Month: December 2013

Uncategorized

Best Comment On The NFL’s Denial Of Daniel Defense’s Super Bowl Ad

December 8, 2013 by 9 Comments

David E.  Petzal, rifle editor of Field and Stream, writing in The Gun Nut blog on F&S’s website had what I consider the best comment on the controversy over the NFL’s denial of the Daniel Defense Super Bowl Ad.

It’s possible that this is nothing more than hypocrisy. But the real reason, I think, is that the NFL is trying to protect its investments. The oversized guy who crashes his $150,000 custom SUV into a house and breaks down the door with his fists to strangle the family inside may be someone’s number one draft pick, and all those millions his team spent on him would go right down the drain if some terrified homeowner shot him in self-defense.

And we can’t have that now, can we? It’s…un-American.

That is truly snarky….and I love it!

Uncategorized

How Pro-Gun Are You If You Get Money From Gabby’s New PAC?

December 8, 2013 by 4 Comments

Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) is not doing too well with North Carolinians right now. The latest Elon University poll from late November reports that only 37% of registered voters approve of her job performance. By contrast, 43.5% of registered voters disapprove of her job performance. Much of this is related to her support for ObamaCare.

This may explain why she wants to be identified with hunters and anglers. In early November she introduced S. 1660 which is “To protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting, and for other purposes.” Interestingly, 4 of the 5 co-sponsors are Democrats facing tough re-election fights in 2014. The bill actually does some good stuff such as exempting excise tax trust funds from budget cuts and providing money for public shooting ranges.

Hagan makes a big point about coming “from a family of lifelong hunters” as if this assures voters of her support for the Second Amendment. Hagan voted in favor of the Manchin-Toomey amendment back in April. As I said then and I will say again, any Red State Democrat who says they support the Second Amendment and then voted for Manchin-Toomey is lying to you.

As reported yesterday in Politico, USA Today, and Shall Not Be Questioned, the former Gabby PAC has been renamed the Rights and Responsibilities PAC. The PAC is funded with nearly $300,000 from her old campaign account. The goal of the PAC is to funnel campaign money to both Democrats and Republicans who “share her views on gun control” according to a story from late yesterday in USA Today. Of course, whether Gabby has the wherewithal to form her own views is an issue for another day.

So who is one of the first to get money form the Rights and Responsibilities PAC?

Giffords’ Rights and Responsibilities PAC is funded by money left over in the Arizona Democrat’s campaign account. The new PAC will start by contributing to the campaigns of Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., Sen. Sue Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., said Pia Carusone, a senior Giffords adviser.

All supported a measure fashioned by Toomey and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., that would have required background checks on all commercial sales of guns. That provision and other major gun-control measures failed to pass Congress this year, despite widespread calls to overhaul the nation’s gun laws after 26 children and adults were gunned down last December at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

So how pro-gun are you really if you get money from Gabby’s gun control PAC? I think the answer is obvious – not much. Just like Hagan lied about you getting to keep your old health insurance, her support of the Second Amendment is also suspect. The only question in my mind is when soon-to-be former Mayor Bloomberg digs into his own deep pockets and contributes to Kay Hagan.

Uncategorized

Purl Harder!

December 7, 2013 by 1 Comment

One of the more unusual propaganda posters published after the attack on Pearl Harbor has to be the one below.

 

It is trying to encourage the women of America to do their part by knitting wool socks and sweaters for the fighting men. You will notice that the knitting needles form the “V for Victory”.

The poster above is part of the collection of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History.

Uncategorized

A True Hero From December 7, 1941

December 7, 2013 by

“Battleship Row in Flames” by John Hamilton

In looking for material for today’s post on the 72nd anniversary of the Imperial Japanese Navy’s attack on Pearl Harbor, I came across the story of Wesley Ruth. Mr. Ruth lives in Matthews, North Carolina and is one of the older survivors of that day at age 100. At the time, he was a young Navy ensign assigned to an unarmed photography squadron as a pilot. He was having breakfast that Sunday morning when the attack began. When he saw the Japanese bombers, he jumped into his convertible and drove to the north end of Oahu to get a handle on what was happening.

