Saturday, August 01, 2009
.22LR in both pistol and rifle forms? Check.
S&W Model 36 in .38 Special? Check.
Wolf .50 Caliber muzzle loader? Check.
Pardon me for the lack of blogging, but we'll be blowing holes in paper for a goodly long while today.
UPDATE: Ammo expended -
7.62X54R - 20
.45 ACP - 50
.38 Special - 60
.22LR - 800
.50 Caliber lead ball - 20
It was a good day. I spent quite a bit of time with the step-son, ensuring that he remembered the basics, and then expounding on what he knew. He spent hours happily poking holes in paper at long distances. I then proceeded to sight in the muzzle-loader, and made sure the Mosin-Nagant was still sighted in. I'm certain that as of right now, I could take both of them hunting and hit what I was aiming at. I only recently got my M1911 fixed, and so this was the first range session in a long time for it. Ran a box through it, had two failure to feeds, but that could have been the steel case Wolf ammo. In any case, the gunsmith did a good repair job considering the thousands upon thousands of rounds that I've put through it over the years. The S&W ran sixty rounds through nicely, although you expect that with a S&W revolver.
All in all, it was a darn good day. Especially since I gave the wife time enough to set up the step-son's suprise birthday party without him having any hint of it.
Friday, July 31, 2009
The Washington Times has published more follow-up stories today and yesterday about the Justice Department’s dismissal of a voter intimidation lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party (a racist hate group according to the Southern Poverty Law Center) – despite the fact that the defendants defaulted and failed to answer the complaint. The new revelation is that Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli approved the dismissal. He is the No. 3 official at Justice and is a political appointee who raised $500,000 for President Obama’s campaign.DOJ Civil Rights: Black Panther Voter Fraud Absolved
There is no doubt that this was one of the worst cases of voter intimidation the Department has seen in decades, but it was against militant black defendants, not white defendants. This is exactly the kind of situation that upsets the traditional civil rights community, which does not believe that federal voting rights laws should be used to protect white voters. The Department’s weak and belated explanation for the dismissal of this suit is frankly absurd.
The Department’s spokeswoman says that “the facts and the law did not support pursuing the claims.” Really? Then why is the Department refusing to allow the trial team who actually investigated the “facts and the law” or the chief of the Voting Section who supervised the investigation to brief members of Congress? We all know why – because those lawyers would dispute the spurious claim being made by their political superiors.
The message from the Justice Department with this dismissal is that if you are a member of a black hate group, you can intimidate, threaten, and hurl racial epithets at white voters and poll watchers, and the Justice Department will give you a pass. We all know that if it had been the Ku Klux Klan or the Aryan Brotherhood at the polls in Philadelphia acting in this manner towards black voters, Associate Attorney General Perelli and Attorney General Holder would never have even considered dismissing the case. They would be bragging in the press about their pursuit of a civil injunction against all of these defendants, and would be pressing the Criminal Division at Justice to indict them on criminal charges.
After intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling precinct, decked out like a military thugs from a third world country, wielding at least one 2-ft. long nightstick, a civil lawsuit was filed. The three men charged refused to show up for their court cases for five months – that’s 5 months – and they did show! The government won a default judgement in federal court against the New Black Panthers and three of their men. In April, however, department lawyers were told to drop the case – after already procuring the default judgment. Unbelievable.Washington Times Confirms: Department Lied to Congress
Schmaler is certainly a Liberal. She had the audacity to says “we [DOJ] are committed to vigorous enforcement of the laws protecting anyone exercising his or her right to vote.” Only Liberals have that special kind of audacity. What about the people of Philadelphia? What about the people inside and outside the polling place? What about Mr. Bull – a man who signed an affidavit tell what he saw that day?
Can you believe that the DOJ never did get around to entering Mr. Bull’s affidavit! I know it is drama to say that I want to cry for this country and for my children, but that is how I feel. This is not justice. Where is the ACLU on behalf of the American voter?
King Samir Shabazz (L) and Jerry Jackson (R), both of Philadelphia. See them all in the video...
