Category Archives: Uncategorized

Ron Paul’s Address from University of South Florida

Well, in case you missed this story from HuffPo, the RNC/Romney Campaign offered Ron Paul a prime time slot of an hour to address the convention in Tampa. Their caveats? His speech had to be vetted by Romney’s campaign and he had to endorse Willard the Mediocre for president. Paul’s reaction? No thanks. I only give my speeches and I don’t endorse him for president.

Paul said thank you and carry forth the fight for liberty to legions of screaming fans in his usual dignified, grandfatherly way. I personally find it sad the way he was treated throughout all of this, I hoped to see just one or two mainstream press affiliates decide to report the truth of his talking points and to expose the suppression that was taking place. Sadly, money rules all in America.

Here’s Paul’s speech from “Paulfest” which arose out of need when the RNC became the last in a long line of failed special interests seeking to change Ron Paul. Runs about an hour and a half, start it at 8:30 if the coding doesn’t start it there.

Well fought sir. You’re not gone yet, but I already miss you. Raise hell these last few months before you retire. To hell with the RNC. They compromised everything they claimed to be starting in 2001 (if not significantly earlier), you stood strong.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

NYPD Opens Fire and Nine Innocent Bystanders Are Wounded

As you’ve no doubt heard, NYPD officers discharged 16 rounds Friday in an attempt to subdue suspected gunman Jeffrey Johnson. Johnson had allegedly opened fire on his former boss just minutes earlier.

However, what the media is reporting recently is every round for Johnson’s .45 have been accounted for, meaning the 9 innocent bystanders wounded in the gunfire exchange … were struck by bullets negligently fired by NYPD officers.

Here’s where things get touchy. My contention, keep in mind I was a firearms instructor and gunsmith for the USAF for 7 years, is the NYPD intentionally increased the force necessary to fire their duty firearms after previous shootings resulted in too many rounds fired into suspects (or victims, depending on your perspective).

Here is a piece from 2011 indicating all was not well at Police Plaza long before Friday’s shooting. Now, I can tell you as an expert no one in history has fired multiple excess rounds because their trigger pull was too light. The officer-involved-shootings involving absurd numbers of rounds fired at suspects can be explained with two words the NYPD will never admit. “Training,” “Deficiencies.”

One round might be negligently discharged due to a trigger that’s “too light”; however, anyone with even moderate experience on a firing range knows to remove their finger from the trigger. When officers fire excessive numbers of rounds into a suspect who is already clearly defenseless, they’re either stupid, mean or improperly trained. My professional opinion is they were not trained properly.

Now, don’t get me wrong, NYPD has over 35,000 officers by most counts. To properly train that many officers; for instance, USAF standard for Security Forces was 3-4 hours of classroom, 2-3 hours of firing range, twice a year, one of those two times was an advanced course involving night fire and quick reaction, NYPD’s budget would easily balloon another several million dollars.

Instead, after this incident, rather than correct the deficiencies and properly train the small portion of the population the Big Apple’s political brain trust allows to possess firearms, they attempt to solve the problem through changes in hardware. So, instead of the expensive route that would result in better trained officers who would not, for instance, fire a dozen rounds in Times Square at Darius Kennedy, they attempted to correct the problem by increasing the pressure required to pull the trigger.

Keep in mind, this is my theory based on what I’ve put together from news stories and my experience as a firearms instructor. The problem with increasing the trigger pull on officer pistols is it causes wild changes in the direction of the barrel during high-intensity situations requiring discharge of the firearm.

In other words, a bureaucratic decision made to prevent one person from being shot 12 times, or 4 people from being fired upon 50 times, resulted in 9 people (none of them suspects or dangerous, by the way) inadvertently receiving lead poisoning of the immediate variety.

And somehow the City that Never Sleeps still gets looked to as the benchmark for city government? Mayor Bloomberg is a passionate advocate of gun control and NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly has done nothing to correct the obvious and glaring training deficiencies in his own department.

Personally I’d like to see them both unemployed, but that’s up to the voters of New York, New York.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Ron Paul’s Campaign Was Misguided from the Beginning

As the Super Tuesday Caucus and Primary results rolled in showing no major surprises with the detestable poster boy for Ultra-Religious Right Wing Bigotry Sen. Froth winning two bible-belt states and North Dakota and Vampire Squid Goldman Sachs’ Manchurian Candidate Romney taking six of the other states while Mr. Morality Fig Newton took Georgia, a state he once represented in the House, a startling thought occurred to me out of the blue.

Ron Paul should never have run for POTUS. Now, don’t get me wrong, I adore the man and I sincerely believe he’s the only honorable man running on a platform of Constitutional adherence and tolerance of others. But the simple truth is, it’s going to take a billion dollars to buy … err … win the Oval Office in 2012 and Dr. Paul’s fervent followers only managed to raise $32 million for this campaign.

