Saturday, November 26, 2011

Blame Irish for this one

Yes, I moved my blogroll around.

Get off my ass.

Straight up White Trash, God bless 'er

Fuck Islam

From Zilla of the Resistance:

New Death Threats from Islamic Supremacists and their Islamoblow Enablers Show How Much They CAIR

While most Americans are enjoying the Thanksgiving holiday weekend with their families, the islamic supremacists and their 'useful idiot' leftist operatives have been busy trying to silence the right to free speech by making death threats, harassing, and attempting to intimidate those who offer legitimate and fact based criticism of islamic jihad.

At Atlas Shrugs, Pamela Geller shared a small sample of the vile disgusting hate messages that are routinely sent to her. You can see it HERE. They hate her because she tells the truth about the damage being wrought by islamic supremacists and their dhim-wit Orwellian "politically" correct enablers. Anyone who disagrees with the islamoleftist agenda must be destroyed, thought crimes must not be permitted. Those who refuse to bow down will suffer character assassination (and worse) and only a few who see through the lie will not be deceived into turning against the very people who are trying to warn us of the dark days to come, the very people we should be embracing and standing with to fight for our freedom.

Teresamerica is a Conservative Blog run by my friend Teresa, she is very nice and is also anti-jihad. This past summer, many bloggers, myself included, publicly posted our support for Pamela Geller, as did Teresa. Yesterday, an anonymous creep posted to Teresa's July post about it and said that he or she was going to kill her and all of her friends as well. She wrote about it HERE, you can see the original threats HERE.
For the rest of the post, visit Zilla here, check her out and add her to your favorites. Hit her tip jar too as blogging is her source of income, thanks to the economy.

The Myth of Posse Comitatus

After posting the one titled "It's only a battlefield if they make it so" and a barrage of emails (okay, 4) I got to thinking about how little I knew about the Posse Comitatus Act so I started doing a little reasearch. I'm still doing that, reading opposing veiwpoints and rulings, but one thing I found interesting was the article I found on it at Big Sis's Homeland Security site. I'll post the whole thing here so you don't have to demean yourselves by clicking over there.
And yes, I noticed that it was published in 2001, long before the current administration, but the fact remains that it's still up on their official website. What's that tell you?
They think about that act as they do the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
So here it is, a bit long but a necessary read:

The Myth of Posse Comitatus

Major Craig T. Trebilcock, U.S. Army Reserve

October 2000

The Posse Comitatus Act has traditionally been viewed as a major barrier to the use of U.S. military forces in planning for homeland defense.[1] In fact, many in uniform believe that the act precludes the use of U.S. military assets in domestic security operations in any but the most extraordinary situations. As is often the case, reality bears little resemblance to the myth for homeland defense planners. Through a gradual erosion of the act’s prohibitions over the past 20 years, posse comitatus today is more of a procedural formality than an actual impediment to the use of U.S. military forces in homeland defense.


The original 1878 Posse Comitatus Act was indeed passed with the intent of removing the Army from domestic law enforcement. Posse comitatus means “the power of the county,” reflecting the inherent power of the old West county sheriff to call upon a posse of able-bodied men to supplement law enforcement assets and thereby maintain the peace. Following the Civil War, the Army had been used extensively throughout the South to maintain civil order, to enforce the policies of the Reconstruction era, and to ensure that any lingering sentiments of rebellion were crushed. However, in reaching those goals, the Army necessarily became involved in traditional police roles and in enforcing politically volatile Reconstruction-era policies. The stationing of federal troops at political events and polling places under the justification of maintaining domestic order became of increasing concern to Congress, which felt that the Army was becoming politicized and straying from its original national defense mission. The Posse Comitatus Act was passed to remove the Army from civilian law enforcement and to return it to its role of defending the borders of the United States.

Application of the Act

To understand the extent to which the act has relevance today, it is important to understand to whom the act applies and under what circumstances. The statutory language of the act does not apply to all U.S. military forces.[2] While the act applies to the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines, including their Reserve components, it does not apply to the Coast Guard or to the huge military manpower resources of the National Guard.[3] The National Guard, when it is operating in its state status pursuant to Title 32 of the U.S. Code, is not subject to the prohibitions on civilian law enforcement. (Federal military forces operate pursuant to Title 10 of the U.S. Code.) In fact, one of the express missions of the Guard is to preserve the laws of the state during times of emergency when regular law enforcement assets prove inadequate. It is only when federalized pursuant to an exercise of presidential authority that the Guard becomes subject to the limitations of the Posse Comitatus Act.

