Surprise Surprise Surprise

Remember Gomer Pyle?

I was reminded of his "Surprise Surprise Surprise" shtick when I heard the news that hillary beat the rap in her email case.

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way...

Notice there is no mention of intent when discussing the federal statute. Mishandling classified information is a violation - period.

Yet later on Comey states:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information... (emphasis added)

"intended to violate" - so hillary gets a pass based on her intentions. I guess the next time I break a law I can just say I didn't intend to. If it's good enough for hillary, it should be good enough for you and me. Right?

Yeah, sure...

There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation (e-mail chains concerning matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received). (emphasis added)

Wait a minute! Did Comey just say that hillary is not a reasonable person? That's just about the only thing in this load of BS that passes the smell test.

In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail...

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Classified information stored and transmitted on personal private e-mail servers less secure than Gmail - sure sounds like a violation of the 'mishandling' federal statute to me. But then again, I'm not the FBI Director.

It's enough to make me wish that J. Edgar Hoover was back in charge - feathered boa and all...

More:

FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require... (emphasis added)

It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information.

Two more things:

First, if hillary and her clown posse can't handle simple things like email and fax systems, how on earth can she serve as leader of the free world?

click to embiggen

Second, if, as she claims, she never sent classified info over her private server, and never used the official State Dept. system, how in God's name did she do her job as Secretary of State?

Bottom line - whatever shred of respect or allegiance I might have once had towards our federal government is now a thing of the past. It has gone from a minor annoyance to an out-of-control threat to freedom and the rule of law.

A pox on all three of its branches.

And a huge pox on hillary rodham clinton and her enablers.

Obama's Hypocrisy Is On Display - Again

As we all know, barack obama is one of the most antigun presidents we've ever suffered under.

He's also, to no one's surprise, one of the biggest hypocrites we've ever seen.

Take, for example, his recent action in commuting the sentences of convicted felons.

Obama has commuted sentences for 33 firearms convicts

Barbara Hollingsworth of CNS News reports that Senator Richard Shelby has sent a letter to Loretta Lynch criticizing the Obama administration for commuting the sentences of 33 criminals convicted of firearm-related offenses. “By my count, the President has commuted the sentences of over 200 of these ‘non-violent’ federal inmates, of which 33 were convicted of firearm-related offenses,” Shelby wrote. He also pointed to the hypocrisy of commuting the sentences of firearms offenders while pushing for gun control.

... Obama’s latest set of commutations puts a number of gun offenders back on the streets. Indeed, according to Shelby, 12 of the 61 recipients of Obama’s leniency were convicted of one, if not more, firearm-related offenses. These include:

Seven convictions of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime;

four convictions of possession of a firearm by a felon; and

two convictions of use of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense.

At a hearing in January of this year, Shelby quizzed Lynch about this issue. As Shelby reminds Lynch:

I. . .asked you how the President can say he is ‘committed to using every tool at the Administration’s disposal to reduce gun violence’ when his own Administration is not even following through with the sentences of criminals with firearm-related convictions.

At the time, you said that you were not aware of the particular sentence commutations involving firearm-related convictions, but that you would look into these cases. We have yet to hear back from you or the Department [of Justice] about these or any other questions from the hearing, which were due at the end of February.

Evidently, Lynch has no good answer to the question Shelby posed.

In his letter, Shelby said that his subcommittee will not approve any increased funding for the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, which screens inmates’ applications for clemency before they are submitted to the president. He explained:

I have no confidence in the ability of the Office of the Pardon Attorney to properly screen requests for executive clemency or to effectively convey any recommendations throughout the Administration. I want to do everything I can to keep our communities safer, and that includes keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, the mentally ill, and violent offenders.

Right now, I am unsure if the Administration shares this goal.

There's a reason convicted felons are denied the right to keep and bear arms. Evidently obama thinks he knows better.

The Fix Is In

At first glance, it looks like Bernie Sanders is threatening hillary's triumphant march to the democrat nomination. After all, he almost pulled off a stunning upset in Iowa (notwithstanding suspicions that the outcome was rigged by hillary's supporters), and he beat hillary 2-1 in New Hampshire. But despite his edge in the popular vote, he's way behind in delegates who will actually vote for him.

Clinton Has 45-To-1 'Superdelegate' Advantage Over Sanders

Among (already-selected "superdelegates"), Clinton leads Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders 359 to 8, according to an AP survey of the group that will help elect the nominee at the Democratic National Convention in July...

The 712 superdelegates, though, are still only less than a third of the 2,382 total delegates needed to win the nomination. The rest will be determined, in part, by actual results in the primaries and caucuses...

But these numbers mean Clinton has already gotten 15 percent of the delegates needed — two months before any voting has begun. In other words, Clinton starts with a 15 percentage point head start over Sanders.

So just who exactly are these "superdelegates?"

In the Democratic Party, superdelegates are current or former party leaders, including governors, senators, representatives, and former presidents and vice presidents. These superdelegates, 712 in all, aren't bound by primaries or caucus results to cast their votes — they can vote for whomever they want at the party convention in July.

