Articles by Herschel Smith

In order to ensure that you know exactly who the CIA is protecting, exactly who the democratic party wanted to elect, exactly who half of the country voted for, and to whom most large countries of the world gave millions of dollars, watch this.

Courtesy of Wynn, this:

An unarmed 73-year-old with dementia who was shot and killed by police early Monday was struck nine times, the man’s son said in a video posted to Facebook. However, police say the son is “misinformed.”

The officer was answering a report of a man brandishing a handgun around 12:30 a.m. in Bakersfield, Calif. When a witness pointed to Francisco Serna, who was standing in a neighbor’s driveway, one officer fired and killed him, Bakersfield police spokesman Sgt. Gary Carruesco told CBS Bakersfield affiliate KBAK-TV.

No gun was turned up in a search of the scene, Carruesco said.

So where is the gun?  If he was armed, then a gun was recovered.  Where is the gun?

Popular Mechanics:

This morning, President-Elect Donald Trump suggested he will attempt to significantly curb military spending by slashing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

It’s no secret that the F-35 program has run into cost overrun after cost overrun, tied to multiple technical and design flaws including engine fires, software failures, and airframe cracks since the plane’s first flight a decade ago. But even though the F-35 has become a grossly bloated project, hacking away at the fifth-generation fighter would open up some significant holes to fill. President-elect Trump’s tweet alone initially dropped Lockheed Martin’s market share by $4 billion, though it recovered some shortly after.

Full-scale production of the F-35 was originally scheduled to begin eight years ago, but this proved to be an overly-optimistic estimate by 11 years—and that’s assuming full-scale production does, in fact, begin in 2019 as projected now. The F-35 will be the most expensive weapons system in history by a significant margin, exceeding $1 trillion in projected lifetime costs. Trump has targeted the program as an area to save money, along with the new Boeing 747s intended to serve as the new Air Force One jets.

That’s funny.  The article says that the F-35 is tied to “multiple technical and design flaws.”  I would have said it differently.

I would have said that the F-35 is a piece of shit, good for nothing at all except the ridiculous imaginations of fifth generation warfare advocates, failing at everything it does, a complete bomb at dogfighting, capable of carrying very little ordnance, incapable of defending itself, and an expensive waste of taxpayer money – where the U.S. would be better served with the F-22, refurbishment of the existing fleet of fighters, new Harriers for the USMC, and A-10s in the role of infantry support.

But that’s just me.

It’s about time.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Greg Steube, R-Sarasota, introduced a controversial measure Friday that would allow the more than 1.67 million Floridians with concealed-weapons licenses to openly carry handguns.

Steube’s bill (SB 140), which is filed for the 2017 legislative session, also would expand the places where people with concealed-weapons licenses are allowed to carry guns. It would allow them to be armed at legislative meetings; local government meetings; elementary and secondary schools; airport passenger terminals; and college and university campuses.

License holders would still be prohibited from carrying weapons at locations such as police stations, jails, courtrooms, polling places and most bars.

During the 2016 session, the open-carry measure was approved 80-38 in the House but failed to advance through the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was chaired by former Sen. Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, R-Miami. Diaz de la Portilla lost a re-election bid in November.

Yea, I hope I helped in some small way to ensure that it was a failed re-election bid.  But what we see here is permitted open carry, with the same failings of the Texas permitted open carry law.

Police don’t know how to enforce it, given that there is no stop and identify statute in Texas (and all stops must be so-called Terry stops anyway).  Florida is a stop and identify state, specifically for loitering and prowling.

So how does this apply to open carry?  What role does the permit play in all of this?  There is an easier way to do this, and it’s to make the state constitutional carry with legal open carry.  Stop taking half way measures.

Richard A. Nascak, executive director of Florida Carry, weighs in on the coming kerfuffle.

U.S. Representative Frederica Wilson’s viewpoint, published by the Sun Sentinel on Dec. 2, is a mini-case study on irrational fears. She flatly states that the proposals to legalize open, campus, and airport carry are a “notion that sends chills down my spine.”

The reason is revealed by her own admission. “It’s almost too easy to imagine the horrific effect and consequences that such laws would have in urban communities.” And there we have the source — her imagination. Unfortunately, Rep. Wilson’s imagination does not represent the experiences of 45 other states with regards to open carry.

