buy, Buy, BUY AMMO NOW

If you are short on 5.56x45mm ammo, I suggest you had best buy it now because sources have been quoted as saying Winchester has been ordered to stop selling Lake City M855 and SS109 to the civilian market. According to an article I just read, that ammo supposedly makes up about 30% of the 5.56 ammo in the market. Now, while that may be true, I think that figure seems rather high but if the Biden Administration actually put out such an order it will definitely adversely affect ammo supplies. Read about it at the source.

I look at it this way, as long as you don't need to hump it over hill and over dale - you cannot have enough ammo. Makes me think of the old movie Gunga Din with Sam Jaffe in the title roll. At one point, in battle, the troops called out to him: 

 

 I think they would have fared better had they brought their own full canteens and instead said:

Ammo Gunga Din, Gunga Din bring ammo! 

 

Anyway, I think we'd each be better off today to consider ourselves our own Gunga Dins of sorts and thus tell ourselves: "Buy Ammo Gunga Din, Gunga Din Buy Ammo"! Why? It maybe is about to be in even shorter supply than it was last year and that will mean one thing besides less supply and that one thing is much higher prices. 

 

So if you want to be ready for the civil war that I sadly believe is coming - because the leftists seem to be pushing for it (although, I hope I am wrong about that) by way of brainwashing our children, by turning men into women and women into men, by ripping full term babies out of a mother's womb and calling it legal abortion, by not only being easy on criminals but by actually facilitating crime with passage of laws and regulations that amount to doing nothing to prosecute, by creating the worst inflation in over 40 years, by destroying our ability to be energy independent, and by destroying our rights & liberties bit by bit and day by day - get your ammo while the getting is good at least still possible. I surely hope though it will never actually be needed for a civil war against enemies of the Constitution nor to overthrow a tyrannical government but then again the possibility of things like that that is why the Framer's of the Constitution & of the Bill of Rights thought up & wrote in the 2nd Amendment.

 

All the best,

Glenn B

If The Supremes Overturn Roe vs Wade (RvW)...

 ...watching the result while consuming a weiss bier or cocktail (or three) could be quite the amusing thing to do as the libs lose it and go berserk and their heads explode. No, it would not be fun to see them hurting anyone - just to see their heads explode (figuratively of course). Sadly, such a decision just may be what is needed to spark the seemingly long brewing civil war between the left & right in this country; if not then certainly mass civil unrest. Now, that could be something to watch too or maybe even to legally join in to protect freedom, justice, our Constitution, America and Americans' lives (including unborn babies in the womb). 

 

Now don't get me wrong. I am no big opponent of abortion but nor am I a big proponent - at least in most cases. I can see allowing abortions to protect the life of the mother or in cases of rape, incest, pedophilia and also in some other limited cases. I cannot see allowing abortions as a method of birth control because some neanderthal was too stupid to use a condom, to pull out, to get a BJ or go anal instead or because some woman was so eager to spread her legs she dropped the pin between her knees (a Catholic nun thing in grammar school, they made girls who spread em while sitting in class hold a pin between their knees for a long time), or because a woman did not care to take female measures to prevent pregnancy (like the pill or use a diaphragm or some other form of birth control). 

 

What I am totally against is the federal government having gotten itself involved in the first place. I believe there is zero legal authority, within the Constitution (the basis of all federal authority), for the feds to be providing funding for abortions or to be allowing them or banning them - the issue of abortion should be up to each state to determine. If there is such legality specifically spelled out within that document - show it to me.

Some things I think you can expect though, if it does work out that the Supremes actually overturn Roe versus Wade are:

 

Huge protest marches consisting of a lot of woe is me types,

Protest marches that quickly become violent,

 

Outright riots by pro-abortion folks as if the protest marches will not disrupt things enough,

 

Riots by BLM types who undoubtedly will say such a decision is racist because they seem to do nothing else except race bait and  do not care about black peoples' lives,

 

Riots by ANTIFA types just for the sake of rioting and of course they likely will claim, ironically, that preventing the killing of as of yet unborn, but yet living, children is fascism at its height,

 

Riots by far right groups opposing the above groups,

 

Lots of police officers and National Guardsmen being wounded and some killed in the rioting,