In other words, they are the democrat party establishment. And they aren't about to hand over their party to some wacky old socialist from a tiny northeastern state. So don't get too excited about the hillary express getting derailed by some aging hippy. It ain't gonna happen. (More here.) (h/t Toejam)

Unless she gets indicted. Then all bets are off...

Enemies Of The State?

Saw this little tidbit in USA Today at about the same time I was watching Enemy of the State. Naturally, my anti-government paranoia kicked in.

FBI official: 'Perfect storm' imperiling gun background checks

The surge of criminal background checks required of new gun purchasers has been so unrelenting in recent months that the FBI had been forced to temporarily halt the processing of thousands of appeals from prospective buyers whose firearm purchase attempts have been denied...

In other words, if you are wrongfully prohibited from purchasing a firearm because, for example, you have "a similar name and/or similar descriptive features" as someone with "either federally prohibiting criteria or state-prohibiting criteria" you are SOOL.

The transfer of examiners, which had left a backlog of 7,100 appeals, is only part of a makeshift reorganization that FBI Assistant Director Stephen Morris said has become necessary to handle a burgeoning workload...

“The last several months, we've kind of found ourselves in a perfect storm,’’ Morris said in an interview with USA TODAY. In each of the last six months, the number of background checks has risen steadily, according to FBI records..

Since before Thanksgiving weekend, all annual leave for the more than 400 employees of the bureau’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System has been canceled. That Black Friday, the system was swamped with 185,345 background check requests on new firearm sales, a new single-day record...

Thanks to one barack hussein obama, gun salesman of the year.

Normally I might be inclined to view this as just one more example of government ineptitude.

The NICS system, mandated by Congress as part of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, has for nearly 20 years been a centerpiece of the government's effort to block criminals from obtaining firearms. Yet the operation has largely struggled to keep pace with a steadily increasing number of firearm transfers...

Sadly, however, there can be deadly consequences when the systems screws up.

No one recent case underscores the sobering nature of the work here more, officials said, more than an April transaction in South Carolina, reviewed by a veteran examiner at the West Virginia facility.

In that case, which could not be resolved within the three-day period, Dylann Roof was mistakenly allowed to walk away with the .45-caliber handgun allegedly used two months later to kill nine people during an evening Bible study session at the iconic Emanuel AME Church in downtown Charleston.

"We are all sick about what happened,'' FBI Director James Comey said during a July briefing when the error was disclosed.

That case, IMO, was a true error. However, given obama's hypocritical antipathy towards firearms and firearms owners, I am somewhat skeptical regarding the overall situation.

("This year" = 2015)

News of (the halt in processing appeals) comes on the heels of Barack Obama’s much-publicized executive actions on gun control...

Suspending the NICS denial appeal process takes on an even more sinister character when one contemplates the chief gun control measure advocated by the Obama administration. Under a “universal” background check scheme, individuals would be unable to lawfully obtain firearms without subjecting themselves to a NICS check. If such legislation was currently in force, an individual who found themselves erroneously flagged by NICS, no matter how law-abiding, would have no avenue to legally acquire a firearm and no means to challenge their incorrect NICS status, obliterating their ability to exercise their rights in perpetuity...

That, I think, is the ultimate objective of barry and his gun-grabbing cronies.

Wordless Wednesday 2016.01.13

Last night was obama's last State of the Union address (insert relieved sigh and prolonged applause here).

Thank God...

Know The Enemy

The following Letter to the Editor appeared in the Dec. 17, 2015 edition of the San Antonio Express-News.

Automatic weapons have one purpose and one purpose only, and that’s to kill multiple people at one time. Therefore, no one in this country should have an automatic gun other than our trained military.

We should remember that until 2004 automatic weapons were outlawed, and there has been an uptick of mass shootings since.

The lies and rationalizations regarding automatic weapons spewed by Republicans are an affront to the sensibilities of the vast majority of Americans who cry for stricter gun controls.

I hope that during the 2016 congressional elections, frustrated Americans go to the polls and vote out every congressman who has opposed common sense gun control legislation.

Thomas Lee

It would be easier to carry on an intelligent discussion of gun control laws with people like Mr. Lee if they weren't so ignorant of basic facts. (Of course, if they were concerned with facts they might not write such uninformed letters in the first place, but one can't expect leopards to change their spots, or liberals to change their preconceived notions. Anyway...)

To clarify, since Mr. Lee seems unclear on the concept, let's first define our terms. From the font of all knowledge - Wikipedia - we have the following:

An automatic firearm continuously fires rounds as long as the trigger is pressed or held and there is ammunition in the magazine/chamber. In contrast, a semi-automatic firearm fires one round with each individual trigger-pull.

Now that we understand what we're talking about, let's take a closer look at Mr. Lee's letter.

"Automatic weapons have one purpose and one purpose only, and that’s to kill multiple people at one time."

Or to make sure that one person is well and truly dead. But I quibble. Let's continue.

 "Therefore, no one in this country should have an automatic gun other than our trained military."