The reality of the situation is POTUS is a mostly meaningless political office unless you’re a narcissist like Comrade Zero or Mr. Morality and have the will to simply ignore what Congress does or wants. I’m not certain Romney has the capacity, though I’m certain Frothy does, to simply issue orders in defiance of the Constitution, common sense or any of the other binding laws the last two presidents simply disregarded when they became inconvenient.

So why should Paul have never run? Simple. For $32 million he’s going to spread his message to perhaps another 10 percent of the population actively engaged in politics at best. He’s likely going to have a platform at the RNC in Tampa and may even be granted a major speaking slot, though I doubt the GOP has any desire to allow such an opportunity. Let’s face it, corruption is the stain on both statist parties. The wolves, as the saying goes, are arguing over dinner while the sheep slumber on.

The Republican Party will not allow Paul to win, regardless of how many delegates he gets. So what should he have done differently? He should have harnessed his following and put the $32 million toward winning as many seats in the House as possible. A quick look through opensecrets.org shows the majority of candidates have raised significantly less than a million smackeroos each thus far, a trend which will surely change as we approach the elections in November.

But not all of the seats in the House will go to highly contested seats with significant fund raising campaigns. What I think Paul should have done or should consider doing if his popularity continues to grow in 2014, is push the fund raising as he has for the last 4 years, but instead of focusing on the most powerful office on the planet, he should instead hand-select candidates he trusts to stick to the principles so many of us support out of the districts with candidates raising the least amount of money.

The correlation of fund raising to winning elections is obvious, not impenetrable, but obvious. If you raise more money than your opponent, you’re probably going to win. Thus, the $32 million raised for the 2012 POTUS campaign, might represent as many as 64 seats in the House. Now you want to talk about changing the discourse? The Tea Party hacks like Colorado’s Cory Gardner demonstrating all the Constitutional understanding of a nightcrawler would be shredded on the floor by the Don’t Tread On Me Congressional Caucus.

It might only last one session, but the simple truth is, it’s going to be much easier to take back Congress than the White House and the federal government is intended to be a Congress-run government anyway. War Declarations, the purse strings and the veto-override are all to be found within Article 1. I say it’s time to piss off the statists in both parties and take back the House.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Jenyne Butterfly Undisputed Pole Dancing Champion of the Universe

I typically reserve this space for politics, but I’m going to throw in a little social commentary on this one. Yesterday I saw the video posted below and was awestruck. The response Jenyne is receiving online is deserved. She demonstrates the American work ethic that once was widespread, but it’s virtually disappeared. I’d like to see half of my friends put the level of work into anything as she put in to become this talented.

 

Wow. All I can really say. This is just an otherworldly talent at work.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

ATF: American Tyranny Foundation Writes New Law

I’m taking a short interlude on the breakdown of the GOP candidates in light of this story in The Denver Post Monday. Leave it to the one agency assigned to monitor the three things you need for a good part to declare something monumentally stupid and unconstitutional.

The form the brain trust at ATF requires all licensed firearms salesmen to fill out on buyers asks a question as to unlawful use of marijuana. “The ATF’s letter, sent out Sept. 21, clarifies that the bureau includes medical-marijuana patients in that group of prohibited buyers because their marijuana use is inherently illegal federally.”

This is utterly ridiculous. The VA is allowing Veterans to receive benefits if prescribed mmj, the Commander-in-Chief told the Dept. of Justice not to waste time going after mmj patients and it’s patently absurd to even imply marijuana use is somehow more harmful than alcohol, the substance whose name is their agency title.

They’ve been assigned the task of monitoring alcohol, tobacco and firearms and its a tradition to ignore the first two. The public no longer controls the bureaucracy (some may say thank goodness, I might not disagree except on these types of issues) because Congress has mitigated virtually all of their responsibilities to various bureaucratic entities (currency belongs to the Dept. of Treasury & the Federal Reserve; war declarations solely the executive branch; immigration policy to Homeland Security and the Post Office to the dogs) and ignore the realities of the federal government’s intended purpose.

The Constitution is the contract between the People and the State Governments limiting the scope of what federal government responsibility should look like and it is serves as such because the founders knew the federal government, if left to its own devices, would grow exponentially greater in size, cost, responsibility and corruption. Thus, the minute Lincoln removed the right of the states to void the contract, the federal government took off on its parabolic trajectory.

We now have a federal government who supports the rights to manufacture, distribute, profit from, purchase, possess and consume alcohol as long as you’re not operating machinery or firearms under the influence, but to do any of the above acts with marijuana is a crime against the union. There’s utterly no justification for a government of this sort to exist.

