Articles by Herschel Smith

Remember when I said this?

Here is something else.  Since some of the malware is stolen from Russia, no one can ever, ever again trust the CIA when they say something like “this malware or hacking attack has a known Russian [or any other country for that matter] signature.”  Never.  Not that I ever trusted the CIA anyway.

NYT:

The Justice Department charged two Russian intelligence officers on Wednesday with directing a sweeping criminal conspiracy that stole data on 500 million Yahoo accounts in 2014, deepening the rift between American and Russian authorities on cybersecurity.

The Russian government used the information obtained by the intelligence officers and two other men to spy on a range of targets, from White House and military officials to executives at banks, two American cloud computing companies, an airline and even a gambling regulator in Nevada, according to an indictment. The stolen data was also used to spy on Russian government officials and business executives, federal prosecutors said.

Russians have been accused of other cyberattacks on the United States — most notably the theft of emails last year from the Democratic National Committee. But the Yahoo case is the first time that federal prosecutors have brought cybercrime charges against Russian intelligence officials, according to the Justice Department.

Particularly galling to American investigators was that the two Russian intelligence agents they say directed the scheme, Dmitry Aleksandrovich Dokuchaev and Igor Anatolyevich Sushchin, worked for an arm of Russia’s Federal Security Service, or F.S.B., that is supposed to help foreign intelligence agencies catch cybercriminals. Instead, the officials helped the hackers avoid detection.

I don’t believe you.  See how that works?

USA Today:

A coalition of retired admirals and generals, including former CIA director and retired Army Gen. David Petraeus, are protesting “irresponsible and dangerous” legislation they say would put mentally ill veterans in harm’s way by giving them easy access to firearms.

The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act would prevent the Department of Veterans Affairs from reporting veterans’ records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System after they’ve been deemed incapable of managing their financial affairs because of a disabling mental disorder. The bill would prohibit the VA from considering such veterans “mentally defective” without a magistrate or judicial authority ruling that the beneficiary is a danger to himself or herself or others.

In a Tuesday letter, members of the Veterans Coalition for Common Sense urged House and Senate leaders to oppose the bill. The House is expected to take it up on Thursday.

“The bill you are debating comes at a time when an average of 20 veterans commit suicide each day, two-thirds of whom do so by using a firearm. We know that non-deployed veterans are at a 61 percent higher risk of suicide compared to the American civilian population, and deployed veterans are at a 41 percent higher risk,” they wrote. “When vulnerable veterans have access to firearms, they can do harm not only to themselves but also to family members and loved ones. The impact of these tragedies is felt in communities across our nation.”

Petraeus, who is an adulterer, and McChrystal who is a murderer of the men at Ganjgal, along with losers Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré, Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli and others, want to report veterans to the NICS.  To link this up to causation, they use having someone else do finances as a trigger.  Just like the elderly who want someone to assist with finances, veterans cannot have their mother or wife assist with finances while they attend college classes for fear of loss of gun ownership rights.

Forget repairing the dysfunctional Veterans Administration, giving better health care, or any one of a myriad of things that would seriously help veterans.  No, take their guns away from them.  This is a disgusting and un-American display of total abandonment for the purpose of driving a political agenda.  This gun control agenda has been pressed by both Petraeus and McChrystal in form, fit and function completely different than the context here with veterans.  Veterans are being used by McChrystal and this group.  So much for their love of country or men with whom they served.

It’s sad, and if you’re a veteran, you need to (a) dissociate yourself from such terrible men, and (b) be very careful what you say to the VA or anyone else for that matter.  The very men who the country should be honoring are on the chopping block for loss of rights.

Prior:

David Petraeus And Stanley McChrystal Lead The Charge On Gun Control

Stanley McChrystal On Gun Control

James Mattis is a good man, a legend, and a true warrior monk.  But that doesn’t make him perfect.  He had nominated Ann Patterson for Undersecretary of Defense for Policy.  But this is highly problematic.