The intent of the act is to prevent the military forces of the United States from becoming a national police force or guardia civil. Accordingly, the act prohibits the use of the military to “execute the laws.”[4,5] Execution of the laws is perceived to be a civilian police function, which includes the arrest and detention of criminal suspects, search and seizure activities, restriction of civilian movement through the use of blockades or checkpoints, gathering evidence for use in court, and the use of undercover personnel in civilian drug enforcement activities.[6]

The federal courts have had several opportunities to define what behavior by military personnel in support of civilian law enforcement is permissible under the act. The test applied by the courts has been to determine whether the role of military personnel in the law enforcement operation was “passive” or “active.” Active participation in civilian law enforcement, such as making arrests, is deemed a violation of the act, while taking a passive supporting role is not.[7] Passive support has often taken the form of logistical support to civilian police agencies. Recognizing that the military possesses unique equipment and uniquely trained personnel, the courts have held that providing supplies, equipment, training, facilities, and certain types of intelligence information does not violate the act. Military personnel may also be involved in planning law enforcement operations, as long as the actual arrest of suspects and seizure of evidence is carried out by civilian law enforcement personnel.[8]

The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in the 19th century, when the distinction between criminal law enforcement and defense of the national borders was clearer. Today, with the advent of technology that permits weapons of mass destruction—chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons—to be transported by a single person, the line between police functions and national security concerns has blurred. As a matter of policy, Western nations have labeled terrorists “criminals” to be prosecuted under domestic criminal laws. Consistent with this, the Department of Justice has been charged as the lead U.S. agency for combating terrorism. However, not all terrorist acts are planned and executed by non-state actors. Terrorism refers to illegal attacks on civilians and other nonmilitary targets by either state or non-state actors. This new type of threat requires a reassessment of traditional military roles and missions along with an examination of the relevance and benefits of the Posse Comitatus Act.

Erosion of the Act

While the act appears to prohibit active participation in law enforcement by the military, the reality in application has become quite different. The act is a statutory creation, not a constitutional prohibition. Accordingly, the act can and has been repeatedly circumvented by subsequent legislation. Since 1980, Congress and the president have significantly eroded the prohibitions of the act in order to meet a variety of law enforcement challenges.

One of the most controversial uses of the military during the past 20 years has been to involve the Navy and Air Force in the “war on drugs.” Recognizing the inability of civilian law enforcement agencies to interdict the smuggling of drugs into the United States by air and sea, the Reagan Administration directed the Department of Defense to use naval and air assets to reach out beyond the borders of the United States to preempt drug smuggling. This use of the military in antidrug law enforcement was approved by Congress in 10 U.S.C., sections 371–381. This same legislation permitted the use of military forces in other traditionally civilian areas—immigration control and tariff enforcement.

The use of the military in opposing drug smuggling and illegal immigration was a significant step away from the act’s central tenet that there was no proper role for the military in the direct enforcement of the laws. The legislative history explains that this new policy is consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act, as the military involvement still amounted to an indirect and logistical support of civilian law enforcement and not direct enforcement.[9]

The weakness of the analysis of passive versus direct involvement in law enforcement was most graphically demonstrated in the tragic 1999 shooting of a shepherd by marines who had been assigned a mission to interdict smuggling and illegal immigration in the remote Southwest. An investigation revealed that for some inexplicable reason the 16-year-old shepherd fired his weapon in the direction of the marines. Return fire killed the boy. This tragedy demonstrates that when armed troops are placed in a position where they are being asked to counter potential criminal activity, it is a mere semantic exercise to argue that the military is being used in a passive support role. The fact that armed military troops were placed in a position with the mere possibility that they would have to use force to subdue civilian criminal activity reflects a significant policy shift by the executive branch away from the posse comitatus doctrine.

Congress has also approved the use of the military in civilian law enforcement through the Civil Disturbance Statutes: 10 U.S.C., sections 331–334. These provisions permit the president to use military personnel to enforce civilian laws where the state has requested assistance or is unable to protect civil rights and property. In case of civil disturbance, the president must first give an order for the offenders to disperse. If the order is not obeyed, the president may then authorize military forces to make arrests and restore order. The scope of the Civil Disturbance Statutes is sufficiently broad to encompass civil disturbance resulting from terrorist or other criminal activity. It was these provisions that were relied upon to restore order using active-duty Army personnel following the Los Angeles “race riots” of the early 1990s.