In recent years, several states have legalized open carry of firearms — Oklahoma in 2012, and Texas in 2016 (adding handguns to the already lawful open carry of long guns). Similar concerns were voiced by officials in those states prior to open carry becoming lawful. For example, both Tulsa Police Chief Chuck Jordan and Oklahoma City Police Chief Bill Citty strongly opposed open carry citing a myriad of unsubstantiated reasons.

Likewise, the first vice president of the Dallas Police Association, Austin Police Chief Art Acevado, and a host of other Texas officials opposed open carry. Here in Florida, we hear the same rhetoric from the Florida Sheriffs Association and in particular Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri who, like his predecessor Jim Coats, threatened to shoot those seen openly carrying firearms.

So, what were the results of the legalization of open carry in Oklahoma and Texas? As pro-gun rights organizations predicted, much ado about nothing. Quoting from several media sources after passage:

•”We’ve not been responding to any calls, we’ve not had any complaints, we’ve not been taking reports. No, no issues here,” said Maj. Shannon Clark with the Tulsa County Sheriff’s Department. “We have not seen anything alarming or attention-grabbing at all,” said Tulsa Police Officer Leland Ashley.

•”I think it proves our point just a little bit that good, responsible people don’t get in trouble with firearms and that thugs and hoodlums get into trouble with firearms every day,” said Rogers County Sheriff Scott Walton.

•”We do not have anything interesting to report,” Cpl. Tracey Knight, spokeswoman for the Fort Worth Police Department, said last week. “Two calls so far, no issues. We have no concerns and we have had no problems.”

•”I said before this became law that I thought it was going to be much ado about nothing but I didn’t know it was going to be this much nothing,” Tarrant County Sheriff Dee Anderson said.

Rep. Wilson appears to be primarily concerned with black youths in urban areas. However as cited, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, Houston, and other urban centers with a black youth population belie that concern. The fears are unsubstantiated.

So we get to the meat of the objection – she’s worried about those black boys carrying guns around.  But some of them do anyway, you just can’t see them.  Furthermore, I don’t object to peaceable men carrying guns.  If they pull them and threaten anyone, then that’s considered brandishing, and you can swear out a warrant for their arrest and have them charged.  Problem solved.

Unless of course the real problem is that you’re worried about undisciplined black boys being irresponsible with those guns and going to prison for it.  In this case, your problem doesn’t have a solution in the law.  You need to speak to the families and churches about that.

Military.com:

So it doesn’t seem that the Army or the Marine Corps are in any hurry to explain to Congress why they don’t use a common 5.56mm round.

The final joint version of the Fiscal 2017 National Defense Appropriations Act includes a provision requiring the secretary of defense to submit a report to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees explaining why the two services are using different types of 5.56 mm ammunition for their M16A4 rifles and M4 carbines.

The bill has already passed the House and is expected to be voted on and approved by the Senate this week before going to President Obama’s desk for his signature.

This is not the first time Congress has gotten its dander up over this subject. Lawmakers asked both services to explain the same thing last year, but Marine Corps leaders said they need to do more testing of the Army’s M855A1 enhanced 5.56mm round.

I reached out to the Marine Corps yesterday and the Army today to ask about how they planned to deal with the request. I could almost hear the head-scratching as if neither service had heard anything about it.

According to the provision, the report must be submitted within 180 days after the bill, which includes the entire defense budget for the coming year, is enacted.

If the secretary of defense does not determine that an “emergency” requires the Army and Marine Corps to use the two different types of rifle ammo, they must begin using a common 5.56mm round within a year after the bill is passed, it states.

OK so here is the back story for those you out there who don’t know it.

The Army replaced the Cold-War era M855 5.56mm round in 2010 with its new M855A1 enhanced performance round, the end result of more than a decade of work to develop a lead-free round.

The M855A1 features a steel penetrator on top of a solid copper slug, making it is more dependable than the current M855, Army officials have maintained. It delivers consistent performance at all distances and performed better than the current-issue 7.62mm round against hardened steel targets in testing, Army officials maintain. It penetrates 3/8s-inch-thick steel at ranges approaching 400 meters, tripling the performance of the M855.

The Marine Corps had planned to field an earlier version of the Army’s M855A1 until the program suffered a major setback in August 2009, when testing revealed that the bismuth-tin slug proved to be sensitive to heat which affected the trajectory or intended flight path.