 

Lots of arson to include of government buildings, political offices, police stations, abortion clinics, and so on,

Lots of other types of property destruction,

Churches & other houses of worship being defiled,

 

Lots of looting (after all, lefties will need diapers & formula for all those kids they will be having),

 

Several autonomous zones being formed by wacko lefties,

 

Governors of so called blue states doing almost nothing to put down rioters,

 

RINO's kissing the arse of lefties,

 

Possibly some assassinations, or attempts at such, of justices and politicians, and other pro-life supporters - maybe even some attempts at assassinating pro-abortion types,

Lots of innocent bystanders being injured,

 

Lots of arrests with very few lefties being held for a long term as have been the arrested folks of January 6 fame still being held without trial,

Lots of arsehat politicians whining, gnashing their teeth, wailing woe is our country and giving truly unbelievable vile speeches opposing such a decision,

 

Outright civil war on a large scale because abortion was essentially the mantra of the leftists - it really is one of the driving principles of being a lefty in this country,

Attempts at packing of the Supreme Court with as many lefty justices as is possible (before this coming November),

Calls for the Supreme Court to be dismantled and for the Constitution to be torn apart with hopes of anarchy reigning until the commies can take over,

 

The media loving every minute and stirring the embers until they burst into flames of civil war while blaming it all (or most of it) on Trump should the overturning of RvW become reality,

 

Zero chance of any calls by leftist politicians to label any civil unrest by abortion supporters as being an insurrection, 

And I guess there is an outside chance that the person or persons responsible for the leak of the draft will actually be discovered and prosecuted to the full extent of the law now that the Chief Justice has made the seriousness of the offense clear (source).

 

I may be wrong about all of that but those are what I think are quite possible outcomes, even likely ones (except maybe for the last one), should RVW be overturned. 

 

I have to say, it will be amazing to see how the left turns on the Supreme Court should RvW be overturned; heck they thought the Supreme Court was the cat's meow so long as it upheld what they say is a woman's right - one that amounts to the killing of unborn babies. if it really happens, then I also cannot wait to see how they attempt to trash Trump over this. As for me, whatever influence Trump may have had in such a decision only raises his pedestal higher as I see it. The federal government needs to get its nose out f business where it does no belong. Maybe next, and I know this is truly wishful thinking on my part, the Supremes can declare the departments of education & energy as unconstitutional and declare the 2nd Amendment and our RKBA as an unalienable right that rally cannot be infringed.

Edited On may 4, 2022, To Add: I forgot to mention, if this comes about there will be not only riots but armed insurgency from the left. Of course, the left will not call it an insurgency but probably will say it was a peaceful protest by folks armed only to defend themselves and they had to shoot down the evil folks who support life.

All the best,

Glenn B

 

Sarah Silverman Calls For The Overthrow Of Fascists

Sarah Silverman seemingly is on the razor's edge if not already fallen over to the dark side on which side she may face prosecution for her reported call for the military to join in against President Trump and to seemingly overthrow him by way of a military coup. According to a report in the Washington Times, Silverman tweeted the following on her Twitter account (source):

"WAKE UP & JOIN THE RESISTANCE. ONCE THE MILITARY IS W US FASCISTS GET OVERTHROWN. MAD KING & HIS HANDLERS GO BYE BYE"

I think one can only understand from those words that she has called for the overthrow the lawful government of these United States, that she has solicited people to join that heinous cause and that she calls for such to be done with violence by use of the military. This may or may not be considered a treasonous act but I think she could be prosecuted under the conspiracy and solicitation statutes of the U.S. Code, Title 18. See below and take your pick Mr. Acting Attorney General Dana J. Boente :

18 U.S. Code § 373 - Solicitation to commit a crime of violence

 

a)   Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct, shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half of the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the crime solicited, or both; or if the crime solicited is punishable by life imprisonment or death, shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty years.

 

(b)   It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section that, under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of his criminal intent, the defendant prevented the commission of the crime solicited. A renunciation is not “voluntary and complete” if it is motivated in whole or in part by a decision to postpone the commission of the crime until another time or to substitute another victim or another but similar objective. If the defendant raises the affirmative defense at trial, the defendant has the burden of proving the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

 

(c)   It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the person solicited could not be convicted of the crime because he lacked the state of mind required for its commission, because he was incompetent or irresponsible, or because he is immune from prosecution or is not subject to prosecution. 