Back during the months leading to the June 30, 2013 revolution, Patterson — the “Brotherhood’s Stooge” as she was called by all, from news analysts to the Egyptian street — was arguably one of the most hated individuals by the millions of Egyptians who took to the streets against Morsi and the Brotherhood.

Not only did her face regularly appear next to Obama’s in placards; it sometimes appeared alone, indicating just how closely she was seen as supporting the Brotherhood.

[ … ]

In the days leading to the revolution, Patterson called on Egyptians not to protest. She even met with the Coptic pope and asked him specifically to urge the nation’s Christian minority not to oppose the Brotherhood — even though Christians were naturally going to suffer the most under Morsi, especially in the context of accusations of “blasphemy.”

That’s enough.  She’s an author of the so-called “Arab Spring,” and an instigator of Christian sufferings.  That’s all you need to know.  You can read the rest of it for yourself, but suffice it to say, she is a supporter of Islamic oppression, ignores the sufferings inflicted because of it, and stateside she is a SJW of legendary proportions, as much of a legend as Mattis is a warrior.

Just why Mattis would have done something like this is puzzling, but it points to flaws in his character, deformities in his judgment.  It’s a good thing the Senate shut this down.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has withdrawn retired senior diplomat Anne W. Patterson as his choice for undersecretary for policy after the White House indicated unwillingness to fight what it said would be a battle for Senate confirmation.

U.S. officials said that two members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), were strongly opposed to Patterson’s nomination because she served as U.S. ambassador to Egypt from 2011 to 2013, a time when the Obama administration supported an elected government with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood that was ultimately overthrown by the Egyptian military.

Good for senators Cruz and Cotton.  But this isn’t all we learn from the article.

Although he reportedly insisted that he be able to select his own team when he accepted Trump’s offer to head the Defense Department, Mattis has skirmished repeatedly with the White House over appointments. His initial choice for deputy secretary, Michèle Flournoy, withdrew from consideration after meetings with White House officials. Flournoy served as the department’s undersecretary in the Obama administration.

Good grief.  Flournoy founded the progressive CNAS, Center for a New American Security, where Phillip Carter and like-minded progressives give lectures and write papers.  As I said, this all points to a fundamental flaw in Mattis, and he is a good man and legend, but not perfect.

It’ll be interesting to see where he takes the U.S. military.

WISTV.com:

COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) – Critics are promising to push back on a new bill that would allow gun owners to carry their weapons with or without a permit, but it’s not clear when the proposal will be up for further debate.

Republican members of the South Carolina House Judiciary subcommittee approved H. 3930 late last week in a meeting lasting only minutes and without input from two Democrats who could not attend.

The bill was introduced just two days before the subcommittee vote by lead sponsor Rep. Mike Pitts of Laurens.

Pitts was the only subcommittee member to comment during the meeting.

The bill is similar to a measure backed by Pitts that gained full House approval last year but failed in the Senate.

Senators also overwhelmingly rejected similar so-called “Constitutional carry” legislation in 2014.

Right now, 31 states allow the unconcealed carrying of guns, and they also allow owners to do so without a permit, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

But the proposed legislation still concerns even some gun owners who have permits. Jeff Diehl is one of them. He runs a restaurant called Chickadee’s in Columbia, where he welcomes gun owners with CWP’s, but feels open carry could be dangerous and bad for business.

“That’s an open gun,” Diehl said. “That’s not a police officer. Nothing that says police officer. That’s scary to me. Let’s get out of here. Let’s fight, let’s run, let’s panic. Whatever. To me, it’s inherently dangerous, whether it’s a restaurant or hospital.”

There are some who love their enslavement to the state.  They traffic in hysteria, and they revel in contradiction such as a concealed handgun isn’t dangerous but an openly carried one is.  And those people use tactics like this to shame gun carriers who desire to carry openly.