The setback prompted Marine officials to stay with the current M855 round as well as start using the MK 318 Special Operations Science and Technology round developed by U.S. Special Operations Command instead. Commonly known as SOST ammo, the bullet isn’t environmentally friendly, but it offered the Corps a better bullet after the Army’s M855A1 round failed.

Since then the Marine Corps has purchased millions of MK 318 rounds.

The MK 318 bullet weighs 62 grains and has a lead core with a solid copper shank. It uses an open-tip match round design common with sniper ammunition. It stays on target through windshields and car doors better than conventional M855 ammo.

The Army quickly replaced the bismuth-tin slug in its new round with a copper one, solving the bullet’s problems in 2010, Army officials said.

The new Army round also weighs 62 grains and has a 19-grain steel penetrator tip, 9 grains heavier than the tip on old M855 ammo. Seated behind the penetrator is a solid copper slug. The M855A1 consistently penetrates battlefield barriers such as windshields more effectively than the M855, Army officials contend.

The accuracy of the MK 318 may not be what it’s cracked up to be.  However, for any of these heavier than 55 grain rounds, there is a detriment in muzzle velocity (these rounds lose up to 200 FPS), and that can actually make a difference in penetrating capability.

Suffice it to say that creation of an environmentally friendly round for the armed forces is laughable, and the main thing to be concerned about is ballistics.  It would be interesting if someone still in the service would weigh in on this debate.

But as for Congress being briefed on the details of the ammunition being chosen by the armed forces, I agree with one of the comments.  You may as well try to teach physics to a pig.

There has been a lot found over the last week or so concerning #Pizzagate.  To begin with, watch this video, or if you don’t want to, read the transcript of what she says.  She is wife of a Mafioso, and she says that the royals and politicians are killing and raping children for “fun.”

Did you read the transcript?  Make sure you do.  This isn’t fake news, it’s just news you won’t be told by the U.S. government or the MSM.  The American MSM traffics in fake news.  I do not.  Here is another report.

Next up, the Washington Post, NYT (this link works too) and ABC News have all scrubbed the news report of Norway’s pedophile ring bust.  It was initiated by an AP report, and it’s accurate.  Norway isn’t denying it, and it won’t go away.  In all, 150 Terabytes of data and information was seized.

So what is the MSM in America is trying to cover up?  Is there a connection to TCF?  What is it that the MSM doesn’t want you to know?  How far does this go, and how widely across the isle do the fingers point?

Meanwhile, you’ve see the narrative developing all around you in dealing with all of this.  First, trot out some CIA shills to say that Russia was meddling in the affairs of America.  Unnamed people, saying things using unnamed sources, of course.  Next, claim that any porn or CP found on computers is a Russian plant.  Next, quickly and silently pass the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act.  Next, trot out Senator John McCain to say that he cannot believe that Trump doesn’t believe all of this.

Well, Trump says he doesn’t believe it, Kellyanne Conway calls it laughable and ridiculous (which it is), and apparently Trump won’t attend any briefings with the CIA.  I wouldn’t either.

As to the role of the various governmental organizations is all of this, when I read analyses weeks ago that asserted that there’s a war going on between the old guard CIA and the FBI / NSA, I initially dismissed those analyses.  I’m beginning to believe that there is something to all of that.

As to whether Russia tried to hack computer systems, of course they did.  And we do too.  And China does too.  And so does the Mossad.  Folks, I work for a large corporation, and during conversation with a corporate executive several months ago I was told that my company is the target of hundreds of thousands of hack attempts per month, some by governmental organizations.  If you work for a large corporation, your company is a target too.  Deal with it.

That’s not what’s happening here.  Look past the smoke and mirrors and understand that a narrative is being set in place to deal with the fallout of #Pizzagate, one that 90% of America will suck down in a second, and go back to wearing stupid costumes and cheering for their favorite band of criminals on Sunday.  If you can’t see the narrative developing, you’re in denial or you’re stolid.  The rest of you who understand what’s going on are in a war, whether you want to be or not.

The American MSM is kooky and unhinged.  David Seaman has it right.

