The New (Armored) Math

This is why I love American Thinker. Some damned fine reporting is below. Somebody actually sat down and thought it through: Why oh why do we need 2700 armored vehicles in the United States of America? (DHS just ordered them.  They still have that new, tank smell.) Putting aside the question of why on earth we need them at all, and just addressing the sheer size of the order;  maybe we’re just perceiving that number all wrong and maybe that’s what’s creeping us out? After all, America is one damned big country.  Maybe (just go with me here) 2700 isn’t enough rather than a seriously creepy too many?… Eh… Not so much.

Read this one paragraph below from the article “Armored Vehicles for DHS, Slingshots for You” and if this one paragraph doesn’t give you pause, you’re in the wrong place. Go swig some more kool-aid. I can’t help you here.

“According to 2011 Census data, the U.S. has nine cities with populations over one million, and twenty-five more with populations over half a million, but under a million. Let us assign thirty armored vehicles to each of the megacities, and fifteen to each city between half a million and a million. That would be 645 vehicles. Now, for each of the next forty-one cities, down to a quarter million citizens, let us designate ten vehicles, i.e., 410 altogether. That makes 1,055. For the smaller cities, down to a bare one hundred thousand (Broken Arrow, Oklahoma), let’s provide five each, or 1,050. That makes the total 2,105.”

The Caliber of Your Welcome Mat

(See UPDATE below!)

Gun Free Zone




It’s soooooo predictable.  I mean… Every damned time.  E-v-e-r-y   s-i-n-g-l-e   s-t-i-n-k-i-n-g  d-a-m-n-e-d   t-i-m-e the very people the do-gooders doo-doo their good-on get doo’d-doo’d on.  (Or to quote our faux intellectual President who couldn’t string together a single elegantly wrought sentence if his life depended on it:  “wee-wee’d up”).

Even liberals who are anti-gun are protesting the stupid gun-owner map this little rag suburban NY paper put up on the ‘net.  Know why?  Because the NON-gun owners are now targeted as being unprotected. Included in this population are the wives & children of prison guards who are now being threatened with harm while their husbands are at work (thugs talk, even in prison, with their thug buddies on the outside – duh). Also threatened are women hiding from abusive husbands. They also are now outed as NOT having arms, thus ripe for a fresh beating – or killing.  The list of innocents now targeted for harm is long and the crooks are openly thanking the paper for doing it.
Way to go.
I left the comment below at NYT this morning. I can’t believe they published it. (UPDATE:  Judging from some of the replies posted to it, the sarcasm was utterly lost on them, both NYT readers & NYT comment editors alike. Oy.) Or maybe they’re just trying to save their own jobs if their own paper does something equally as felony stupid.

.NYT Comment on gun map


BTW: Judge Napolitano gives the best explanation of why this is wrong I’ve yet heard here.


UPDATE, SAT JAN 12: Hah!  Seems someone else had the same idea and outed these morons: “Journalists REJECT Personal ‘Gun-Free’ Zone Signs”!

James O'Keefe, WND, Gun-Free Zone Signs, Journalists Reject



Mere possession of a high-capacity gun clip is illegal in Washington D.C. where Meet the Press is filmed. Despite this, host David Gregory all but dared D.C. Police to arrest him in a segment last Sunday on the shootings in Newtown, CT.

I hadn’t blogged on this, but in light of this report in Politico this morning, I must:


“…NBC was told by the Washington, D.C., police that it was ‘not permissible’ to show a high-capacity gun magazine on air before Sunday’s ‘Meet the Press,’ according to a statement Wednesday from the cops.
‘NBC contacted [the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department] inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for their segment,’ Gwendolyn Crump, a police spokeswoman, said in an email. ‘NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazine is not permissible and their request was denied…'”

I had refrained from comment because I felt that – despite my visceral distaste for the man – bringing the full force of the law down on him would be an abuse of discretion. I felt that he deserved a good scare, for sure, so that he and others in the Ruling Class were chastened – however futile the cause – back a bit from their own unearned self-regard.
But knowing that they asked, were denied and did it anyway changes everything.  They could have just as easily used b-roll to make the point. It was utter arrogance to do the segment as aired and for that, for knowing defiance of the law, he should ABSOLUTELY be prosecuted.
Book ’em Danno.

This Image Should Haunt All of Us

slone (@slone) November 27, 2012 OH DEAR! The liberal jackholes don’t like me calling out Obama for being the POS that he is regarding #Benghazi#tcot…


What I Learned One Night Watching MSNBC & FOX

Switching between Fox News Network and MSNBC this evening, the contrast couldn’t be more sharp.