You understand that, don’t you?  Laws against open carry are for the purpose of shaming.  I don’t disparage concealed carry, and I do it myself under certain circumstances.  I would rather it be customary to openly carry at all times, because I believe that’s more gentlemanly and well-bred, while it’s ill-bred, pedestrian, ill mannered and coarse to conceal weapons.  You may disagree, but that’s my position and it is incorrigible.  I only do it sometimes to avoid the kerfuffle with people who want to shame gun owners, just like the man in the article.

Laws against open carry are bigoted, prejudiced, vengeful, ill tempered and spiteful.  Oppose such laws and don’t be like those people.  And point out to anyone who makes remarks like Mr. Diehl that he is attempting to shame peaceable, good men for no reason other than the hatred in his own heart.  You should be able to carry concealed if that’s your wish.  So too open carriers should be able to carry openly.  It’s a matter of minding one’s own business, another characteristic of well bred and educated men.

HuffPo:

The debate is whether the benefits of more silencers would outweigh the costs.

Really?  There’s such a debate?

Silencers are “used to conceal the fact that you are firing a weapon,” said Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). “There will be more crimes committed, more people killed” if the current bill passes.

Ah, I see.  Chicken little runs on stage.  “The sky is falling.  The sky is falling.”

But it gets better.

Why are gun controllers so anti-science?  And here I thought the answer to the question was that if millions of gun owners get suppressors, they will get a better cheek weld on their rifles and prevent hearing loss.

David Codrea:

“New York Attorney General files response in Taser case, and no, it’s not a joke,” attorney Stephen Stamboulieh notes in response to the state’s position in the matter of Avitabile v. Cuomo. “I guess before I argue these motions on March 24, 2017, I have to figure out if the Supreme Court’s Heller opinion is binding law in New York. “

I have a better question.  Is God’s opinion relevant in New York?  If you say yes, then you must admit that His requirement to defend your life because it’s made in His image means that the very weapons the New York AG thinks aren’t covered by Heller are the least of the things you should be able to own.  If you say no, well then, the future doesn’t look bright for you, if you know what I mean.  Your body doesn’t just cool to ambient temperature when you die, and that’s the end.  There’s something more.  Much more.  In fact, this life is but a vapor, but what we do and how we believe matters above all else.  Forget Heller.  What about the sovereign of the universe?

Hey, take a look at the picture.  I love it how these controllers always try to line up the blue costumed hacks behind them, as if their opinion means anything.  And look at the sad, unlikable, bitchy and asshole faces in that gaggle.  Would you want to be around them for any reason under the sun?  Say one of the boys asked you to drop by for a pit fire, a bit of Maker’s Mark and some cigars with them.  Would you even want to go?  It would be like spending quality time with that creepy, weird guy who shouts a lot, looks at you strange, smells bad and pushes the buggy with all his stuff in it.  At least, that’s how I think of it.

Don’t be like them, boys and girls.  Don’t be like gun controllers.  They’re a sad, unsociable lot.

Mirror:

This chilling mysterious video shows a group of ‘researchers’ at the CERN Large Hadron Collider staging a chilling ‘satanic human sacrifice’ ritual.

The footage shows a group of cloaked men gathering in a courtyard around a statue at the facility in Geneva, Switzerland.

But CERN has declared that the video is fake, and claims that the ritual was simply researchers and scientists coming to work at the facility ‘taking their sense of humour too far.’

The facility is home to the world’s largest and most powerful particle accelerator, known as the Large Hadron Collider.

Its aim is to allow physicists to test the predictions of different theories of particle physics.

In the clip, there appears to be at least eight figures standing in the shadows, before one man moves into the centre of the group.

Moments later, a woman wearing a white dress enters and kneels on the stone floor.

The woman the seems to lie down on the ground before a man in a cloak approaches her with his hands raised above his head.

Viewers of the footage speculate the man is holding a knife which he appears to plunge into the woman’s chest before the clip suddenly cuts off.