“I was about a quarter-mile from the Arizona and I saw the Arizona bombed. There were powder pellets about the size of my finger that flew that distance, from the ship to me, coming down on me just like snow.”

Worried the Japanese would spot his convertible and strafe him, Ruth said, he headed for the airfield and passed the clinic on his way. “I could see a number of dead bodies on the lawn.”

After arriving at the airfield, Ruth was assigned to a reconnaissance mission:  find the Japanese fleet. His plane was a Silkorsky S-43 which the Navy had renumbered as the JRS-1. The S-43 or Navy JRS-1 amphibian was primarily used as a passenger plane by Pan American Airlines for trips to Cuba and Latin America. It was nicknamed the “Baby Clipper”. Ruth was to fly 250 miles north and 10 miles east along with a copilot and three observers to find the Japanese. His armament for this mission were three bolt-action Springfield rifles given to the guys in the back of the plane. The JRS-1 would have been easy pickings for any Japanese Zero but Ensign Ruth had a mission and he did it.

For this mission, Ensign Ruth was award the Navy Cross. His citation reads as follows:

The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting the Navy Cross to Wesley H. Ruth, Lieutenant, Junior Grade [then Ensign], U.S. Navy, for extraordinary heroism in operations against the enemy while serving as Pilot of an airplane, and for extraordinary courage and disregard of his own safety during the attack on the Fleet in Pearl Harbor, Territory of Hawaii, by Japanese forces on 7 December 1941. Although contact with the enemy meant almost certain destruction and despite lack of armament in this type of plane, Lieutenant, Junior Grade, Ruth voluntarily piloted a JRS amphibian plane, with only Springfield rifles, in search of and to obtain information of the enemy forces. At a point two hundred miles north of Oahu, Lieutenant Ruth did contact an enemy aircraft and only through prompt and extremely skillful handling of his plane did he succeed in escaping and returning to Pearl Harbor. Lieutenant, Junior Grade, Ruth’s outstanding courage, daring airmanship and determined skill were at all times inspiring and in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

While his citation says they encountered an enemy aircraft, Ruth in his interview says they didn’t encounter anything. It really doesn’t matter in the long run. Taking off in an unarmed plane – I don’t count the guys with the Springfield rifles – and completing his mission knowing the whole time he was a sitting duck is heroic enough for me.

Ensign Ruth went on to complete a Navy career of 20 years and retired as a Commander.  I can only hope that his final few years are easy ones because he already did the hard part 72 years ago.

Uncategorized

Republicans Are Bigger Killers

December 6, 2013 by 1 Comment

I haven’t gone all lefty and joined with Ladd over at CSGV. I promise! Actually, I’m referring to a story in the Madison, Wisconsin Capital Times about the deer hunting prowess of the Republicans in the Wisconsin State Senate as compared to that of the Democrats.

Republicans in the Wisconsin state Senate had the magic touch this deer hunting season, bagging more deer than their colleagues in the Assembly and all their Democratic colleagues combined.

Of the 18 Senate Republicans, Terry Moulton of Chippewa Falls, Dale Schultz of Richland Center, Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald of Juneau, Richard Gudex of Fond du Lac, Sheila Harsdorf of River Falls, Neal Kedzie of Elkhorn and Paul Farrow of Pewaukee went hunting over the eight-day gun deer season that ended Dec. 1.

Fitzgerald, Harsdorf, Kedzie and Gudex each got a deer.

“I guess we’re a better shot,” joked Gudex, who bagged an 8-point buck on opening day.

Of the Democrats in both the Senate and Assembly, none were successful this year.

I do like the comments of Rep. Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) as to why she went hunting for the first time and on her experience.

