David Codrea.

So the actor who went from a TV cowboy, to earn international fame as the iconic Man with No Name in spaghetti Westerns, with perhaps his most famous role being the .44 Magnum-wielding Dirty Harry, supports a rabid gun-grabbing zealot?

That may not be his intent, but it may be, and regardless, that’s the effect this has. Irrespective of whatever other reasons Eastwood may have, he is supporting a billionaire who will add the weight of the U.S. government to disarm his countrymen, including Eastwood and his fans. He is, to put it bluntly, but accurately, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

So what makes people think that Hollywood actors are such paragons of value judgment righteousness?  Maybe he is just getting senile in his old age, or thinks this sort of virtue signalling is necessary before he meets his maker.  That would betray a shallow intellect, but most Hollywood types have a shallow intellect.

Doubtless though, Bloomberg and the forces of darkness will use this to their advantage for the idiots among us.  The best way to mitigate the damage is to teach the masses.  That’s a long term project.

NRO.

The third thing that stands out about Buttigieg’s military service is his bizarre brag that he used to travel around Afghanistan in various motor vehicles. Has anyone who has ever served the U.S. military on overseas land not driven around? When he launched his campaign last April he bragged about “119 trips I took outside the wire, driving or guarding a vehicle.” That’s . . . not a thing. There are no such stats. Sorties in aircraft are an official military statistic. Motor-vehicle trips are so routine no one would bother to keep track, any more than someone would log how many times Pete Buttigieg took a shower. No one cares. So Buttigieg himself created this phony statistic. Picture it: He made himself a little Hero’s Log but all he had to put in it was “routine trips.” It’s pathetic. It’s hilarious. It’s apple-polishing, résumé-buffing, box-checking, attention-seeking vaporware. Just like his whole career.

But because of his military “experience” and “training,” he knows that his “weapons of war” have no place in America – except with the police.

Hey Pete.  My son wants to know how many satellite patrols you went on, and how many times you were shot at?

How Latinos Vote.

In separate questions, Latinos were presented with hypothetical races between Donald Trump and varying Democratic candidates. Bernie Sanders receives the strongest share of the Latino vote relative to Trump; 80 percent say they would vote for Sanders, while a mere 16 percent would vote for Trump. Joe Biden also wins a significant share of Latino voters: 72 percent (Biden) to 19 percent (Trump).

We know what Joe Biden thinks of guns.  How about Bernie?

• Take on the NRA and its corrupting effect on Washington.
• Expand background checks.
• End the gun show loophole. All gun purchases should be subject to the same background check standards.
• Ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons. Assault weapons are designed and sold as tools of war. There is absolutely no reason why these firearms should be sold to civilians.
• Prohibit high-capacity ammunition magazines.
• Implement a buyback program to get assault weapons off the streets.
• Regulate assault weapons in the same way that we currently regulate fully automatic weapons — a system that essentially makes them unlawful to own.
• Crack down on “straw purchases” where people buy guns for criminals.
• Support “red flag” laws and legislation to ensure we keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and stalkers
• Ban the 3-D printing of firearms and bump stocks

You think maybe the Latino vote will affect future gun control?  You think this has anything to do with immigration?

The traitor responsible for the continued violations of the constitution of the U.S. and of Texas law is none other than a sworn defender of the same, Olmos police chief Rene Valenciano.  He is an awful person who cares not the least about lying and abandoning his oath.

So the claims on their web site are all lies.  He and his traitor officers have no intention of obeying Texas law, in which open carry is legal.  This also raises yet another question: where the hell is the Texas attorney general?  A police chief is violating Texas law and infringing on constitutionally protected rights.  Where is the Texas attorney general on this?  Missing in action?

Police chief Rene Valenciano’s email address is: policechief@olmospark.org.  Feel free to tell him he’s a traitor.  The city manager is Celia DeLeon, and her email address is: citymanager@olmospark.org.  Is she a coward?  Just why hasn’t she shut down Valenciano’s traitorous henchmen yet?  Is she waiting for a massive lawsuit that bankrupts the city?

By the way, police chief.  That fat boy officer in the video, yea, him.  Tell him to go on a diet, put on a backpack, and hit the trails.

And as for my readers in Texas (I know I have a lot of them), you know what to do next.

Raymond Ibrahim writing at PJM.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (“CAIR”)—also known as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the largest terrorist funding case in U.S. history and a designated “terrorist organization” for nations allied to America—is again vehemently protesting my forthcoming appearance at the U.S. Army War College, urging the latter to “reconsider its decision and disinvite Ibrahim,” since my lecture will no doubt be “hypocritical, ahistorical and hateful.”