What about law enforcement? They are currently allowed to posses automatic weapons. Should we disarm them?

"We should remember that until 2004 automatic weapons were outlawed, and there has been an uptick of mass shootings since."

I was unaware that automatic weapons became legal in 2004. If true, I'd love to run right out and get one. Unfortunately, after doing a little research, here's what I found.

It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department... (Note: a fully automatic weapon is legally considered to be a machine gun (or submachine gun, if it fires a handgun cartridge) under the National Firearms Act.)

Furthermore:

Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.

So it looks like ownership of automatic weapons is either tightly regulated or prohibited under two different federal gun control laws (not to mention multiple state and local laws). What on earth happened in 2004 to legalize automatic weapons?

As near as I can figure out, Mr. Lee is talking about the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act) which was enacted in 1994 and expired in 2004. Assault weapons, of course, are not the same as automatic weapons, but to the confused residents of Liberal Land they are one and the same. So let's give Mr. Lee the benefit of the doubt on this one and examine his claim that "...there has been an uptick of mass shootings since."

The following comes from a report compiled by the Congressional Research Service dated July 30, 2015.

From the report:

Click to embiggen.

What this tells us is that the average number of mass shootings remained relatively constant at around 20 per year over two five-year periods (1999-2003 and 2004-2008), with a slight increase to an average of 22 per year over the five year period of 2009-2013. There was no "uptick" in the five years immediately following 2004.

Furthermore, in the period between 1999 and 2013:

...out of 317 "mass shootings," offenders used firearms that could be characterized as "assault weapons" in 31 incidents (9.78%), or roughly 1 out of 10 incidents...

Back to Mr. Lee's letter:

The lies and rationalizations regarding automatic weapons spewed by Republicans are an affront to the sensibilities of the vast majority of Americans who cry for stricter gun controls.

Based on the facts presented above, I think it's pretty obvious that it's not the Republicans who are lying and rationalizing about gun controls.

One final note: back to the 'automatic weapons' point. Even on this issue the facts are unarguably against the leftists.

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant...

The other homicide ... occurred on September 14, 1992...

Yes, you read that right. In the last 81 years, legally owned automatic weapons have accounted for a grand total of TWO deaths. Yet they are feared and demonized by the left.

It's not about facts, or guns. It's about control.

Facts - Meh...

The democrats held a presidential debate Saturday night. Between the terrorist attacks in Paris and college football games, I didn't tune in. Neither, apparently, did many others.

It took less than an hour after Nielsen ratings revealed a disappointing 8.5 million person audience for last night’s CBS Democratic debate before campaigns resumed their griping about the Democratic National Committee’s debate schedule...

Given the quality of the candidates, that may have been a smart move on the part of the DNC. Why give that bunch of losers any more exposure than necessary? As is the wont of every liberal from obama on down, they played fast and loose with the truth. Take, for example, this statement by hillary on gun violence.

“Since we last debated in Las Vegas, nearly 3,000 people have been killed by guns. Two hundred children have been killed. This is an emergency.”

Clinton added that in the same period there have been 21 mass shootings:

“…including one last weekend in Des Moines where three were murdered.”

Let's take a look at some facts that contradict hillary's lies.

According to The Gun Violence Archive, there have been 11,537 gun deaths in the U.S. so far this year, or about 961 deaths per month on average, suggesting Clinton’s 3,000 is greatly exaggerated.

The data also shows the deaths of 83 children and teens from the date of the Las Vegas debate October 13 to the Iowa debate Saturday, not 200 as Clinton claimed.

When the Associated Press asked the Clinton campaign about the discrepancy between her figures and those of the Gun Violence Archive, the campaign pointed to:

    2013 statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
    2010 figures for the Children’s Defense Fund.

But neither of those is the time frame Clinton was talking about during the debate.

And the “mass shooting” Clinton mentioned took place outside a Des Moines nightclub in early November and one person was killed, not three. Four people were shot in total, with three injured.

But since the actual facts don't fit with the narrative, hillary evidently feels free to make make up her own.

What else is new?

Oregon Shootings

First of all, thoughts and prayers for the victims and their families of Thursday's shootings at Oregon's Umpqua Community College.

Second, I'm having a hard time containing my outrage at the antics of the loser currently wasting oxygen in the White House. I cannot believe that pathetic worm masquerading as the 'leader' of this country would politicize the tragic shootings while the bodies were still warm.

President Obama on Thursday made an impassioned case that gun violence is “something we should politicize” following a mass shooting at a community college in Oregon.

In his disgraceful rush to advance his political agenda while standing atop the dead bodies of the victims, barry performed his usual trick of misdirection, misleading, and outright lying about a problem - much less offering any solutions.

Eager to distract the country from the collapse of his Syria policy and the triumph of Russia in replacing the U.S. as the dominant force in the Middle East, he seized upon the deaths as means to advance his anti-gun agenda, with absolutely no knowledge of the guns used, or the means by which the shooter acquired them.  He referred to himself 28 times in the course of his 12-minute speech.