The bureaucracy is on as much of a power trip as Congress, if not more because the bureaucracy is filled with the lowest common denominator while D.C. politicians are at least moderately intellectual but lacking any actual knowledge beyond manipulating mass groups.

What’s even worse is it looks like the government is using the banks as a weapon against mmj dispensaries. In this story, also out of TDP, there are no longer any banking options for dispensaries in Colorado as the final bank to accept business from dispensaries is terminating accounts. The FDIC and NCUA are both agencies of the federal government, thus, the banks are afraid to lose their federal support and insurance.

I appreciate the lessons of my time working for the federal government and for the insurance I purchase through them at pennies on the dollar for what I’d pay if my healthcare went away, but the obvious truth is the federal government is the biggest enemy to personal liberty today.

Why won’t Congress look to decriminalize mj? The major pharmaceutical companies pay major money to lobbies and special interests who spend the money to bribe representatives in order to keep a legal remedy for a variety of known medical conditions out of the public’s view so they can sell their addictive prescription meds in higher volume. The conservative groups in the country are completely against decriminalization as anything mind altering would seemingly hurt family structures more than they already have been, so they pay big money to keep it suppressed and finally, because we’re not a country who will honestly and openly debate anything anymore.

The claims against decriminalization are fictional and extreme, unless I’m operating a firearm or driving under the influence it’s my natural right to drink a gallon of vodka, smoke a joint, shoot heroin, freebase crack or inhale bath salts. Why is it my right? Because my body belongs to me and me alone. I don’t think you should do most of those things as part of a healthy lifestyle, but I don’t think people should have unprotected sex unless they’ve proven to family and friends they aren’t complete morons, these things happen. It’s no one else’s business what I’m doing with my body until it has a direct effect or risk to someone else.

Should a pregnant mother do any of these things? Nope. And at some point it goes from personal choice to negligence and we hold those people accountable for risking harm to others. But no harm to others can be directly linked to marijuana use except in the operation of heavy equipment or firearms which for the purposes of brevity you can assume I mean in all situations. How is this becoming an issue right now? The worst economy since the Great Depression, highest foreclosure numbers ever, immigration, banking fraud, protests all over the country, a Middle East constantly gearing up for a new war, China breathing down our necks, he’s already into campaign mode and Zero lets the bureaucracy come out with something like this?!

Apparently, however, there are three bills in the House to formally recognize state mmj laws, I hope recognized as legal. This is a serious test of D.C. will they choose the path of stupidity and corruption? Or the right of the people?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

CSU Concealed Carry Debate

I have written two columns to date on the topic of concealed carry of firearms on-campus. Today marks the third and if Tony Frank makes the correct decision, the series will end as a trilogy.

I took part in two remarkable events this week, Humans vs. Zombies and ASCSU’s meeting Wednesday night. Bizarrely enough there was a common thread.

No, I am not referring to the brainless creature attempting to steal your soul as you wander the grounds of CSU—the faculty was not present.

I refer to the ability of students to protect themselves and others. You see CSU; the faculty board and the president’s cabinet do not think concealed carry permit holders should carry on-campus. The board does not trust you as a student nor those authorized by the state to carry.

The “public safety team” evaluated the risk of legally concealed firearms on campus as a liability. The team apparently believes concealed carry leads to gun violence. Such logic indicates the reproductive organs of women cause prostitution and men are rapists waiting to happen.

I have so many deep-rooted conflicts with this type of self-titled, “enlightened thinking,” it makes me crave medicinal marijuana just to escape the idiocy if only for a moment.

The issue at hand Wednesday night was ASCSU’s response to the “public safety team” recommendation to strip the rights of concealed carry permit holders from carrying a concealed weapon on campus.

Re-read that sentence, you as a reader, an undergraduate or graduate student, need to understand the details of the argument.

It is a violation of Colorado law to conceal a firearm on your person without a county issued state permit. The faculty wants to ensure only those with no regard for the law will have the ability to conceal a firearm. Ensuring a gunman may walk into their class and open fire on you the student with nothing to stop the attacker apart from limited ammunition supply and eventually CSUPD.

The faculty board members and the cabinet members who advocate this type of maneuver refuse to accept the reality that gun-free zone means nothing to a gun-wielding psychopath intent on ending as many lives as possible before ending their own.

The same type of person who sees the presence of firearms as a threat are the same people who said secure storage laws would prevent negligent discharges from killing children. The reality? We found out the people responsible for negligent discharges were the same people who would not follow secure storage requirements. Oops.