Good Lord!  I’ll let the readers fill in the comments on what they think about this, but I don’t want to hear another damn word about how scientists only refer to naturalistic schema and thus reject supernatural explanations for things.

David Kopel:

You might think that a government unit called the “U.S. Army Corps of Engineers” would mainly perform projects such as building military forts and similar facilities. Yet the Corps of Engineers has acquired jurisdiction over many things that have nothing to do with the military. In particular, “The Corps of Engineers is the nation’s largest provider of water-based outdoor recreation. It administers 422 lake and river projects in 43 states, spanning 12 million acres, encompassing 55,000 miles of shoreline and 4,500 miles of trails, and including 90,000 campsites and 3,400 boat launch ramps. Waters under its control constitute 33 percent of all U.S. freshwater fishing.” (Here is a list of the Corps’ 1,969 recreational facilities.) Thanks to a lawsuit brought by the Mountain States Legal Foundation, the Corps has announced that it is reconsidering the gun ban on its outdoor property.

The Corps allows hunting on some of its land. Except for hunting, possession of a functional firearm is prohibited on Corps land — even a handgun inside one’s own tent. In Nesbitt v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Mountain States Legal Foundation (a public-interest law firm based in Denver) filed a lawsuit on behalf of two Idaho residents, regarding Corps recreational land in Idaho. In 2014, Federal District Judge B. Lynn Winmill (appointed in 1995 by President Bill Clinton) ruled that the ban violates the Second Amendment. The Obama administration then appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

The prohibition was adopted in 1973, during the Richard Nixon administration. Nixon – -the only U.S. president ever to resign in order to avoid certain removal from office by the House and Senate — thought “guns are an abomination.” His administration promulgated a variety of anti-gun regulations.

[ … ]

Note that by banning ammunition, the regulation also forbids the possession of unloaded firearms that could be loaded in an emergency (if sufficient time were available).

Winmill held that “this complete ban goes beyond merely burdening Second Amendment rights but ‘destroys’ those rights for law-abiding citizens carrying operable firearms for the lawful purpose of self-defense.” Accordingly, the ban was unconstitutional. The opinion recognized the Corps’ authority to regulate guns on its outdoor property, but not to forbid them altogether.

A similar case in Georgia, involving a different attorney and plaintiffs, was remanded by the 11th Circuit. GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 788 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2015). The 11th Circuit held that the total ban was not a destruction of Second Amendment rights, since visitors spend only part of any given year on Corps property.

[ … ]

As the Corps follows through on its reconsideration, it has a very useful model available. In 2009, Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed (as an amendment to bill involving credit card laws) legislation allowing the lawful carrying of firearms on lands in the National Park Service. This was later extended to include the National Wildlife Refuge System. 54 U.S.C. § 104906; 36 C.F.R. § 2.4. In short, a person can carry a firearm on such property if the person can legally own a firearm and if the carrying is compliant with the law of the host state. Some states require a permit to carry a firearm; some require a permit for concealed carry but not for open carry; and others do not require a permit for either mode.

Although some people predicted disaster when the National Parks law was enacted, its operation in the past eight years has been uneventful. It is reasonable to presume the same for a similar regulation for Corps of Engineers recreational property.

A number of comments are in order.  First of all, it’s inappropriate in the superlative for the Army Corps of Engineers to have control of land and waterways like they do.  This is a misuse of tax monies and of the Army as well.  If the Army did engineering well, SL-1 wouldn’t have had a control rod ejection accident and they would be the reactor operators rather than the Navy, or at least in addition to the Navy.  Perhaps they are doing an outstanding job with dam engineering, I wouldn’t know, except for the fact that they’re not.  But they certainly don’t do sporting and recreation well.  Good Lord.  I can think of a million uses for the Army, and control of sports and recreation isn’t one of them.

Second, it’s inappropriate in the superlative for the Army to have restricted guns on property like this.  The horrible Richard Nixon notwithstanding, the Army could have reversed this without a court fight.  Instead, they had to look and act like progressive social justice warriors in court rather than the robust, constitution-loving group they are supposed to be.

Third, I cannot think of a more ridiculous argument than the 11th Circuit’s ruling that prohibition of guns sometimes doesn’t infringe the second amendment because that’s not the same thing as a prohibition all the time.  It’s okay, under this schema, to make it impossible to defend yourself if you’re at location “x” because sometimes you’re at location “y.”  The phrase “shall not be infringed” means nothing anymore and the English language is Swahili while the sky is the earth.  Contradiction and beclownment is our friend.

Fourth, consider a second the Army’s argument, and as you do, it should be insulting to you.  Returning to the article, it says “The Corps pointed out that the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision District of Columbia v. Heller allows gun bans in “sensitive places” such as “schools and government buildings.” Winmill explained that the “sensitive places” principle might justify a gun ban for Corps buildings, but not for “outdoor parks.” As for the Corps’ concerns that many of its recreational visitors are drunks who sometimes assault park officers, the court held that this cannot justify prohibiting everyone from exercising a constitutional right. The district court issued an injunction against gun prohibition on Corps property in Idaho. That injunction is still in effect.”

Drunkards, you are.  Many of you, if you frequent Army Corps of Engineers Land.  Many of you.  Just troublemakers and drunkards, and potential murderers.  And yet the fact that it’s precisely the innocent and peaceable man who may be assaulted by drunkards who needs that protection that is overlooked and unaddressed.

At one time I conducted my own research of homicides in National Parks before and after guns were again legalized in 2010, and the parks were no less safe in 2011 than they were in 2010.  Kopel is right about this, and perhaps soon I’ll submit another FOIA request for updated information.  As always with constitutional and open carry, mothers and children don’t run screaming and blood doesn’t run in the streets.  These are all just hysterical reactions.

This whole episode should be embarrassing to the Army, and it shouldn’t just mediate this case until a satisfactory conclusion is reached.  It should forthwith reverse the regulation and recognize the very constitution it should be defending.  David Kopel is a truly nice guy.  I’ve exchanged email with him before.  He thanked the Army Corps of Engineers.  I’ll reserve my thanks, thank you very much.  This has redounded to a lot of wasted taxpayer money and nanny state collectivism by the Army.  The Army should be ashamed it ever got this far.

NYT:

The White House offered an explanation on Sunday for a mysterious phone call that President Trump placed to Preet Bharara a day before abruptly dismissing him and 45 other United States attorneys, saying the president was merely trying to extend his good wishes.

But Mr. Bharara indicated on Sunday evening in a statement to The New York Times that he was skeptical of the White House account, although he did not offer an alternative explanation for the president’s call.

The call, placed on Thursday to the office of Mr. Bharara, the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, by a personal assistant to the president, concerned Mr. Bharara because it seemed to be at odds with ethics protocols restricting communications between the White House and prosecutors. Mr. Bharara declined to return the call. But the White House said there was nothing untoward about it.

“The president reached out to Preet Bharara on Thursday to thank him for his service and to wish him good luck,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders, a White House spokeswoman, said in an email.

Count your blessings.  I would have reached out to you to tell you to kiss my ass.  Let’s stop with the adolescent bitching now, okay?

If you had gone after HRC, Bill, Anthony Weiner, DynCorp and the other bad actors associated with pedogate and nation toppling in North Africa, as well as anyone associated with The Clinton Foundation and The Clinton Global Initiative for money laundering and extortion, then I would have kept you around and paid you well.

But you didn’t.  You’re a coward, and under your watch you can always remember that the real criminals got away because you were to scared to do your job and honor your oath.

Be gone.  I hope I never hear about you again unless it’s to put you in handcuffs yourself for corruption.  Mr. Morally outraged, indeed.  What a damn hypocrite.

The State:

Proponents of gun reform and House Democrats were rattled Thursday when they learned a bill that would allow South Carolinians to carry a concealed firearm without a permit advanced without debate or public input.

The proposed law, by Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, was met with no opposition during a hearing by the Judiciary Constitutional Laws Subcommittee.

It calls for what is often referred to as “constitutional carry,” which allows those who can legally own a firearm to carry it – concealed or in the open – without a government-issued permit.

“The right to carry is a constitutional amendment in the Bill of Rights,” Pitts said. “It is a constitutionally protected right, and that’s why I don’t think the government should (issue a) permit” for the carrying of a gun.

Pitts introduced a similar bill in 2016. But this year’s bill also would allow for “open carry,” which means a person can carry a firearm without having to conceal it.

The proposal does not change where firearm owners can carry their weapons. They would still be barred from carrying into schools and other already prohibited locations. And private businesses could still bar firearms from their establishments.

Carrying of a firearm while committing a crime also would remain prohibited.

The bill also would keep the state’s concealed weapons permitting system in place for those who would prefer that or need to have a permit when traveling out of state with a firearm, Pitts said.

No one from the public signed up to speak during Thursday’s hearing, which lasted about five minutes. The bill, which was filed Tuesday, passed with the support of the three Republicans serving on the panel. Reps. James Smith, D-Richland, and Mandy Powers Norrell, D-Lancaster, were absent.

Smith said he was out of town, while Powers Norrell said she was out of the country when both were reached by phone. Smith said if either had been present, they would have attempted to delay a vote, giving more time for word to spread to the public.

“The meeting was set Wednesday for Thursday morning,” Smith said. “It’s clearly being fast-tracked, which has undermined the ability for adequate public input because nobody had the time to react.”

The panel’s advancement of the bill without testimony from constituents or without all of the committee members present frustrated Sylvie Dessau, a local volunteer with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, an organization that calls for “common-sense legislation” to address gun violence.

“Simply put, this is not how our democracy works,” Dessau said. “We urge House leadership to reject this stunt to advance legislation pushed by gun lobby extremists. South Carolinians deserve to have a say in legislation that may impact our lives for years to come.”

But Rep. Greg Delleney, R-Chester – who is also the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee that will debate the proposal next – stressed the bill’s timing was related to the Legislature’s shorter session this year.

[ … ]

Delleney said he thinks the bill will be well-received by members of the House. The House has previously passed legislation that allows for constitutional carry. But the bills have died in the Senate, with its rules that allow deliberation and easier blocking of legislation.

The State just had to consult moms against something or other.  God forbid they write a piece on proposed gun legislation without talking to folks funded by Michael Bloomberg.  You can almost sense the panic in the article.

Good on the S.C. House.  We’re watching.  Let’s push this thing through and get it done.  Quickly.  Use whatever rules you have to in order to minimize debate.  One delaying tactic is to let bills like this rot on the vine by debating them forever, and then close the legislative session without taking action because, well, there’s just not enough time left to finish the job.  You can finish this job and you know it.  It’s also especially good that this bill includes open carry.  For us, this is like Christmas.  It’s most of what we want wrapped up in one present.

Larry Martin was thrown out of the S.C. Senate for delaying this action in the past, forcing it to dry up in the judicial committee.  We watched.  We took action.  We’re watching you too, Senators.  We’re watching all of you, and we will seek retribution on a name by name basis.  Every one who delays or votes against this will be a target in the next primary or election.  Do this thing.  Get it done.

Don’t listen to LEOs who stand to lose money if you pass this bill.  Very few LEOs ever want this sort of thing because it interferes with their revenue stream for buying the newest and latest Dodge Chargers and all of that new, fancy Comms gear and automatic weapons for the SWAT teams for throwing grenades and busting in doors.  Listen to your voting constituency.  That’s us.

We’re American gun owners, and we don’t compromise or forget.