The president insisted that "modest regulation," consistent with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding gun owners," could "prevent this carnage from being inflicted someplace else in America." ... (but he) did not mention a single specific policy fitting that description.

So far, President Obama has said nothing about the ongoing carnage in his hometown of Chicago, where every weekend sees a slaughter nearly as bad as the event in Roseburg.

The reaction to these shootings will be predictable - on both sides. Leftists will call for more stringent gun-control laws. Those of us on the other side will counter that the shooter violated numerous existing laws, and more wouldn't have deterred him.

Perhaps the most obvious broken law was the one prohibiting firearms on campus. I don't understand why the anti-gun crowd believes that gun-free zones prevent gun violence. There are nine dead people in Oregon who could testify to the fallacy of that belief.

Thursday's events are going to be hashed and rehashed ad nauseum. I'll leave that to others. I will, however, save several thousand words by posing a few pictures that sum up my opinion.

Second Amendment Updates

For your enjoyment and enlightenment, here's a few Second Amendment related stories that have been in the news lately. Let's start off with misdirection, distortion, and outright lies by who else - barack obama and the mainstream media.

Obama’s Gun-Control Misfire - Before the 2014 election, the FBI claimed that mass shootings were up. False.

Last September the Obama administration produced an FBI report that said mass shooting attacks and deaths were up sharply—by an average annual rate of about 16% between 2000 and 2013. Moreover, the problem was worsening. “The findings establish an increasing frequency of incidents,” said the authors. “During the first 7 years included in the study, an average of 6.4 incidents occurred annually. In the last 7 years of the study, that average increased to 16.4 incidents annually.”

The White House could not possibly have been more pleased with the media reaction to these findings, which were prominently featured by the New York Times, USA Today, CNN, the Washington Post and other major outlets. The FBI report landed six weeks before the midterm elections, and the administration was hoping that the gun-control issue would help drive Democratic turnout.

But late last week, J. Pete Blair and M. Hunter Martaindale, two academics at Texas State University who co-authored the FBI report, acknowledged that “our data is imperfect.” They said that the news media “got it wrong” last year when they “mistakenly reported mass shootings were on the rise.”

... Over the past 40 years, there has been no statistically significant increase in mass shootings in the U.S.

Gee, distorted facts... inconsistent data sources... cherry-picked reporting periods... kind of reminds me of global warming climate change weather reports.

Of course, corrections of the 'mistaken' report were either buried or not even published by that same MSM.

On the other side of the country:

Rise in accidental gunshots by L.A. County deputies follows new firearm

Accidental gunshots by Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies have more than doubled in two years, endangering bystanders and occasionally injuring deputies. The jump coincides with the department's move to a new handgun that lacks a safety lever and requires less pressure to pull the trigger.

Sheriff's officials say that the increase in accidental discharges — from 12 in 2012 to 30 last year — occurred because deputies were adjusting to the new gun. They expect the numbers to fall in the years ahead. So far this year, the department has recorded seven accidental discharges, five of which involved the new weapon.

But the problems may not be over, as more deputies switch to the Smith & Wesson M&P9. In response, department officials have imposed extra training requirements.

... The switch was prompted in part by the threat of a lawsuit by women who had failed the Sheriff's Academy.

Naturally. If a woman/minority/transgender fails something, it's obviously sexism/racism/whateverism. Therefore the only right thing to do is to change the standards.

Sigh...

But the sharp increase in accidental discharges has prompted an investigation by the Sheriff's Department's new inspector general. Critics say this type of semiautomatic, which is widespread in law enforcement and includes the Glock used by many agencies, is too easy to misfire.

For two decades, L.A. County sheriff's deputies carried the Beretta 92F, a heavy metal gun with a large grip.

People with small hands often have trouble flipping up the Beretta's safety as they prepare to fire. The first shot requires 12 to 15 pounds of pressure on the trigger, forcing some to use two fingers and reducing shooting accuracy for many. Subsequent shots take about 4 pounds of pressure.

The M&P is made of lightweight polymer, with a hand grip that comes in three sizes. Firing a round is as simple as pulling the trigger with a consistent 6 to 8 pounds of pressure.

L.A. County sheriff's deputies learning to shoot the Beretta were taught to rest a finger on the trigger as soon as they took aim. The mantra was "on target, on trigger."

With M&Ps and Glocks, the trigger finger should stay on the side of the gun until the last moment.

That's where it should be. If people heeded that dictum there would be far fewer 'accidental' discharges.

The M&P appears to have fulfilled its promise on one front: More women are making it into the department. The percentage of female recruits who failed the firearms test has plunged from 6.4% to less than 1%.

Pass rates are up across the board, not just for women. With the Beretta, more than 60% of trainees in one academy class needed extra firearms training. Ten out of 80 or so trainees in another class flunked because of the shooting test.

With the M&P, the class with the worst shooting results sent only 17% of trainees to remediation, and only three failed.

So riddle me this. If more people are passing the certification test, why are negligent discharges up? That seems to indicate the training is less rigorous...

...but the social goals are being achieved. That's what really matters.