A freshman lawmaker elected in 2012, Hesselbein told herself if she was made a member of the Assembly Natural Resources and Sporting Heritage Committee, she would go deer hunting.

She was, so she did. She borrowed a 20-gauge shotgun and practiced shooting at the Dane County range. But the only animal she saw in the woods was a squirrel. She said she was surprised by the fact that she enjoyed the experience.

“You have to be so quiet. You can’t even check email,” Hesselbein said. “You just get to sit and look at the beauty of Wisconsin.”

Uncategorized

Happy Repeal Day!

December 6, 2013 by 1 Comment

Repeal Day commemorates the repeal of prohibition when the 21st Amendment was ratified on December 5, 1933. Somewhat ironically, it was the state of Utah that put ratification of the 21st Amendment over the top.

On December 5th, 1933, Utah, the final state needed for a three quarters majority, ratified the 21st Amendment, repealing Prohibition and restoring the American right to a celebratory drink. While the amendment still allowed for state and local levels of Prohibition, by 1966 there were no state laws banning alcohol.

 The libertarian Reason TV produced a video on George Cassiday who was Congress’ favorite bootlegger in celebration of Repeal Day 2012. Mr. Cassiday even had an office in both the House and Senate Office Buildings.

So on this Repeal Day, if you indulge in adult beverages, celebrate this country coming to its senses.

Uncategorized

Marty Daniels – “Maybe I Should Throw The Challenge Flag”

December 4, 2013 by 1 Comment

Marty Daniels of Daniels Defense talked with Cam Edwards yesterday about the NFL’s rejection of the Daniels Defense Superbowl ad.

Daniels discussed how they approached the Fox affiliate in Atlanta about running their ad during the Superbowl and how the NFL responded with an unequivocal no even after Daniels offered to remove the company’s log. He noted that the local NBC affiliate in Georgia ran their ad during last year’s Superbowl with some hesitancy but they ran it.

Daniels says he is a bit amazed at the response the NFL’s rejection of his company’s ad has generated. He has heard from a number of people who are outraged at the sheer hypocrisy of the NFL and wonder what happened to their country.

He concludes with a bit of humor saying maybe he ought to throw the challenge flag and ask the NFL to review the “ruling on the field”.

Lest it be forgotten, the NFL allowed ads from Mayor Bloomberg’s Illegal Mayors during the 2012 and 2013 Superbowls.

Uncategorized

Are Not Southern Law Schools Good Enough?

December 4, 2013 by 5 Comments

Gideon’s Promise is a non-profit in Atlanta that trains and pushes for public defenders throughout the South. I can find nothing wrong with that goal as I believe every defendant is entitled to competent defense counsel regardless of whether he or she can pay for it. That was the basis of the famed Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainwright.

They have recently initiated a program to place recent law school graduates in public defender’s offices in the South. The program is called the Law School Partnership Project. The law school funds a recent graduate of their school for one year in a public defender’s office and the office, in turn, commits to hire that person for a permanent position. The new lawyer will also get three years of training and mentorship from Gideon’s Promise under their Core 101 program. The program has received a $1 million grant from the DOJ to help it get off the ground.

So far, this is all well and good. Where I have problems with it is that the law schools involved so far are not in the South.

From the National Law Journal:

The new Law School Partnership Project so far has three law schools lined up: The University of California at Los Angeles School of Law; New York University School of Law; and American University Washington College of Law.

“The vital work of improving the quality of public defense is completely consistent with the law school’s mission of pursuing access to justice for all,” said American law dean Claudio Grossman. “This partnership will create a concrete pathway between law students and public defense work upon graduation and will be a significant service to communities in need.”

This is just what the South needs: lawyers from New York and California coming here to show the provincials how it is done.

Why not recruit graduates of such well ranked law schools as Duke, UVa, Vanderbilt, or Texas? They are all ranked ahead of UCLA in the US News & World Report law school rankings. And when it comes to American University’s Washington College of Law, I count an additional 16 Southern law schools that are more highly ranked than it.