At the bottom the screen, under Rachel Maddow, is a graphic of the capital dome with a banner of flags (Think car dealership) with letters on each flag that spell “Block Party.” Reasonable to assume that this was the network’s way of celebrating passage of the Health Care bill today. Maddow is a commentator, so it’s not like this graphic was under a “pure” news hour’s show, under an “anchor” who is, by definition if not actual practice, supposed to be impartial, but having a network hang such a purely partisan banner even under a discussion show is pushing it. When I tune into a news discussion show I do so to learn something I didn’t know before, not be fed propaganda. A banner like that tells me I am unlikely to hear anything negative about the legislation passed today. It would be like telling the birthday girl her dress is ugly, you know?

And what were they talking about? Those gun-toting Tea Partiers. Now, there still isn’t any video proof or audio proof that either congressman was, in fact, called a “N-gger” or spat at as a “F-g” but MSNBC has played the tape of the congressman reacting to something clearly unpleasant that was said over and over again. Let me repeat: Though there is tape of it, absolutely no-one has been able to ascertain from it what as actually said. Now, I’m not suggesting that the congressman lied about being called the reprehensible “N” word, but so far, all we have is a politician’s testimony. We don’t have any idea who said it, if at all, thus, no idea whatsoever if they were a Tea Partier or not. Might have been Klan, who knows?

There is also zero evidence of the “spitting” incident. That is particularly disturbing, if it happened, and if it didn’t. That’s assault. Why the congressman wouldn’t have Capital Police arrest, baffles me.

Rachel spent the entire segment showing pictures of gun-toting citizens. There were three side by side. Note: all the guns were in their holsters. Let me repeat that: all the guns were sidearms, secured in holsters. No-one was brandishing any weapons. I can make a safe assumption that if these weapons were held illegally, Rachel would have reported that. She did not. So what exactly do we have here?

An entire segment on a completely unsubstantiated feeling that Tea Partiers might get violent because they were lawfully observing their constitutionally protected right to fire arms, which, I repeat, were in their holsters. The left loves to worry about the right’s blood pressure getting all out of whack on “fear mongering” that we are supposedly victim to, but if this isn’t fear mongering, I don’t know what is. She did not have fact one to support her assertion that the Tea Party was violent or about to get violent. Not one shred of evidence.

She led the segment by reporting on the brick thrown through Rep. Slaughter’s glass at her upstate NY campaign office by…. somebody.  Not a confirmed Tea Party member.  Boy, they did their background on that guy (and still didn’t turn up any Tea Party affiliation but lets not let facts get in the way)! (Would that they would put as much energy into keeping check on the antics of the occupants of the White House as they do every conservative that comes along) This guy was a… are you ready… a member of a group that supported enforcement of… are you sure, because this is really, really scary… this guy supported the Constitution! Gasp! Now, what he did was terrible and criminal and should be condemned for the act that it was and he should be punished under the law absolutely. But to support your assertion that he is a kook by pointing out his belief in the Constitution is… an upside down world.

When I popped back again, she had some lady on from the Midwest talking about some poor kid with some terrible disease who would be helped by the Health Care bill and what monsters all the opposition were to want to take it away from this kid… The implication was clear. Conservatives want sick children to die. In fact, conservatives want all poor, helpless, suffering people to die. We want body parts falling off in the street… on puppies… which we will kick… into nuns… in wheechairs… downhill…

You get the idea. Once again, they are indulging in… ready… wait for it… fear mongering! Aside from the lack of ntellectual rigor which led them to conflate the two issues: Need for reform, and bill itself, to assert that the constitutional challenges to the bill were rooted in the black hearts of conservatives does nothing to advance the argument and everything to play into the divide this nation is already sorely feeling.

Which leads me to Fox. Know what they were talking about?

The constitutional challenges to the bill. In detail. On the law. The merits. I learned some things about the constitution and the law I did not know before. There were 5 different law experts on.

What did I learn from Rachel? Be afraid of the Constitution in general and the second amendment in particular.

Bonus:  One of the men carrying a sidearm in one of the three pictures featured side by side was the subject of one of MSNBC’s most shameful episodes.  They had taken tonight’s still picture from a video they had shown last fall of a man at a Tea Party and, like tonight, the anchors were talking about potential violence.  But back in the fall when they first showed this guy, zoomed in on his gun, the two anchors (I think it was Contessa Brewer and to be perfectly fair, it’s even possible this was CNN… but the salient facts of the breach of journalistic ethics remains the same) speculated that there might be some white boys about to behave badly.  The implication was clear:  Tea Partiers were little more than Klan draped in a flag rather than a white sheet.

Oopsie… Turned out that that “white” guy with the sidearm was black – and the network knew it.  They zoomed in on the sidearm purposely obscuring the man’s skin color.  It all came out within a matter of days but they were caught.  The raw footage was undeniable.  They didn’t just make an error, they whipped it up, fried it in a pan, and served it on a breakfast tray.