[ … ]

For the record, my lecture will revolve around my book, per the War College’s request—hence why CAIR regularly targets it. As such, here one must ask: if the book’s findings are so “unsubstantiated,” why does CAIR fear it so much? Does CAIR have such a low opinion of the intellectual capacity of the U.S. Army War College and its students, as to expect them to believe anything they are told, without adequate evidence?

[ … ]

… to reiterate my supposedly self-incriminating words—Islamic terrorism and extremism are intrinsic to Islam, and have been from its first contact with Western civilization in the seventh century.

This is of course a true statement.  CAIR fears the truth, or a better way of saying it is that the only thing Muslims consider truth is what promulgates and benefits Sharia.  Raymond’s lectures won’t do that, despite being true.  Do you see the distinction?

This is a good time for readers to recall my run-in with Professor Steve Metz at the U.S. Army War College.  He is blithely indifferent to any of this except to call truth-tellers full of hate, and he compares Sharia with “Boy Scout law.”  We should be worried about “creeping Boy Scout law.”

As for the intelligence level of most U.S. military officers today, I wouldn’t be so sanguine as Raymond.  They’ve been trained their whole lives to listen to their Marxist professors and to hate America.  Raymond may have a big job on his hands and get some pushback.  I hope he expects it and is prepared for it.

Tell me it can’t happen.

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Having a few too many at home shouldn’t make handling one’s own firearm illegal, according to an Ohio man challenging his arrest on a charge of possessing a weapon while intoxicated.

The Ohio Supreme Court plans to hear arguments in his case Tuesday, with a decision not expected for several weeks.

Attorneys for defendant Fred Weber say the 2018 arrest was unconstitutional because he was in his own home and the weapon was unloaded. Weber was arrested in southwestern Ohio by sheriff’s deputies after Weber’s wife placed a 4 a.m. 911 call saying her husband had a gun and was drunk.

Inside Weber’s house, deputies saw Weber holding an unloaded shotgun in his hand with the barrel pointed down, according to court records. Weber told officers he was drunk, and officers described him as “highly intoxicated,” the records show.

Weber’s attorneys argue that Weber never should have been charged or convicted under current law, since there was no evidence the shotgun was being carried with an intent to use it.

Furthermore, the law itself is flawed because it means nearly anyone with a gun at home who also consumes alcohol is breaking the law, Weber’s attorneys argued in a filing with the Ohio Supreme Court last year.

“Whether one is drunk or sober should have nothing to do with the right to possess a firearm in the hearth and home,” said attorney Gary Rosenhoffer in an Aug. 20, 2019, filing. As a result, the law is a violation of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, Rosenhoffer argued.

Prosecutors disagree with Weber’s argument and say the law was constitutional as applied to his situation.

By handling his weapon while he was drunk, Weber scared his wife enough that she felt compelled to call police, Nick Horton, a Clermont County assistant prosecutor, said in a Sept. 18 filing.

Weber, “by holding his firearm while intoxicated, was not exercising his right to bear arms in a virtuous manner,” the prosecutor said.

Not only do we have a police/prosecutor state that can predict the future with red flag laws, but they can also decide what’s virtuous and what’s not.

Posted on behalf of TCJ author WiscoDave.

For a while now Herschel has been letting me know that “anytime you feel like posting you still have access” and “if you feel like posting something, just go ahead because you still have posting privileges.” OK. I’ll admit I’m slow on the uptake. Maybe, just maybe, these were hints… So here we go.

As is our habit, we begin with a quiet recitation of A. Shepard’s Prayer.

In John Gierach’s book “Sex, Death, and Fly Fishing” he uses the term “expertizing.” He defines expertizing thus: “Expertizing means acting like an expert. Not necessarily being an expert, mind you, but acting like one.”

In the book he tells several tales that involve him expertizing. The one that strikes me as most applicable to my point is the one in which he is invited to speak to a group of people involved with fly fishing. As he looks out at the audience, he notes several attendees that are much better at fly fishing than he is.  All are looking at him with rapt attention in anticipation of his great words. They are better, but due to his platform, he is viewed as the expert.

We are living in interesting times (like that has never happened before) and the local, nationwide, and worldwide status is in a state of constant change. In a search for information on the what, where and how of the goings on we can cast a fairly wide net in search of information. Some of what we catch is good eatin’ for the mind. Some of what we catch isn’t. And there also is that occasional boot that doesn’t even fit on the menu. While it is easy to judge good fish/bad fish/boot, information from a website can ofttimes be more difficult to discern.