Federal military personnel may also be used pursuant to the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C., section 5121, in times of natural disaster upon request from a state governor. In such an instance, the Stafford Act permits the president to declare a major disaster and send in military forces on an emergency basis for up to ten days to preserve life and property. While the Stafford Act authority is still subject to the criteria of active versus passive, it represents a significant exception to the Posse Comitatus Act’s underlying principle that the military is not a domestic police force auxiliary.

An infrequently cited constitutional power of the president provides an even broader basis for the president to use military forces in the context of homeland defense. This is the president’s inherent right and duty to preserve federal functions. In the past this has been recognized to authorize the president to preserve the freedom of navigable waterways and to put down armed insurrection. However, with the expansion of federal authority during this century into many areas formerly reserved to the states (transportation, commerce, education, civil rights) there is likewise an argument that the president’s power to preserve these “federal” functions has expanded as well. The use of federal troops in the South during the 1960s to preserve access to educational institutions for blacks was an exercise of this constitutional presidential authority.

In the past five years, the erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act has continued with the increasingly common use of military forces as security for essentially civilian events. During the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, over ten thousand U.S. troops were deployed under the partial rationale that they were present to deter terrorism. The use of active-duty military forces in a traditional police security role did not raise any serious questions under the act, even though these troops would clearly have been in the middle of a massive law enforcement emergency had a large-scale terrorist incident occurred. The only questions of propriety arose when many of these troops were then employed as bus drivers or to maintain playing fields. This led to a momentary but passing expression of displeasure from Congress.[10]

Homeland Defense

The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in an era when the threat to national security came primarily from the standing armies and navies of foreign powers. Today the equation for national defense and security has changed significantly. With the fall of the Soviet Union our attention has been diverted—from the threat of aggression by massed armies crossing the plains of Europe to the security of our own soil against biological or chemical terrorism. Rather than focusing on massed Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles as our most imminent threat, we are increasingly more aware of the destructive potential of new forms of asymmetric warfare. For instance, the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment states that 100 kilograms of dry powdered anthrax released under ideal meteorological conditions could kill up to three million people in a city the size of Washington, DC.[11] The chemical warfare attacks carried out by Japanese terrorists in the subways of Tokyo during the 1990s heightened our sense of vulnerability. The Oklahoma City bombing and the unsuccessful attempt to topple the World Trade Center have our domestic security planners looking inward for threats against the soil of the United States from small but technologically advanced threats of highly motivated terrorists. What legal bar does the Posse Comitatus Act present today to using the military to prevent or respond to a biological or chemical attack on the soil of the United States? In view of the erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act in the past 20 years, the answer is “not much.”

The erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act through Congressional legislation and executive policy has left a hollow shell in place of a law that formerly was a real limitation on the military’s role in civilian law enforcement and security issues. The plethora of constitutional and statutory exceptions to the act provides the executive branch with a menu of options under which it can justify the use of military forces to combat domestic terrorism. Whether an act of terrorism is classified as a civil disturbance under 10 U.S.C., 331–334, or whether the president relies upon constitutional power to preserve federal functions, it is difficult to think of a domestic terrorism scenario of sizable scale under which the use of the military could not be lawfully justified in view of the act’s erosion. The act is no longer a realistic bar to direct military involvement in counterterrorism planning and operations. It is a low legal hurdle that can be easily cleared through invocation of the appropriate legal justification, either before or after the fact.[12]


Is the Posse Comitatus Act totally without meaning today? No, it remains a deterrent to prevent the unauthorized deployment of troops at the local level in response to what is purely a civilian law enforcement matter. Although no person has ever been successfully prosecuted under the act, it is available in criminal or administrative proceedings to punish a lower-level commander who uses military forces to pursue a common felon or to conduct sobriety checkpoints off of a federal military post. Officers have had their careers abruptly brought to a close by misusing federal military assets to support a purely civilian criminal matter.

But does the act present a major barrier at the National Command Authority level to use of military forces in the battle against terrorism? The numerous exceptions and policy shifts carried out over the past 20 years strongly indicate that it does not. Could anyone seriously suggest that it is appropriate to use the military to interdict drugs and illegal aliens but preclude the military from countering terrorist threats that employ weapons of mass destruction? For two decades the military has been increasingly used as an auxiliary to civilian law enforcement when the capabilities of the police have been exceeded. Under both the statutory and constitutional exceptions that have permitted the use of the military in law enforcement since 1980, the president has ample authority to employ the military in homeland defense against the threat of weapons of mass destruction in terrorist hands.