Prior:

Pizzagate XI

Pizzagate X

Pizzagate IX

Pizzagate VIII

Pizzagate VII

Pizzagate VI

Pizzagate V: Pizzagate In Theological Perspective

Pizzagate IV

Pizzagate III

Pizzagate II

Pizzagate

I have to say that I am beginning to agree with Jeff.  Since I have been covering #Pizzagate, when I go out more often than not I’m now carrying two guns, not one.

Also, I’ll briefly comment on his choice of guns.  I do love the 1911, and I have the S&W E Series 1911, full size.  I shoot it better than I shoot anything else.  I have been thinking about a smaller 1911 like this one, and the fact that it’s a Performance Center gun impresses me.

But why does every gun that catches my interest cost $1500 and up?  I need a rich friend.

David Codrea:

“Pro–gun control advocates mobilized and constructed an effective pro–gun control pressure group called the Emergency Committee for Gun Control,” Encycopedia.com documents. “The bipartisan organization was headed by Colonel John H. Glenn, Jr., a former astronaut and friend of Senator Robert Kennedy.”

The most significant federal legislation since the 1934 National Firearms Act, GCA ’68 “primarily focuses on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.” It also added marking requirements, denied guns to specific classes of “prohibited persons” and placed import restrictions on “non-sporting” weapons.

Make sure you read the comments as well.  I’ve dealt with the sporting purposes test before, and I consider it to be one of the worst abominations ever to be enacted into law.  It is certainly logically self referential and incoherent.

So I’m willing to grant that some men perform admirably when it comes to brave actions under duress, and John Glenn is one of them.  But David is much kinder to John than I would have been, or will be.  Bravery under duress while obeying orders is just that, and admirable depending upon the entire context.  Bravery of the Nazi SS troops while herding Jews into train cars isn’t admirable, nor was their bravery on the field of battle fighting for the wrong cause.

Here is the better test.  Rather than focus on what a man does while acting under orders and not in command, I’d rather know what he does when he is the one giving the orders.  The later rather than the former is the true test of a man’s world view and his character.  How does he treat others and how much does he respect their rights?

On that test, John Glenn failed, regardless of his prior bravery.

The Trace:

Three years ago, in a move intended to signal its profound devotion to gun rights — and opposition to new restrictions being weighed by Congress — the Kansas legislature passed a law that never had any chance of actually taking force.

The “Second Amendment Protection Act” declared that federal laws and regulations do not apply to any gun manufactured in the state, so long as it is marked “Made in Kansas” and remains within the state’s borders at all times after its production.

The law — which, again, was invalid from the outset — also applied to ammunition and firearm accessories made in Kansas. It declared that federal law enforcement agents would be guilty of a felony if they attempted to enforce federal laws regarding these products within state borders.

It’s clear now that the legislators who pushed forward the law were well aware of the unresolvable conflict with federal law and the U.S. Constitution, and that they assumed that Kansans would understand that the act was meant to send a message, not to be taken literally.

But some Kansas gun sellers and buyers apparently didn’t get the memo.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 bans the unlicensed possession, manufacture, and sale of silencers, machine guns, and sawed-off shotguns. Many gun enthusiasts argue that the restrictions on silencers are outdated, and that the devices eliminate noise pollution and may stave off hearing damage.

Shane Cox ran a military surplus store in southeastern Kansas, and after the law took effect, he began producing and selling his own silencers. He assured buyers that federal gun laws would not apply as long as the products stayed within state borders and even handed out copies of the new statute.

Jeremy Kettler, a disabled U.S. Army veteran, bought one of the silencers and posted a video about it on Facebook. Both men were soon charged with violating the federal laws that regulate silencers. Kettler bought the unregistered silencer “because of a piece of paper signed by the governor saying it was legal,” the Associated Press reported.

The Kansas statute purported to nullify federal law, much as states like South Carolina had attempted to do prior to the Civil War. But the Supreme Court has ruled that states simply don’t have this authority.

[ … ]

One of the bill’s co-sponsors, former state representative Jim Howell, told the AP that lawmakers knew the measure’s validity would be disputed. “I think these gentlemen understood that when they made a choice to do what they did,” Howell said, of the men arrested over the sale of silencers.

What a cowardly piss ant.  The legislator who pressed this threw his own citizens to the lions when it came to pushing and shoving, and Kansas buckled.

The author is an attorney for the Brady Center, and other than the discussion of the validity of nullification, I actually agree with him for different reasons.  The real culprit here is the state of Kansas.