There are those out there that have given themselves a platform from which to expertize. Others, having come across that platform, then share it on their own platform which can very much increase the size of the original platform. This then leads to more expertizing, and so on.

None of you are stupid. At the least you took a break from watching cat videos to come here for the Captain’s insight. (Unfortunately, you found me here today. Xin Loi). Each of you is capable of looking at the information presented and determining good fish/bad fish/boot. Use that capability when reading what the expertizers are placing on your plate.

News from Alabama (via David Codrea).

An Alabama state lawmaker has introduced legislation that would create a statewide database for Alabamians with concealed carry permits.

The process that the state implements currently isn’t secure enough, according to state Rep. Proncey Robertson (R). Currently, the application process for a concealed carry permit is overseen by each county’s sheriff’s office.

“When you go in there and you give them your personal information, addresses, Social Security numbers, date of birth, all this sort of stuff to put on that, it’s sitting there in a very nonsecure location,” Robertson told an Alabama Fox affiliate.

The bill would also allow Alabama residents to be issued lifetime concealed carry permits.

BamaCarry, a pro-gun group in the state, is against the proposed bill.

“They need to back off of trying to regulate people who lawfully carry weapons,” Eddie Fulmer, a member of BamaCarry, told the network.

He couches it in such protectionist terms, doesn’t he?  Lifetime permits.  Nonsecure.  All an excuse for more regulation.

Sometimes I seriously wonder what’s wrong with Alabama.  I know Mike Vanderboegh had problems with Boss Hogg, and even more problems.  But there’s more you should know from David Codrea.

So what the hell is this?

And how are the excuses being made for it any different from arguing for national records consolidation?

Anybody else getting a little tired of Fairfax giving green lights and promoting existing Intolerable Acts?

So your NRA supported this?  You don’t say?  Some astute reader should make a list of the gun control the NRA has supported, for example, AWB, the NFA, the Hughes Amendment, the GCA, the bump stock ban, red flag laws, UBCs, etc., etc., with URLs to prove it all.

Any takers?  Fill up the comments with URLs of NRA gun control.  Have at it.  Let’s have the full list of crap they have supported.

CNN.

A group of seven measures to restrict gun rights in Virginia was advanced by a state Senate committee on Monday.

The Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee voted to pass legislation ranging from a measure that would provide for expanded background checks on any gun sales or purchases to one that would create an order allowing for the temporary removal of guns from a legal owner if a court determines that the person poses a threat of harm to themselves or others.

According to Tanya Schardt, a senior counsel for the gun-control group Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the bills passed in a near party-line vote, with Democrats in favor and Republicans against.

The bills are the remaining part of a package of eight gun violence prevention measures proposed by Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat, in a July 2019 special session of the Virginia Assembly following a mass shooting in Virginia Beach.

The temporary defeat of the AWB was only a small victory.  Red flag laws and UBC are a big and serious deal.  Fight it.  Don’t comply.

Oh, the FFLs will have to comply, but you don’t.  And neither do the local and county LEOs.  Make sure they’re on your side.

Not the kind parents will teach their children in home schooling (not necessarily so, but maybe, I certainly would), but with a different emphasis.

Following the same procedure, we can see that even over an 18-year span we have a 10% chance of violent revolution, which is an interesting thought experiment to entertain before you have kids. It’s also important to note that a violent nation-state transition doesn’t just affect people who live in a floodplain. It affects everyone stuck in the middle. Especially the poor and defenseless.

The authors try to do some PRA (Probabilistic Risk Assessment) with a limited failure data set.  After all, violent revolutions in North America is a limited data set.  A better statement follows.  “The tech preppers do not necessarily think a collapse is likely. They consider it a remote event, but one with a very severe downside, so, given how much money they have, spending a fraction of their net worth to hedge against this . . . is a logical thing to do.”

This is better because it boils it down to its essential elements.  We’ve discussed this many times before in the context of concealed or open carry.  The minimization of risk means understanding high risk scenarios, and risk = probability X consequences.  So for example, if something is low probability and the consequence of the event is low (for example, a spoon breaking when you eat your morning cereal), you don’t invest in a new set of expensive china.

If on the other hand an event has high probability or high consequence, that can drive the risk high, meaning it’s something you need to plan for.  Preppers see the event for which they are planning to be a high consequence event.  They are right.

It’s just that simple.