Even those of you philosophically opposed to the use of firearms for any reason should set aside your ideological instincts and accept reality in this case. We know without a doubt how far an armed attacker will go without armed resistance. They kill as many as they can before using the gun on themselves.

Why don’t we hear more often the several situations in which armed gunmen met armed resistance that immediately terminated the situation without a shot fired? Unfortunately, the news media demonstrates a bias. Although they constantly claim otherwise, in the last 12 months alone they’ve largely ignored the ACORN scandal and the downplayed the exposure of the idiotically nicknamed “climategate.”

Something else about the team’s request disturbs me. Despite the obvious power play to ensure they demonstrate academia still revolves around the desires of administration rather than the needs and desires of students, why are they asking now?

I would like to call out the faculty behind this partisan hackery. I sense you folks got together and decided you witnessed enough of a political realignment last year that you could get away with your ideological power play unopposed.

Well if so, you were wrong. You are seeing an elected leadership of a student body who understands, at least to some level, that government will not and is incapable of taking care of you better than you can take care of yourself.

We already know from sociological studies of disasters neighbors, family members and friends, are more likely to rescue you than a government agency. The situation here mirrors those findings.

I hope many of you are starting to realize this fact. The Supreme Court has found repeatedly that police have no duty or liability to protect citizens from violent crime, so ironically enough their only liability is to protect you from violence perpetrated by their officers.

When you get time Google Warren v. District of Columbia. In this specific case, two women called police when armed men broke into their home and attacked their roommate downstairs. When their roommate stopped screaming and they heard nothing, they assumed the police had arrived and went downstairs to check. For the next 14 hours, the men who had beaten their roommate into submission raped and beat the three of them. The police were not liable.

I e-mailed Professor Richard Eykholt after reading some disturbing comments attributed to him by The Denver Post on Wednesday. I asked the professor several questions:

What brought about this concern among the faculty?

Why is the faculty seeking a change to a policy that hasn’t caused a single problem yet?

Why do you want to remove the legally trained and competent individual’s ability to potentially stop an active shooter?

Why is it better for an active shooter to have uncontested freedom to carry out their actions than to have someone recognized and trained to state standards and authorized to carry by state law to at least return fire?

I received no response from the professor; sadly, the exact response I expected. His comments according to The Post follow. Take what you will from his comments, but my interpretation follows each quote.

“If you have a classroom situation where somebody starts shooting and other people are shooting back, there is a real opportunity there for more bystanders to be injured.”

The professor is saying he would rather have an active shooter run out of bullets, than have a permitted student return fire and injure a so-called “bystander.” Does anyone actually swallow this drivel?

Tell me Gilligan, how many people are going to be standing by during an active shooter situation? The true irony here is the professor teaches physics, a fundamental law of which says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Apparently the professor does not count being shot at as an action calling for a reaction. These theoretical “bystanders” are in all reality probable victims of the active shooter.

“I don’t think they’d [perpetrators of school shootings] be deterred by threats of anyone having a gun.”

I do not care if it might deter them; I care if someone has the means to stop them. The point of carrying concealed is not so the bad people think twice before trying to kill you; it is so you may have some chance of stopping them first.

Furthermore, in several incidences around the country, a legally concealed firearm in the hands of a licensed individual stopped active shooters without the licensee firing a single shot. Not police, not security but an armed citizen and potential victim.

The recommendation fails to address one key concern. Why even consider changing a policy which thus far has caused exactly zero problems? The board alleges students carrying concealed firearms may lead to an incident when a professor challenges a student’s beliefs and triggers that student somehow losing so much composure they draw their weapon and open fire.

If that is truly a concern professor, I recommend you find a more reasoned method of debate. By the way, paranoia is extremely unhealthy and is one of the symptoms of heavy marijuana use.

You have to be a responsible adult, pass a background check and take a state-certified course to earn a concealed carry permit in Colorado. How many students do you board and cabinet members really believe are carrying?

21 years old disqualifies 6,000 students minimum, legal resident of Colorado disqualifies a full 20 percent. You people are making a plea to President Tony Frank so you can control something you presently do not.

While the public safety team is making this recommendation I have to ask; is every member of the team willing to take on liability for your recommendation should an active shooter enter the school once you have disarmed the law abiding?

This of course is exactly why the faculty and cabinet are willing to make such a request; they get the opportunity to impose their ideology with no perceived risk to their professional careers.

President Frank, I urge you with every fiber of my admittedly inferior beard, do not take away this distinct right that makes CSU significantly better than the institution located in the People’s Republic of Berkeley-lite. I’m proud to be a CSU Ram, I don’t want to live where the Buffalo roam unprotected. I want to live where Rams will protect the herd even if it means attacking a crazed wolf.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Had to share…

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized