone down for chiggers.  It was a great morning, although a hot one, to be in the woods with family.

More on Fast and Furious

This is a great article at CNS, about the Fast and Furious debacle, focusing on Dennis Burke, the former US Attorney who ran the program in Phoenix.  Did y'all know that he was one of the guys who worked on the Assault Weapons Ban enacted under Clinton?

(CNSNews.com) – Dennis K. Burke, who as a lawyer for the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 1990s was a key player behind the enactment of the 1994 assault-weapons ban, and who then went on to become Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano’s chief of staff, and a contributor to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential primary campaign, and then a member of Obama's transition team focusing on border-enforcement issues, ended up in the Obama administration as the U.S. attorney in Arizona responsible for overseeing Operation Fast and Furious.

Lots of good stuff in the article:

“Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder said. “I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.”

Then, in 2010, when Burke was confiremed,

It was in July 2010, after his nomination as U.S. attorney, that Burke told the Arizona Capitol Times that he had “been working on homeland security and border enforcement issues” during the transition, and that there had “clearly been direction provided already by President Obama and Attorney General Holder as to what they want to be doing.”

Really good stuff, go read the whole thing. I'm posting on it as much to bookmark if for myself as to pass the information along. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going shooting with my kids.

Obama's First Executive Privilege?

There is some question now whether this is the first time that President Obama has claimed executive privilege to protect Eric Holder.  I heard about it on the Dennis Miller show today during my afternoon drive and when I got home, a quick Google led me to this article.

There are two possibilities in this case, ultimately: Obama asserted executive privilege in 2009 for Holder to help him cover up his past, or Holder incorrectly claimed he didn’t have “authority” to testify about something when he did.

Interesting tidbit, and I'm wondering why the news media's reporters don't Google something as simple as 2009 executive privilege.  Oh, that's right, this is the media I'm talking about.

The Drinking Age

I remember as a kid, lobbying, marching, raising general hell until the several states lowered the drinking age to 18.  We were subject to the draft and thought it only fair that we should be allowed to vote, drink, do everything that all adults do.  In 1984, the law changed again, when the Fed.Gov, in a huge over-reach coerced the several states into raising the drinking age to 21 or lose federal highway money.

Yesterday, while John Roberts was screwing us, he made such coercion unconstitutional.  I wonder when the several states will lower their drinking age back to 18, the age of adulthood for most of the land.  If it's unconstitutional to coerce the states over Medicare money, it should certainly be unconstitutional to coerce them over highway money.

Unintended consequences, and all that bullshit.  That said, I think I'll pour myself a drink.  I'm certainly over the age of 21, won't be driving this evening, and I don't think that they'll make drinking at home illegal before tomorrow morning.  But they might tax it.

I spit in the general direction of John Roberts.

More on ObamaCare

From Investors Business Daily.

With a majority of the Supreme Court refusing to protect American freedom from a predatory Congress, it is now up to the voters to restore lost liberty. They have to fire the president and turn Congress over to lawmakers who respect limited government and will pass policies that will in fact bring down medical costs and expand coverage. Health care must be left to the private sector, not commanded and controlled, and consequently choked, by a central planning committee.

Go read the whole thing.  Yesterday's decision was a crushing defeat for freedom.  The Court failed and the American public is the loser.

On Yesterday's Crushing Defeat

I awake this morning and find that the internets are abuzz with new of the ObamaCare decision.   The conservatives are trying to spin it as a short-term loss with encouraging signs for the future.  One example is George Will's column in the Washington Post. 

By persuading the court to reject a Commerce Clause rationale for a president’s signature act, the conservative legal insurgency against Obamacare has won a huge victory for the long haul. This victory will help revive a venerable tradition of America’s political culture, that of viewing congressional actions with a skeptical constitutional squint, searching for congruence with the Constitution’s architecture of enumerated powers. By rejecting the Commerce Clause rationale, Thursday’s decision reaffirmed the Constitution’s foundational premise: Enumerated powers are necessarily limited because, as Chief Justice John Marshall said, “the enumeration presupposes something not enumerated.”

When Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), asked where the Constitution authorized the mandate, exclaimed, “Are you serious? Are you serious?,” she was utterly ingenuous. People steeped in Congress’s culture of unbridled power find it incomprehensible that the Framers fashioned the Constitution as a bridle. Now, Thursday’s episode in the continuing debate about the mandate will reverberate to conservatism’s advantage.

 Bullshit.  Plain Bullshit.  Nancy Pelosi was correct to ask that question, and John Roberts answered it for us.  Of course it's constitutional.  Congress can do anydamn thing that they want to do and the Court will find some way to make it legal.

There are two lessons to learn from yesterday's crushing loss.  First, Pelosi was right.  There is nothing that Congress can't do.  The Courts will not restrain them.  If it's legislation signed by both houses and signed by the President, it's the law. The second lesson to draw from this is one that Pelosi also gave us, shortly after she was elected as Speaker of the House.  Elections matter.  John Roberts also told us this in his opinion.

It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Spin it any way you went to, folks, but yesterday was a loss and the best way to insure that we don't suffer losses like this in the future is at the election box.

Oh, and one other thing:  John Roberts, appointed by President Bush, was touted as a brilliant legal mind and a solid conservative.  Today, I put him in the liberal camp.  He could have voted either way and been in the majority.  He chose to vote with the liberal camp on this issue, and handed conservatism a stunning loss.  He damaged the constitution and handed socialists the largest victory of my lifetime.  If I ever get the opportunity, I'm going to piss down his leg and tell him it's raining.

Another First

Today, the US House of Representatives voted to hold Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.  He is the first sitting Cabinet member in the history of the US to be found in contempt of Congress.  The vote was bipartisan, with seventeen (17) Democrats joining the Republicans in finding that Holder has not complied with House subpoenas. 

Pelosi, of course, thinks it's shameful and I agree with her.  Having an Attorney General who subverts the laws of the United States and of Mexico is shameful.  Holder should be tried, convicted and imprisoned.  When we get the documents, we might find that his boss is a felon, too.

On Stolen Valor

The Supremes brought out another case this morning, where they held that lying about getting the Medal of Honor is free speech.  From Justice Kennedy's opinion: 

Lying was his habit. Xavier Alvarez, the respondent here, lied when he said that he played hockey for theDetroit Red Wings and that he once married a starlet fromMexico. But when he lied in announcing he held the Congressional Medal of Honor, respondent ventured onto new ground; for that lie violates a federal criminal statute, theStolen Valor Act of 2005. 18 U. S. C. §704.

To paraphrase Kennedy: It ain't criminal because free speech is a bulwark of the republic and Alvarez didn't try to make money from it. The military fights to protect our rights and one of those is free speech. He's despicable, but he ain't a criminal.

Well, here's some more free speech, from PawPaw.  Xavier Alvarez is a lying scumbag, a reprehensible piece of shit.  He deserves to drown in the saliva of good American veterans and to starve to death because his jaw is wired shut from the beatings he so richly deserves.  Xavier Alvarez is a sonofabitch who dishonors his family, casts aspersions on his associates and should be expelled from whatever business or office he frequents.  If I ever personally see Xavier Alvarez, I intend to give him a good free speech cussing, the likes of which he'll never forget.

Classy!

Looks like the Democrats are keeping it classy.

He's the executive director of the Democratic National Convention.s  How appalling.

UPHELD!

They upheld the Affordable Care Act.  The money quote, courtesy of Instapundit:

From ScotusBlog: “The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government’s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read.” Plus: “The money quote from the section on the mandate: ‘Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.’”

I guess that they can make us all buy broccoli, as long as they call it a tax.  Now it's time for Romney and the conservatives everywhere to start campaigning against the Obama Health-care Tax.

Justice Roberts says, in his opinion, page 6.

Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

It is not the job of the Court to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.