For the record, I have no objection to 'reasonable accommodations' that recognize the undeniable physical differences between men and women. Case in point: different combat boots and tactical vests/body armor for male and female soldiers. What I do object to is the lowering of standards to inflate the number of women in a given role. Different boots are okay. Different forced march or load-carrying standards are not.

Meanwhile, closer to home:

Two controversial gun bills were signed Saturday by Gov. Greg Abbott.

Senate Bill 11 — otherwise known as “campus carry” — allows licensed gun owners to carry a concealed handgun in and around public college buildings and dorms. The bill includes a concession allowing schools to carve out “gun-free zones.” It takes effect August 1, 2016.

House Bill 910 — otherwise known as “open carry” — lifts a 140-year-old ban. It will allow licensed gun owners to openly carry a holstered handgun in any location that allows the carrying of a concealed gun. It takes effect January 1, 2016.

They're not perfect, but it's a start. Of course, the same old tired arguments were trotted out - it'll be the Wild West all over again; blood will be flowing in the streets; etc. etc. etc. Well, here's a little reality check.

When the Texas Concealed Handgun Law took effect in 1996, pundits and naysayers predicted anarchy. Any minute, there would surely be mass violence as armed Texas citizens began roving the streets settling arguments with gunfire. Certainly, several proclaimed, within a year there would be blood in the streets as Texas returned to the days of the Wild West.

Ten years later the facts paint a different picture. Texas under the Concealed Handgun Law isn’t the Wild West, but the Mild West. No recurrent shootouts at four-way stops, no blood in the streets. Quite the contrary, Texans are safer than before.

Since the passage of the Concealed Handgun Law, the FBI Uniform Crime Report shows an 18% drop in handgun murders, down from 838 in 1995 to 688 in 2004. And a 13% drop in handgun murders per 100,000 population, down from 4.5 murders per 100,000 Texans in 1995 to 3.95 per 100,000 in 2004.

In 2000, on the fifth anniversary of the Concealed Handgun Law, the National Center for Policy Analysis issued a report that indicated Texans with concealed carry permits are far less likely to commit a serious crime than the average citizen.

According to the report, the more than 200,000 Texans licensed to carry a concealed firearm are much more law-abiding than the average person.

The report illustrated that Texans who exercise their right to carry firearms are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for a violent offense. They are 14 times less likely to be arrested for a non-violent offense.

More:

...the number of (Texas Concealed Handgun License) holders who commit murder or manslaughter is remarkably low. According to (Department of Public Safety) reports, the number of murder and manslaughter convictions for CHL holders has totaled 30 over the 16 years they’ve compiled the numbers . . .

... the ratio of CHL holder convictions for murder and manslaughter per 100,000 CHL holders per year (is) .70/100,000.

Yes, the decimal point is in the correct place. The rate of murder and manslaughter for the general population of Texas ... is 6.0/100,000.

Still, facts mean nothing to the anti-gunners...

Flaming Trousers

I have a friend who is a staunch conservative/libertarian. She went to see Bill Clinton speak as part of an industry-sponsored conference. I was somewhat taken aback when she posted the following.

I enjoyed hearing Bill Clinton speak a lot more than I thought I would... After listening to Bill speak, I believe that, no matter his faults, he does love his country and has faith that our problems can be solved if people will work together - traits that our current president is lacking.

No argument about the Clinton vs. obama  perspective. And I don't mean to question her insight. After all, she was there and I wasn't. Furthermore, there is no doubt that Bill Clinton is a captivating and persuasive speaker. But I found it interesting that the day after Slick Willie's speech this article was published.

Liars in High Places

You have to admire someone who can look you squarely in the eye, wag his index finger at you, and vociferously deny what is in fact the truth. But President Clinton may not have believed that he had actually lied. You see, “it depends on what the meaning of [sexual relations] is.” By Clinton’s lights, receiving oral sex isn’t sex. Who knew?

More than anyone else, it was Clinton who drove the Lewinsky scandal. Clinton’s lies and language games were what plunged the nation and the federal government into his sleazy swamp. And it was all unnecessary, because if his objective was to hang onto his job, Clinton didn’t need to lie. Indeed, he may have avoided impeachment altogether had he come out in the beginning and admitted to being the recipient of certain unsought-for attentions. Had he admitted upfront to a moment of weakness, the existence of a stained blue dress would have been assumed; it wouldn’t have had any power to damage. But no, Bubba had to lie.

And having lied, Clinton guaranteed his impeachment, as perjury in a grand jury is a felony, a high crime and therefore impeachable. The fellatio with an underling off the oval office was tawdry. But perjury, that’s big. Senators who might overlook the sex (or whatever you want to call it) weren’t going to overlook perjury...

But all that lying didn’t hurt Clinton too much with the public. And now he’s an elder “statesman,” the Big Dog; he’s Elvis, and all is forgiven...

For the political class, lying to the public is no big deal, as they’re rarely held accountable... The media seems to be trying to condition the American people into accepting lying by politicians in high places. (emphasis added)

It’s instructive to watch the Truth Revolt video of Clinton’s “that woman” press conference as it goes long enough to include the hearty standing ovation he was given by the nation’s journalists. The media can’t resist a bravura performance by a master liar.