Urban warfare, use the terrain

Urban warfare is not just "Close Quarters Battle" and "Enter and Clear a Room" that many people seem to think. That 14.5 inch M4gery with a red dot on top? Fine for that sort of thing, but if you wanted a 300 meter gun why not just get an AK?

Urban terrain has very long fields of fire along roads, from rooftops to street level, from storm drains to hill tops. Would you put a machine gun on a rooftop or on street level? If you said "rooftop" I'm not saying that you are wrong, only that you have now limited yourself to plunging fire. There may in fact be very good reasons for putting a machine gun on a roof top, but there are equally good reasons for street level.

As our Jewish Resistance Fighters in alternative 1960 Germany are finding out, terrain is your best asset when you can't win in a stand up fight.

For the rest of this article, go here to AmericanMercenary.

It's only a battlefield if they make it so

Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten zum Schutz von Volk und Staat (Order of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State)

...Er, I mean;

Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window

from the ACLU (!)

While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.

Senators need to hear from you, on whether you think your front yard is part of a “battlefield” and if any president can send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial.

The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.

The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.

I know it sounds incredible. New powers to use the military worldwide, even within the United States? Hasn’t anyone told the Senate that Osama bin Laden is dead, that the president is pulling all of the combat troops out of Iraq and trying to figure out how to get combat troops out of Afghanistan too? And American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?

The answer on why now is nothing more than election season politics. The White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act are harmful and counterproductive. The White House has even threatened a veto. But Senate politics has propelled this bad legislation to the Senate floor.

But there is a way to stop this dangerous legislation. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) is offering the Udall Amendment that will delete the harmful provisions and replace them with a requirement for an orderly Congressional review of detention power. The Udall Amendment will make sure that the bill matches up with American values.

In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”

Read the rest of this bullshit here at Green Mountains Homesteading

New game: Spot the Slut

"Mohammad!!! You're cheating on me with a SHEEP???"

Creeping shariah - It's everywhere

Bacon. Mmmmm, bacon.....

Yet you're the one wearing the hot pink bracelet.....

Doing her warm-ups

Looks like she's got a big night ahead of her.

Friday, November 25, 2011

This'll make ya feel all warm and fuzzy and medikated inside...

Not Photoshopped: Beam of Light Shines on Fallen Soldier’s Miracle Dog
Reported by ABC News’ Kimberly Launier:

It was an overcast day in Newport, N.H., when a simple “20/20″ shoot turned into something that made me wonder about life after death.
I was filming soldier Justin Rollin’s parents Skip and Rhonda playing with their dog Hero, whose rescue from the Iraq War zone where Justin died was nothing short of a miracle.
Sometimes when Rhonda hugged Hero she would softly pet her face and coo, “Justin, are you in there?” It was Rhonda’s gentle way of remembering their son and his last living connection to Hero. At one point, Hero wandered off and took a stroll in the backyard. All of a sudden, the clouds broke and a light began to solidify in a beam directly down on Hero — a kind of vertical halo.
As this dramatic ray of light was shining on Hero she turned to look at me, and it was all I could do to hold the camera steady and not drop it in astonishment. It was an unforgettable moment, and made me wonder if in fact Justin was in there. Then the light vanished.
I couldn’t wait to check my camera’s playback to see if it caught the stunning beam. When I saw that it did, I was so happy that I burst out dancing. It was a great moment to share with Justin’s parents. We all laughed together, and wondered if perhaps this had been a sign from Justin.

Watch the full story Friday on “20/20″ at 10 p.m. ET and read more about Hero and Justin here.

- ABC News

Kinda reminds you of OWS, huh?

Damn, and Big Sis thinks Right-Wingers are dangerous?
Don't know about you but I avoid everything about Black Friday - I stay away from the stores, I plan my routes, especially freeway with malls near their exits, the whole shiteree.
Christmas Eve, too.

By the way I stole this snip from Matt Drudge - If you want to read the stories about the incidents, go there.


Well, I'm off to work unlike most of you fuckers.
Have a good day, y'all.

Unlike an elevator, you can escape an airplane fart

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Awwww..... Togetherness!

PETA? Hello?

Halil, my Infidel ass.....