Frankly, if I were on trial in Jackson or Birmingham or Memphis, I’m not sure I’d want some young lawyer parachuted in from LA or New York City wearing a blue seersucker suit (because that is what they think everyone practicing law in the South wears) defending me before a local jury.

I hope Gideon’s Promise makes a serious effort to bring Southern law schools into the program. Then, and only then, would I give it my full support.

Uncategorized

NSSF’s Lawsuit Against Connecticut’s SB 1160 Dismissed

December 4, 2013 by 2 Comments

Chief District Court Judge Janet Hall dismissed the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s lawsuit which sought an injunction against Connecticut’s new gun control law on Monday. Hall, a Clinton appointee, dismissed the case under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Procedure which states that a plaintiff must have standing to bring a case. She agreed with the State of Connecticut’s claim that the NSSF did not have standing to challenge SB 1160.

The case which was brought in July of this year sought to have Connecticut’s draconian gun control law – SB 1160 – invalidated because the state did not follow its own legislative rules when it claimed an “emergency certification” exemption. Normally a bill in Connecticut must be available to be read by state legislators for two legislative days before it can be voted upon. An exemption can be granted in emergency situations if the Speaker of the House and the Senate President Pro Tem certify in writing the necessity for the emergency exemption along with the supporting facts. In this case while they did certify the emergency they failed to state any facts to support their certification. (See items 18 through 33 in the plaintiff’s complaint.)

Judge Hall states that the NSSF would have standing to challenge the gun control law’s impact on its members but not to challenge the defects in the legislative process that led to the bill being passed. She found that the NSSF’s complaint was a “generally available grievance against government” which other courts have found not to confer standing.

Here,
the
claimed
pecuniary injury
make
s
NSSF a
proper party to
challenge gun control legislation. That injury, however,
does
not make
NSSF
—
or any
other
member of the public
aggrieved
only incidentally
by
procedurally defective
legislation
—
into a proper party to challenge
the
defects
in legislative process.

Judge Hall goes on to say:

Because
the pecuniary injury asserted as the basis for NSSF‟s standing is
unrelated to
the rights of democratic participation in the legislative process that NSSF
seeks to vindicate, the court lacks the authority to adjudicate the
claims put forward in
this
case
. Accordingly,
the case must be dismissed
for lack of standing.

She concludes by granting the state’s motion to dismiss and by stating that based upon the NSSF’s written and oral pleadings that they “would be unable to replead to satisfy the standing requirement.”

The NSSF is reportedly studying the decision and weighing its options.

Uncategorized

Day By Day Nails OFA And Their Blood Dancing

December 4, 2013 by

Chris Muir of Day by Day Cartoon nails Obama’s continuing campaign arm Organizing for Action which is encouraging people to hold “Newtown anniversary events”.

These ghoulish events are meant to push Obama’s gun control agenda reports The Hill.

Organizing for Action (OFA) says it intends the events to be a “powerful reminder of what we lost a year ago, and a reminder that we as a nation need to do more to prevent gun violence and keep our communities safe.”

OFA says that the events will be held in towns and cities across the country and will be used to “call on Congress to finally take action to make our communities safer.”

Following the mass shooting that left 20 schoolchildren and six school employees dead, Obama called for legislation that would expand background checks on firearm purchases, create new penalties on straw purchases and include new funding for school security.

Noting that The Hill characterized OFA as Obama’s “campaign arm”, Glenn Reynolds said “it’s super-creepy that a term-limited president has one.” To me, OFA seems like something one might have seen in Mao’s China, Hitler’s Germany, or Mussolini’s Italy. In other words, an organization whose sole purpose is to be an extra-governmental, extra-political party organization providing cult-like followers to the man in power. That goes beyond creepy in my opinion; that is scary.

Courtesy of Chris Muir