During the Anthony Weiner scandal, MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell expressed incredulity that an elected official would have to resign because of lying. Given his position on lying, why believe O’Donnell about anything?

As for who is the more accomplished liar, Clinton or Obama, I’d have to give the gold medal to Obama. If you Google “Obama lies” with quotation marks, you’ll get thousands of hits, including Obama Lies. Obama even won PolitiFact’s 2013 Lie of the Year. Of course, neither one of them has any shame, but lying seems to come more naturally to Obama. Lying is Obama’s default position, his first refuge; it’s his go-to response: Don’t look here, there’s “not even a smidgeon of corruption”.

The problem for serial liars is that eventually they run out of an essential capital -- credibility. Once the liar’s credibility is used up, he’s done. The question for those who still support Barack Hussein Obama is why do they believe anything he says? If he lied about that, he’ll lie about this. Is it rational to believe Obama when he says Iran will not get nukes?

Recently, CNN’s Dana Bash asked Sen. Harry Reid about his 2012 lie concerning GOP candidate Mitt Romney. On the Senate floor, Reid had said: “Let him prove that he has paid taxes, because he hasn't.” Ms. Bash asked Reid if he had any regrets because “some people have even called it McCarthyite.” Reid answered: “Romney didn’t win, did he?”

Typical lying politician douche-bag. The truth or nothing else matters as long as your side wins.

I was raised to believe there is nothing lower than a liar. I believe that to this day. That's why I have nothing but contempt for lying politicians and their media enablers.

Score One For The Good Guys

Every once in a while this country still works the way it is supposed to.

How angry gun owners shouted down a ban on armor-piercing bullets

That didn't take long.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said Tuesday it was backing down from a proposed ban on manufacturing and selling one of the most popular bullets used in AR-15 semiautomatic rifles.

The agency pulled the plug early, with still a week to go before the end of a one-month informal comment period on the proposed rule change that would have targeted these armor-piercing bullets. The ATF noted it had received more than 80,000 comments, and "the vast majority of the comments received to date are critical of the framework, and included issues that deserve further study."

Criticism by gun-rights groups has been withering, accusing the agency of a "back-door" attempt at gun control with the proposal it announced Feb. 16.

The ATF proposal targeted 5.56mm "green tip" ammunition in SS109 and M855 cartridges. The armor-piercing bullet had been sold for years under an exemption to a 1986 law that sought to crack down on so-called cop killer bullets. Exemptions were granted if the ammunition was used mostly for sporting purposes -- hunting and target shooting -- and not in handguns. Now, the ATF sought to strip the "green tip" ammo of its exemption because of the development of AR-15 handguns that could fire the bullets.

Let's pause for a minute and think about that last paragraph. Exemptions are granted "if the ammunition was used mostly for sporting purposes -- hunting and target shooting -- and not in handguns." Hunting and target shooting is by far the most common use of the 'green tip' ammo. There are very few handguns held by the general public capable of shooting it. Likewise, to date there has not been a single case of a LEO being killed by a 'green tip' round.

Other issues:

The first and most important aspect is how the government defines “armor piercing.” Any type of centerfire rifle ammunition — and there are hundreds, including the AR-15 green tip — can penetrate a law enforcement vest. If the ATF can ban this type of ammunition under the argument that it is “armor piercing,” it can ban all centerfire ammunition. 

Second, the Obama administration has argued this ban is necessary to protect law enforcement, when there is zero evidence to show green-tip ammunition poses a special threat to law enforcement.

“Any ammunition is of concern to police in the wrong hands, but this specific round has historically not posed a law enforcement problem,” Fraternal Order of Police Executive Director James Pasco told the Washington Examiner recently.

This proposal isn’t about armor-piercing ammunition or protecting police officers. It’s about banning ammunition widely used in America’s most popular, and Obama’s most hated, rifle: the AR-15.

Exactly. And don't be misled by this apparent victory for gun rights advocates. Note the wording of the ATF press release.

...ATF will not at this time seek to issue a final framework. After the close of the comment period, ATF will process the comments received, further evaluate the issues raised therein, and provide additional open and transparent process (for example, through additional proposals and opportunities for comment) before proceeding... (emphasis added)

Very critical point there: the proposed ban has not been terminated - it has merely been 'put on hold.' To understand what that means we only have to look back one year.

Last year, the ATF successfully banned Russian-made 7N6 bullets on the grounds they were armor-piercing. Some gun-rights groups objected, but that ruling stood.

"We didn't put it out to comment," (ATF spokeswoman Danette) Seward noted. (emphasis added)

Once things have settled down, be on the lookout for an upcoming ban with no comment period. You can't trust those anti-gun fanatics any further than you can trust hillary clinton (you didn't think I'd forgotten about her, did you?)

HILLARY TELLS DEMS, PRESS TO SUCK IT UP

Hillary Clinton had a pretty straightforward message for Democrats and the media: Suck it up. She’s all they’ve got. There’s no viable alternative to her other than a Republican president. So they will have to choose whether they will side with her or with the GOP. Clinton even said that she would much rather have been there making partisan attacks on Senate Republicans, but noooooooo… she had to speak about her emails. All of those in the media and in Congress who had cautiously suggested that Clinton should show she was innocent of wrongdoing by coming clean got a big, wet raspberry from the Democratic frontrunner. The woman who has had attendants by her side since the late 1970s offered one flimsy excuse – convenience – for having operated a secret email server for government business every day of her tenure as secretary of state. And after that, it was just plain dismissive.

Audacity of ‘nope’ - Clinton said she has already destroyed – or, in Clintonian terms, “chose not to keep” – the evidence that would corroborate her claim of transparency. And she will not allow any outside access to the servers. Poof. Hard delete, indeed. Where Richard Nixon claimed the missing minutes from his audio tapes were accidentally erased, Clinton simply said she destroyed the stuff. A tactically better choice than Nixon’s, perhaps, but it’s beyond audacious. Now Republicans can choose whether or not to subpoena the servers, which were designed to leave no traces of deleted items. But she’s not taking any chances. Investigators can now decide whether a lengthy legal fight with the Clintons, possessed of limitless resources and huge influence, is worth it for something the candidate says is already gone.

The arrogance of that bitch surpasseth all understanding...

Lying Sack Of Sh*t - Day Three

Days One and Two here and here.

Backstory:

Hillary Clinton said on Tuesday she should have used a government email account as U.S. secretary of state, though she said she violated no rules, in her first public remarks over a controversy that could cloud her expected bid for the White House.

Clinton, the presumed front-runner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, has come under fire for using a private email account for official business when she was the top U.S. diplomat because of concerns that she hid important facts about her tenure and put her correspondence at a security risk.

"I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two," Clinton said at a press conference at the United Nations in New York.

"Looking back, it would've been better if I'd simply used a second email account and carried a second phone."

Gosh, and all these years I've been doing it the inconvenient way by carrying only one device while accessing multiple email accounts from it. Silly me.

Believe it or not, America, today’s newfangled gizmos are capable of accessing multiple e-mail accounts from the same device. You don’t need separate iPhones for your Gmail and work mail. And even if you did, even if the State Department’s security tech required a dedicated device for e-mail, what kind of goon would conclude that the “inconvenience” of carrying two devices (or having a lackey carry two devices for you) instead of one trumped protecting national security at the cabinet level? What kind of politician would admit that? Who would dare even attempt a “convenience” argument knowing that the public already knows she took the much more inconvenient step of setting up a private server at home? Her personal e-mail operation was more sophisticated than what 99-point-whatever percent of the public will ever use. Not only is the inconvenience excuse horrible politics, it’s transparently false.

And why is she claiming an aversion to two devices when she admitted to using two devices on camera just a few weeks ago?

Her team had a week to cook up some spin and this diarrhea is what they came up with?

It got worse. She admitted that she deleted e-mails — lots of them, although she insists that they were personal ones and therefore she wasn’t required to turn them over to State. For instance, she said, sometimes she e-mails with Bill.

Oops. Bill himself said he does not now, and has never used emails.

The former president ... has sent a grand total of two emails during his entire life, both as president, says Matt McKenna, his spokesman. (emphasis added)

One of Bill's emails was to astronaut and former Sen. John Glenn, the other was to U.S. troops.

But Hillary said during her press conference that her email server "contains personal communications from my husband and me."

It appears at least one Clinton is not telling the whole truth.

Whoa. Newsflash - stop the presses! A Clinton (at least one of them) has lied. Who woulda thunk?

Sadly, "the issue may not resonate with voters or with the donors who will be critical to funding Clinton's campaign."

This is but one example of why I fear for the future of my beloved country.

ETA this gem from Hope n' Change.

I Am So Tired Of This Crap

obama and hillary, the darlings of liberals everywhere and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself), get a free pass when it comes to lying.

As I noted yesterday, barry said he first heard about hillary's use of a private email account while she was Sec. of State "through news reports."

Well, guess what. It turns out he lied.

... In a weekend interview, Obama told CBS News that it was only recently “through news reports” that he’d learned that Clinton was using a nongovernment email system.

But White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Monday that Obama had personally exchanged emails with Clinton on her private account — hdr22@clintonemail.com — and was therefore familiar with the address...

Of course, being a good weasel spokesman, Earnest immediately applied max spin to the revelation.

Earnest said Obama had been referring to when he learned the specifics of Clinton’s email system — such as the fact that she had a privately run email server and was using the private account exclusively.

The only problem with that is obama's own words make it quite clear that he did not say that.

(CBS News Correspondent Bill) PLANTE: "Mr. President, when did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an e-mail system outside the U.S. government for official business while she was secretary of State?"

OBAMA: "At the same time as everybody else learned it, through news reports."

obama, hillary, and Earnest are what is often inelegantly and profanely referred to as "lying sacks of shit." IMO that's a pretty accurate description. I am totally fed up with the frequency and magnitude of their lies, not to mention the fact that they get away with it so often.