Forgive me for having my head up my ass but tonight I went to Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugged and saw that Butterball Turkeys are halil slaughtered.
Sonofabitch, that's what I got ready to go in the smoker at midnight. No fucking way in hell am I going to be able to find a thawed 20 pound bird this time of the night and I promised Mom a smoked turkey.
Oh well, what to do but defile it.
Lisa slathered bacon grease all over that motherfucker, inside and out, both of us laughing our Okie asses off the entire time.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Found this in the comments over at Sipsey Street Irregulars

Concerning the "assasination" attempt at the Black House:

AnonymousTPaine said...

I would agree with the poster who suggested that this was a 'false flag' event. This guy was a moron who didn't have the brains to wipe his ass, yet he got close enough to the White House with an AK-47 to put many rounds into the structure. Ak's aren't exactly quiet little guns, and someone who fires 5-10 rounds from one within striking distance of the White House will be noticed.

The White House is guarded by snipers and other SS staff. You can bet that Obama is very well-protected, as he is a very high target. There is probably shot-tracing hardware installed all over the place, so if the guy fired one round, they'd know where it came from and how far away it was before the 2nd round was sent downrange. And as the government is spending billions on security, the technology would have caught this guy before he set off round 3.

Then he gets away and travels halfway across the nation before he is finally caught? I'm not believing one iota of this scam. Fast & Furious is failing majestically, and so we need a new gun freak incident to raise the alarm. "Crazy guy sprays White House with dangerous assault rifle!" Neat, eh?

For the full post and comments, go here to Sipsey Street Irregulars.

Bad-ass video of the Earth from the Space Station

A time lapse video from the Space Station. The Northern Lights, lightning storms and all kinds of other cool shit.

Go to Midwest Energy News for stills, plus an observation about the size of the ND Bakken oil fields.

An observation about coyotes

BobG says:
Coyotes are efficient opportunists; there are more now than there were 150 years ago. We shot all the slow ones, and poisoned the stupid ones, so what do you have left?
Wrath is better than sorrow.

Not hiring until Obama is gone

A west Georgia business owner is stirring up controversy with signs he posted on his company's trucks, for all to see as the trucks roll up and down roads, highways and interstates:

"New Company Policy: We are not hiring until Obama is gone."

Go here to The Dorkfish Express for the story.

Restocking muslim whorehouses

Worthless yet expensive

NEW YORK (AP) — During the first two months of the nationwide Occupy protests, the movement that is demanding more out of the wealthiest Americans cost local taxpayers at least $13 million in police overtime and other municipal services, according to a survey by The Associated Press.
The heaviest financial burden has fallen upon law enforcement agencies tasked with monitoring marches and evicting protesters from outdoor camps. And the steepest costs by far piled up in New York City and Oakland, Calif., where police clashed with protesters on several occasions.
The AP gathered figures from government agencies in 18 cities with active protests and focused on costs through Nov. 15, the day protesters were evicted from New York City's Zuccotti Park, where the protests began Sept. 17 before spreading nationwide. The survey did not attempt to tally the price of all protests but provides a glimpse into costs to cities large and small.
- Read the rest of it at Yahoo News

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

My general opinion of liberals


Need I say a word?

It's telling me to use 4 ply

And it can only get worse

License plate readers: A useful tool for police comes with privacy concerns

By and , Published: November 19

An armed robber burst into a Northeast Washington market, scuffled with the cashier, and then shot him and the clerk’s father, who also owned the store. The killer sped off in a silver Pontiac, but a witness was able to write down the license plate number.
Police figured out the name of the suspect very quickly. But locating and arresting him took a little-known investigative tool: a vast system that tracks the comings and goings of anyone driving around the District.
Scores of cameras across the city capture 1,800 images a minute and download the information into a rapidly expanding archive that can pinpoint people’s movements all over town.
Police entered the suspect’s license plate number into that database and learned that the Pontiac was on a street in Southeast. Police soon arrested Christian Taylor, who had been staying at a friend’s home, and charged him with two counts of first-degree murder. His trial is set for January.
More than 250 cameras in the District and its suburbs scan license plates in real time, helping police pinpoint stolen cars and fleeing killers. But the program quietly has expanded beyond what anyone had imagined even a few years ago.
With virtually no public debate, police agencies have begun storing the information from the cameras, building databases that document the travels of millions of vehicles.
Read the rest of this shit here.

I love those new Garands with the synthetic stock

- MSgt B

Go ahead. Try and take it.