 

 

18 U.S. Code § 372 - Conspiracy to impede or injure officer

 

If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.

 

***

 

To me it looks like an open and shut case with her winding up in jail and or fined. I think it about time that President Trump and his administration take these evident threats seriously and act on them by arresting and prosecuting the violators before one of them actually incites a civil war. The violence at UC Berkeley last night was living proof that we are on the verge of one, let alone already embroiled within one, more here on that.

 

Now let me ask, who in hell is Sarah Silverman?

 

All the best,

Glenn B

Today In History - WW I German Soldiers Attacked By Monsters

It may sound incredible and the Germans who saw them advancing probably did not believe their own eyes but indeed monsters - of a sort - were advancing on their positions in Battle of Flers-Courcelette an offensive in the Battle of the Somme. The Germans had been expecting a British infantry advance but indeed had never imagined what was coming at them. As a German war correspondent reported it:

"Two mysterious monsters slowly approached us, over the cratered landscape. The monsters approached slowly limping, swaying, swinging but they kept moving towards us. No obstacles could stop them, a supernatural force seemed to drive them forwards. Our machine gun fire and our head weapons ricocheted off them. So they had no trouble wiping out the crews of the advanced shell
holes." 1

What the Germans were seeing, on that Sept. 15, 1915, were not monsters out of a science fiction novel. Yet, for all practical purposes, they could have been because the Germans though valiant were as helpless against them as they would have been against an invasion of alien spaceships. You see the things that they saw advancing on them, the things that wiped them out, were a new type of war machine the likes of which the world had not seen before and that thing came in good numbers. It was a division of troops supported by tanks, about 21 of them that actually made it into warfare that day. What they saw was probably a lot like the one pictured, a British Mark 1 male tank (they also had a female model with less firepower). Even though faced with monsters the Germans showed great bravery in the face of such beasts. As reported by a British war correspondent:

“They were very courageous. Despite the tank’s machine gun fires, they attempted in desperate rage to assault the wandering tank fort and to kill its crew, They hauled each other up in the air, climbed on the roof, searched for hatches and openings and fired into the slits with pistols." 2

Despite the valiant attempts of the Germans the tanks helped achieve a feat that had been virtually unheard of during the trench warfare of the War To End All Wars. The British forces advanced about 3,500 yards in one day - this during a war where victory was claimed after advances of a mere few feet.

There were drawbacks to the tank. For one thing they were notoriously unreliable. many broke down, others got mired in mud and so on. Yet the British and french believed in them and hurried to improve and develop more efficient models. The Germans believed that artillery would master tanks - a mistake they paid for with defeat. How things changed by WWII when the German Army through use of air forces, artillery and tanks followed by huge infantry advances heralded a new form of warfare known as the Blitzkrieg.

Today we have the M1 Abrams Tank here in the USA. Just compare the specs for it to those of the British Mark 1 and you will realize that we have come a long way since the first use of tanks in warfare on this day in history in 1915. I imagine though if I was in an infantry unit and was armed with only a rifle, even in today's world of warfare, and saw an antiquated Mark 1 advancing on me all guns firing away, I probably would not be as valiant as were those German soldiers way back then.

All the best,
Glenn B

footnotes:
1. & 2. http://www.todayinhistory.de/index.php?what=thmanu&lang=en&manu_id=1580&tag=15&monat=9&weekd=&year=2009&weekdnum=&dayisset=1&lang=en

Bush's Vietnam - Senator Kennedy Wrong Again

Wasn't it Senator Ted Kennedy who a couple or few years back said something to the effect that Iraq is President George W. Bush's Vietnam? I am pretty sure it was him, and as the facts will show, it seems pretty certain that he was wrong once again.


The Vietnam War took place between 1959 and 1975. For all practical aspects the US involvement in that war took place within those years, but mostly after 1963. In all that time there were the following U.S. casualties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties):


58,217 killed


153,452 wounded


1,947 missing in action


On average there were over 3,638 U.S. dead per year during the Vietnam Conflict. No that was not really how it worked out, there were much, MUCH, higher casualties in some years than in others, but that is the average over a 16 year conflict.