I’ve said before, don’t even consider something like nullification unless you’re willing to go the mattresses for your people.  The lawmakers could have handed the governor the tools to deal with the federal intrusion, and the governor could have had the balls to do it.

But none of this obtained, and the citizens suffered as a result.  Unless you’re willing to arrest federal agents who attempt to enforce these laws and throw them in the state penitentiary with the other prisoners, don’t even consider nullification.

Nullification laws made for show are immoral.  Nullification laws made for real are admirable, but states have to be willing to back it all up with force.

CNBC:

The Remington Arms Company, which is seeking court approval of a landmark class action settlement involving alleged defects in its most popular rifles, said in a series of court filings that its critics have “ulterior motives” in objecting to the deal.

In one instance, the company claimed, an objector first tried to extract more than $1 million from the company to buy his silence.

Remington has agreed to replace the triggers in millions of guns, including its popular Model 700 bolt-action rifle, to settle allegations that the guns are prone to firing without the trigger being pulled. But the company continues to maintain that the guns are safe, and that the accidents and deaths associated with the alleged defect are the result of user errors. Several gun owners have filed formal objections to the settlement as a result, alleging the company is deliberately downplaying the risks.

Remington reserved its harshest criticism for Richard Barber, a Montana man who says his nine-year-old son was killed when a Remington 700 went off during a family hunting trip in 2000. Barber has been a central figure in multiple CNBC reports about the company since 2010. Remington settled a wrongful death claim by the Barber family for an undisclosed amount in 2002, but Barber went on to amass a huge trove of internal company documents and became a sought-after expert on the alleged defect.

Barber initially served as a paid consultant to the class action plaintiffs, but resigned in early 2015. Last month, he filed a formal, 40-page objection to the proposed class action settlement citing what he called “deceitful and misleading statements” by Remington and plaintiffs’ attorneys.

But in a scathing response filed on Tuesday, Remington said Barber only objected to the settlement after first demanding that the company pay him $1.5 million, and supply him with two Remington Modular Sniper Rifles—which we found listed for sale online for $21,000 apiece—plus 4,000 rounds of ammunition. In exchange, the company claimed that Barber offered to support any class action settlement, stop making disparaging statements about the company, and destroy all of his research.

“In light of Barber’s vexatious conduct, his objections to the class action settlement should be summarily rejected,” the filing said.

In an interview, Barber acknowledged making the demands but said Remington is mischaracterizing them in an attempt to deflect attention from the real issues in the case. He said the demands were drawn up by attorneys who no longer represent him, and said he ultimately withdrew the demands after concluding that he would be “making a deal with the devil.”

I’m not sure what all of that means.  To be fair, the claim isn’t that the rifle just “went off.”  It’s that it fell to the ground (with the safety on) and discharged.  That’s a little different than has been characterized in the article, and also to be fair, Remington’s own records indicate that the Walker fire control system is defective and has been proven to discharge when the bolt was placed into battery, discharge when the safety was taken off, and so on.

No one wins, no one has won, no one will win.  The only winning scenario was rejected, and that would have been for the engineers at Remington to force Remington to recall the trigger two decades ago.  It’s always a bad thing when corporate executives call the shots in matters like this, and it’s never a good thing when the corporate lawyers get involved.  Lawyers aren’t technically qualified to make these decisions, and corporate executives can only be trusted if they have been proven to be ethical.  In Remington’s issue with the Walker fire control system, that was not the case.  In matters like this, the engineers have to rule.  If my own sense of things down at the gun stores is any indication, Remington has taken a huge hit anyway, with the reliance on military contracts, the union-driven labor force, the Northern states based manufacturing, and so on.  As I said, no one wins, not even Remington.

On the other hand, the request for two modular sniper rifles and ammunition as a part of a multi-million dollar settlement is the most bizarre thing I’ve seen in a long time.  Why on earth would he make this kind of request if he had the money in hand?  It makes no sense unless he intended to test the rifles to see if the design flaw had been modified out of the system.  If that was the case, it would have been more discrete to have a third party purchase and test the rifles.

Again, as I said, no one wins, and it will be better for everyone when this goes away.  This has nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with the dark underbelly of American corporatism.  I say this as one who has staunchly defended Remington from the invasive demands of the Sandy Hook Families lawsuit.  I defend when it’s appropriate, and I criticize when it’s appropriate.