 CharlieGodammit with his pacifier

Actually I had just given him his rawhide bone. Motherfucker has to sit before he gets anything from me for no other reason than to keep him from knocking me down and taking it by force. He loves those damned things to the tune of about 10 or 12 a week. Thank God for the Dollar Store.
 Depending on the quality of it, he can demolish one - chewed into little bitty pieces and eaten - in anywheres from 5 minutes to 2 hours. I'm the only motherfucker I know that considers weight and number of rolls in the rawhide when I'm buying those damned things but at least my arm gets a break when he's gnawing on that.

Fucking A

Thanks to Sammy for this ass-kicking picture.

Gotta be California (again)

Monday, November 21, 2011

Russian news anchor flips off Obama on TV

A woman after my own heart.......
She actually flips that bitch motherfucker off!

Are the Heathen Chinese poisoning our dogs?

Chicken jerky treats may be to blame for dozens of new reports of mysterious illnesses and some deaths in dogs, prompting a renewed warning for pet owners by the Food and Drug Administration.
At least 70 dogs have been sickened so far this year after reportedly eating chicken jerky products imported from China, FDA officials said. That’s up from 54 reports of illness in 2010. Some of the dogs have died, according to the anecdotal reports from pet owners and veterinarians.
FDA officials say they have not been able to find a cause for the illnesses. Extensive chemical and microbiological testing has failed to turn up a specific contaminant and officials did not identify a specific brand of treats. They note that the reports of illness have not conclusively been tied to chicken jerky products, also sold as chicken tenders, chicken strips or chicken treats.
The new warning follows previous FDA cautions about chicken jerky treats in 2007 and 2008. But after a high of 156 reports of illness in 2007, the number of complaints dropped. Now, it's rising again.
Dog owners and vets are reporting that animals may be stricken with a range of illnesses within days or hours of eating chicken jerky, including kidney failure and Fanconi syndrome, a condition characterized by low glucose.
Symptoms may include decreased appetite, decreased activity, vomiting, diarrhea, increased water consumption and increased urination. If dogs show any of these signs, stop feeding the animal the chicken jerky products, FDA officials said. If signs are severe or persist for more than 24 hours, seek veterinary help.
- via Drudge

Gooooood dog

Yeah, so we've been letting CharlieGodammit sleep inside again.
It doesn't bother me any, he wakes Lisa up when he needs to go out......