...the New Black Panthers were featured on the Obama for President website in March 2008."Nonthreatening" Black Panther defendant likes "Killing Crakkkers"
"Stephen R. Morse, a blogger hired by Republicans to be at the polls and who videotaped the confrontation, said the NBPP members blatantly used racial insults on would-be voters and other poll watchers, telling one man, 'Cracker, you about to be ruled by a black man.'
Jackson was mysteriously dismissed from the case because the Department falsely claimed Jackson lived where the poll was located and that Jackson was not threatening.
"Mr. Jackson's MySpace page still lists one of his main 'general interests' as 'Killing Crakkkas.' Four days after the Justice Department dropped the complaint against Mr. Jackson, he again was named an official election poll watcher for the Democratic primary in Philadelphia's municipal election. How convenient."
So has my wife.....
If you want to make health care affordable, get the blood-sucking, ambulance-chasing, get-rich-quick parasites (like John Edwards) away from health care. Limit the "pain and suffering" damages that make people sue doctors at the drop of a hat in an attempt to get rich. Because that will lower the cost of their malpractice insurance.
Or, keep going down the road we're on, and lose your doctors and your health care.
The choice is yours. Me, I like modern medicine, and I'd like to see it advance while I'm alive.
I won't go into quoting bits and pieces. I'll just say that it's the writing of one Francsis Porretto, and trust you to go read it. The one comment I will make is in reference to Part One - when you break the law by following the law, it's the law itself that's broken, and no one can truly be free until the law and the people who wrote it are removed.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!
Pg 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death. Excuse me???!?!?!?
Pg 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends
Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An “advance care planning consult” will be used frequently as patient's health deteriorates
Pg 429 Lines 10-12 “Advance care consultation” may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV
Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.
Pg 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life
Are being proposed is enough cause for me to call for the impeachment of those who vote for it. There's more at the link. It's not pretty.
Found via here and here.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Tell me again why people thought GWB was so stupid?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisors with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had misspelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as "proof" of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on "Earth Day," would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually "get" what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt within 10 years, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the unions a majority stake in GM and Chrysler, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 6 months -- so you'll have three years and six months to come up with an answer.
If the media had not been so in the tank for Obama, maybe America could have seen just what a jackass the man really is. Speaking of the
Remember, every time a "news"paper has to stop it's presses, the baby Jesus smiles!
As the dew dries to crusted smegma on the Obama rose, we need to find better metaphors for the Obamallationist media that's looking for a way to rinse the acrid taste out of their morning-after mouths.
Yes, with every passing day spin is getting more and more difficult and desperate for those that stapled their scrotums to the axles of Obama's juggernaut. To paraphrase their jug-eared idol, "It seems that each successive yelp from the executive suites of these dying outlets has said, in the face of plummeting ratings, circulation and interest, that somehow these media communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to reverse-racism or progressive-religion or antipathy to white people who aren’t like Democrats."
So anyways, it was still a good weekend. I got to spend time with friends and family, I saw a friend that I had not seen in over a decade, there was much food, a wee bit 'o booze (I was one of the few who stayed relatively sober) and a lot of laughs.
All in all, it was good. Photos to follow, maybe.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
On Wednesday, July 22, by a margin of 58-39, a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate voted in favor of an amendment offered by Senators John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) to provide interstate recognition of Right-to-Carry permits. The amendment to S.1390 -- the National Defense Authorization Act -- would acknowledge that the right to self-defense extends across state lines. Under this provision, individuals with carry permits from their home state, or who are otherwise allowed to carry a firearm in their home state, could carry in any other state that issues permits.
Despite the bipartisan majority of votes, the Thune-Vitter amendment did not pass because it fell just two votes short of the required 60 votes for approval. This 60-vote approval threshold was decided upon by a procedural agreement between Senate leaders. The agreement was, in part, used to avoid a filibuster and any hostile amendments to the Thune-Vitter amendment.
from NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 16, No. 29