I don't understand why the American people put up with it...

Liar Liar Pants On Fire

Remember the outrage regarding Benghazi and "Hillary lied - People died?"

Well, before that lie hillary lied about being shot at during the Bosnia war.

During an introduction to a foreign policy speech on Iraq on March 17, 2008, Sen. Hillary Clinton reminisced about her days as first lady and a trip to Tuzla, Bosnia, she made in March 1996.

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

But that's not what happened, as demonstrated by CBS News video that shows Clinton arriving on the tarmac under no visible duress, and greeting a child who offers her a copy of a poem. The Washington Post Factchecker also turned a skeptical eye on Clinton's comments, reporting that a review of more than 100 news stories from the time documented no security threats to the First Lady.

Now comes the news that clinton sycophant and NBC News anchor Brian Williams can tell just as big a whopper as either one of the clintons.

It's an unmitigated disaster for Brian Williams and NBC News.

The revelation that the NBC anchor had lied on air about being in a helicopter that was forced down after it was hit by enemy fire during the Iraq War is devastating.

It's hard to see how Williams gets past this, and how he survives as the face of NBC News.

An anchor's No. 1 requirement is that he or she has credibility. If we don't believe what an anchor tells us, what's the point?

I don't know about you, but I haven't believed a word that a mainstream news anchor said since Walter Cronkite lied about the Tet offensive.

More Schadenfreude

... or should that be "More Karma"?

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid broke a number of ribs and bones in his face when a piece of exercise equipment broke at his Nevada home, causing the lawmaker to fall.

Broken bones = Schadenfreude.

Here's the Karma.

If we truly were 'ruled' by representative government, the assholes in D.C. would be subject to the same laws they impose on the rest of us.

If only...

Christmas Spirit

I am sick and tired of the depressing crap that dominates the news these days - not the least of which is the latest massacre perpetrated by the 'religion of peace.'

The floors are streaked in blood and the walls pockmarked with bullet holes. Many children trying to flee were shot in the doorways of their classrooms; their bodies piled up, preventing others from escaping.

Co-exist my ass.

Then there's all the nonsense on the domestic front, the most ridiculous of which is michelle obama's claim that someone asking her to reach an item on the top shelf in Target was racial discrimination.

Michelle Obama worked her way way through college compiling poorly written essays on racial discrimination. Now, she is talking to People Magazine about a tour she took recently as the First Lady of the United States at a Target store. At 5 ft. 11 in., someone didn’t recognize her, and asked Michelle to help her grab something off of a shelf. Which is racism…

“I tell this story – I mean, even as the first lady – during that wonderfully publicized trip I took to Target, not highly disguised, the only person who came up to me in the store was a woman who asked me to help her take something off a shelf. Because she didn’t see me as the first lady, she saw me as someone who could help her. Those kinds of things happen in life. So it isn’t anything new,” Michelle Obama, who is 5’11”, said.

One of the many problem's with that statement is that it runs counter to her original remarks on the event. She said the following during an interview with David Letterman back in 2012.

MICHELLE OBAMA: I thought I was undercover. I have to tell you something about this trip though. No one knew that was me because a woman actually walked up to me, right? I was in the detergent aisle, and she said — I kid you not — she said, "Excuse me, I just have to ask you something," and I thought, "Oh, cover’s blown." She said, "Can you reach on that shelf and hand me the detergent?"  I kid you not…And the only thing she said — I reached up, ’cause she was short, and I reached up, pulled it down — she said, "Well, you didn’t have to make it look so easy." That was my interaction. I felt so good.

So which is it, mooch? Racism, feel-good interaction, or shameless hypocrisy to further a fabricated narrative?

I think we all know the answer to that one.

Anyway, like I said, I'm fed up and disgusted with all that's going on these days - and during the holiday Christmas season, no less.

Time for a little Christmas spirit...

My One And Only Post On Ferguson (Hopefully)

I am thoroughly disgusted by the events in Ferguson. A tragic shooting ... a rush to judgment ... one-sided reporting ... a populace that refuses to accept the facts ... a government that kow-tows to rioters and looters ... It all leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

In my opinion, here's the money quote from the Ferguson fiasco.

"Before the results of the private autopsy were released, witnesses on social media, during interviews with the media, and even during questioning by law enforcement claimed that they saw Officer Wilson stand over Michael Brown and fire many rounds into his back.

"Others claimed that Officer Wilson shot Mr. Brown in the back as Mr. Brown was running away.

"However, once the autopsy findings were released showing that Michael Brown had not sustained any wound to the back of his body, no additional witnesses made such a claim and several witnesses adjusted their stories in subsequent statements. Some even admitted that they did not witness the event at all, but merely repeated what they heard," the prosecuting attorney said. (emphasis added)

So are those who lied to the police being held accountable? Are those who are burning, looting, and rioting being held accountable?

Of course not.

Because to do so would be racist...

Peaceful protestors seeking justice for gentle giant Michael Brown.