Bullet Choice And Pelt Damage

One of the oldest predator-hunting dilemmas, when hides matter, is whether to use frangible, thin-jacketed bullets or full-metal jackets.
by J.C. Munnell
pelt damageProponents of the former say it is better for the bullet to explode after penetrating the skin. They maintain two things are accomplished: all the bullet’s energy is spent on the prey rather than in the hillside, and only one hole is made in a valuable pelt.
Those who opt for FMJ bullets say two holes cause greater blood loss, leaving very small, readily reparable holes in that valuable pelt. They point out that a highly explosive bullet could “backfire” on the hunter. It could produce a through wound on a smallish animal with a broadside shot, creating a large and irreparable exit hole, or may not penetrate to the vitals of a large coyote or bobcat, especially if only a going-away shot is possible.
Both sides apply good logic, but neither has a definitive answer. The primary consideration is the end objective. Is the object a prime pelt, or ending the depredation of a barn-raiding thief? If it is the latter, no one cares if the bullet blows the hide to bits; if a pelt is important, one small hole is the obvious choice.
Here is where the debate becomes moot: It might not be possible to inflict minimal external damage while demolishing the vitals. Consideration of the many variables of species, bullet construction, velocity, etc., can help make this choice more obvious. For instance, a 50-grain Sierra Blitz bullet from a .222 at 3,200 feet per second (fps) is pure destruction on a red fox at any reasonable range, and rarely exits. But that same bullet from a .220 Swift fired at a 60-pound eastern coyote might make one huge entrance hole, yet fail to reach any vitals. By the time that dog dies, it might be miles away and have chewed pelt damageat the wound enough to destroy the pelt – if you manage to find it at all. A bullet of stronger construction might kill, yet sail on through both sides, taking a golf ball-size hunk of pelt with it. The first consideration, therefore, is to match the bullet not only to the animal hunted, but also to the velocity of the cartridge.
A full-metal jacketed bullet will usually cause little pelt destruction, unless it causes bone fragments to act as secondary projectiles, which might exit the far side. The down side to FMJ projectiles is they must kill by severe blood loss (through two holes) or by imparting a great deal of hydrostatic shock (through velocity). While the latter usually provides instantaneous death, the former often requires considerable time (and distance) for the target to die, even though a sizeable blood trail is usually present.
I don’t believe a heavy-jacket big-game bullet is ever a good idea to use on a smallish predator, unless you simply happen on a predator while big-game hunting. Most game bullets open up to some degree in even the smallest animal, and all such bullets penetrate completely through all but the largest predators such as bears or mountain lions.
Again, consider why you are shooting an animal, as well as the nature of that animal. Years ago, a friend invited me to help him try to exterminate a pack of wild dogs on his uncle’s farm. Armed with an M-1Carbine and a Browning High Power, we took a stand near a day-old cow carcass under the only large tree in a field of winter-crushed grass. The dogs came in shortly after sunrise—all 20 or so. They showed absolutely no fear, even after we foolishly shot a few. When we did, two very frightening things happened. First, a half-dozen immediately turned on the ones we shot, and the remainder of the pack turned on us. Fortunately, the tree branches were low enough that we escaped upward.
Five long, cold hours later, and after firing at least 150 rounds of the metal-jacketed military ammunition, my friend’s uncle rescued us with his Farmall tractor and hay wagon. We succeeded in killing 14 dogs and wounding several, but we learned not to use full-metal jacket ammunition in that situation (as well as to never hunt wild dogs from the ground.) Conclusion? Full metal jackets might kill with little damage, but it rarely happens fast. They are the best option for hide hunters, but place your shots with as much precision as possible. However, I must also relate the story of a buddy who decided a Barnes X bullet fired at full velocity from a .270 Winchester was just the thing for coyotes. He argued it would let him kill the occasional dog across a cornfield, despite howling winter winds. The X bullet has an excellent reputation as a bullet that penetrates seemingly forever and retains almost all of its original weight. What some people fail to realize is these bullets open up—to the end of their hollow point—quickly, and in doing so, create four “petals” which create an extensive wound channel.
pelt damageThe first coyote’s pelt was ruined, but Alex was certain the off-side damage was caused by the bullet fragmenting bone along its route. Finally, after an “necropsy” was performed on the fourth dead dog, he realized no bone had been struck at all, and the gaping exit wounds were caused by the high velocity of the X bullet doing precisely what it was designed to do—opening up. The next spring, Alex bought a very accurate .223 and relegated his.270 to deer and bear.
Larger predators are an entirely different matter. Here, the only emphasis is putting the animal down with authority. Kill it before it (a) suffers, (b) runs a long distance and is possibly not recovered or (c) gets angry at the puny, two-legged critter who caused its pain! In this instance, use the best expanding bullet available, preferably one of the “premium” bullets. There is a big difference between a 150-pound mountain lion and an 800-pound grizzly, so choose the bullet accordingly.
The reason for most of my predator hunting is to reduce the population of fawn-killing coyotes, and the sooner and more convincingly they’re dead, the better. But when hides are prime, my objective changes. What hide-saver would I recommend? Frangible and explosive bullets work on appropriate-sized game in specific situations, but be prepared for occasional ruined hides or failure to penetrate. For prime pelts, my choice is precisely placed, full-metal jackets, and whichever brand and bullet weight work best in my rifle for the size of my quarry.

Bio: J.C .Munnell has been an avid handloader for over 30 years. His interest spans European combination guns to the most powerful revolvers, and includes all facets of predator and varmint cartridges. His loading room houses over 150 sets of dies from conventional to exotic. He is first and foremost a passionate experimenter who takes the art of rolling your own to a new level.
- Predator Xtreme


My passion is coyotes and them being a very thin-skinned animal, I shoot a factory loaded V-MAX by Hornady out of my Savage 22-250. Nothing else. It's a fast motherfucker, 4000 fps in Superformance loading and the exit holes are patchable. But oh, is it deadly......

Sunday, November 20, 2011

My future second ex-wife

Don't ask if ya don't wanna know


I knew it

Officers in pepper spray incident placed on leave
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A California university placed two of its police officers on administrative leave Sunday because of their involvement in the pepper spraying of passively sitting protesters, while the school's chancellor accelerated a task force's investigation into the incident amid calls for her resignation.
The president of the 10-campus University of California system also weighed in on the growing fallout from Friday's incident at UC Davis, saying that he is "appalled" at images of students being doused with pepper spray and plans a far-reaching, urgent assessment of law enforcement procedures on all campuses.

Videos posted online of the incident clearly show one riot-gear clad officer dousing the line of protesters with spray as they sit in a line with their arms intertwined. Spicuzza told the AP that the second officer was identified during an intense review of several videos.
"We really wanted to be diligent in our research, and during our viewing of multiple videos we discovered the second officer," Spicuzza said. "This is the right thing to do."
Read it all here.

This story begs for a smart-ass comment from me

Mexico to cull 50,000 wild boars from US invasion

Mexican officials have unveiled plans to slaughter some 50,000 wild boars that have crossed the border from the United States and now threaten agriculture in Mexico.
The Ministry of Environment in Chihauha state said some 1,500 hectares (3,700 acres) of farmland in the border town of Ojinaga have been affected by the large number of feral pigs that have come from Presidio County, Texas.
"We must get rid of these European wild boars because they sleep overnight on US soil during the day and cross over to the Mexican side to feed," Ignacio Legarreta, a state official, told local media.
The boars of European origin, which were imported to Texas as pets and then replicated in the wild, have caused serious damage to the flora and fauna of the area, officials said.
"They have reproduced to reach more than 50,000 animals that threaten the area," said Legarreta.
The authorities intend to use cages with food inside to trap the animals.
Read about it here.


Maybe we should cull 500,000 illegals from the invasion from the mexican side of the border. We can bait 'em with lawnmowers......

Okay, I got it out of the way.
Brought over as pets? Didn't Coronado bring a shitload of pigs over with him from Europe when he came over? I bet it's pretty likely he inadvertantly left a couple here and there while he was wandering around. And other than a few flaky Kalifornians, I don't know of anybody that keeps livestock as pets. Maybe the Texans had pigs that they kept for food that escaped, ya think?

It seems to me I was reading on one of the Right Wing/Terrorist/TEA Party blogs, maybe it was on one of my predator blogs, that Texas was coming under fire because they wanted to do some serious hog culling because of hogs coming from south of the border.
What's the big deal about where they're coming from? Pigs are pigs, man. They don't know or care about borders. Just invite a shitload of out-of-state hunters, ask the ranchers to waive the hunting fees they normally charge for a few months and have a hog shoot.

Thanks, Thomas.

I for one am grateful for OWS

If it wasn't for these crybaby motherfuckers, I'd be struggling for shit to post. As it stands right now, I can hit 3 different news sites and have enough material to post for the day.

Not only that but I got to gas a hippie with absolutely no repercussions.
I also doubled my readership from a thousand hits a day (with a peak of 7600 hits the Sunday after I gassed the hippie), got a free shirt from Evil Conservatives (see the sidebar to purchase your own), an offer from Martinez Family Bail Bonds here in town to bail me and an offer from a Sacramento lawyer to represent me for free if needed.
Then there was a couple of hundred bucks in donations and about a million attaboys from readers all over the world.

OWS Portland punches a police horse in the face

What the fuck, man? I'd have slapped the spurs to that horse and rode right over that motherfucker.

OWS: If a Cop Tries to Arrest You, Kill Him

Every single day that passes, Occupy Wall Street becomes more violent and more desperate. After over 4,000 arrests, dozens of rapes, hundreds of thefts, and multiple murders, it is exceedingly evident that OWS is an anarchistic group of morons with no apparent purpose.

The only rallying cry they see to have is, "We are the 99%," a lie that spits in the face of the facts. However, it appears that OWS has a new cry: kill the police. Occupy Wall Street is now advising people to resist arrest. And they do not mean peacefully existing arrest. No, instead OWS suggests that, if a police officer tries to arrest you, you have the right to murder him on the spot.
Read the rest here at Pundit Press. Read the comments also.


What's going to happen when one of these fuckers actually do try to kill a cop and he defends himself and/or fellow officers?
They're going to fucking crucify him, and I ain't talking about just the media. Everybody from his supervisors on up are going to get a piece of him. Then DOJ is going to try and fry him, then the ACLU is going to fire off lawsuit after lawsuit for him violating that poor defenseless hippies' rights. Just wait and watch.

Okay, then it was a Conservative

Your Feel-Good Pic of the Day

- This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

But isn't Capitalism evil?

Surfing eBay earlier today I ran across this shirt.
Does it come with scabies and at least five pairs of breeding lice? Maybe a urine stain?

I wonder if the seller is going to pay his fair share of taxes from the sale of these fine shirts?

Bath night in Tijuana

As I neared Tulsa.....

We got us a SQUIRTER!!!!!!

At least they left the best part