We have, as of today, been at war in Iraq for a total of five years. There have been less than 4,000 U.S. casualties resulting in death in that conflict. As per Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war_casualties) there were also: "8,904 wounded requiring medical air transport. 20,416 wounded did not require medical air transport. Of all the wounded 13,109 were unable to return to duty within 72 hours." As for American deaths in Iraq that is an average of 800 lives lost per year of conflict in Iraq as compared to the average of over 3,638 in Vietnam! The war in Iraq could go on for 11 more years, and if the same casualty rate occurred, it would make the total U.S. deaths in Iraq be about 9,600, which would be nowhere nearly as high as the casualties suffered by the U.S. in Vietnam. So I am wondering how is it that the Iraq Conflict is George W. Bush's Vietnam. There is virtually no comparison in the context in which Kennedy made his claim.


By comparison to Vietnam, the war in Iraq is a classic example of how to fight a war and win with less casualties, and Vietnam is a classic example of how to and stuff a nation's military men into a meat grinder while considering them little more than expendable blobs of flesh.


No war is good, but there are certainly many good causes over which to go to war. We saw such a good reason in WWII. We saw another in Grenada. We saw another in Iraq the first time around. We thought we saw such a good reason in Iraq the second time too. It may be a fact that George W. Bush, the Senate, the House of Representatives, the CIA, Military Intelligence, and their counterparts in many of the nations who are our allies, were all bamboozled by Saddam Hussein into believing he had weapons of mass destruction; and therefore that we went to war in Iraq after having reached wrong conclusions about whether or not we should wage war. Yet there is a good reason/cause for which to remain at war in Iraq.


It is a fact that the Iraq Conflict has been, and remains, a magnet for Islamo Fascists and other terrorists. Many leftists try to get you to believe that this is a bad thing. I think they have missed the importance of this flocking of terrorists. They migrate there in large numbers to attack our forces, and our military men and woman (not boys and girls though many of them left home as little more than that), and while I do not want to see our military people lost in a lost cause, this is no lost cause as some democrats would have you believe. That terrorists congregate in Iraq in large numbers is all the reason necessary to stay there and fight the fight, to wage war on Global Terrorism, and try to wipe the terrorists out as best we can. At the same we are trying to restore some hope for the Iraqi people much as we are doing in Afghanistan. In doing so, I wish we could go at them harder than we are doing, to defeat them quicker, but maybe it is better to do it at a slower pace with some good thought put into how to accomplish our goals. You see, while we are fighting them there, we are defeating them there away from home, that is good. It is time consuming but by taking our time we are assuring protection of the lives of innocent Iraqis, and we are making sure that our own losses are kept to a minimum.


George W. Bush has not been wrong about how he has been doing this. The supporters of JFK and LBJ (almost all democrats) never thought Vietnam was too long until hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens protested. We don't see those protests today, and we likely will not see protests like that today - not even in our instant gratification gotta have it now world of cell phones, the Internet, microwave ovens, and 400 channels on cable television. Why not! Why will we not see protests like that. Well, because even some of the most left leaning wackadoos realize that Bush has it right. He is keeping most of the terrorism, and virtually all of the battles against terrorists, where they belong - on the shores of countries that breed terrorists. Because Bush has been, and is, doing it right our casualties have been kept as low as possible in such a large scale conflict.


So Senator Ted Kennedy - go have another shot of whisky, then go for a long drive off of a short pier (no passengers this time please) what sensible, logical, well thought out, and productive reply do you have to the facts as I just presented them? More blubbering and blathering I suppose, after all, isn't that all we ever hear from you!

For the rest of you out there, our casualties in Iraq are nothing to minimize, they are something to take to heart. Therefore I ask that each of you, who remain at home, do the right thing and show true support for our military personnel. Go to the right column on my page, and in the red shaded area, click on one of the links under Support our Troops - then join one of those groups and do what you can to support our troops.

All the best,
Glenn B

Today In History - Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

"I am loth (sic) to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature." (Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861)

So sad that he was so wrong, and the war was inevitable, but he made the attempt to keep the Union together by easing up on his opposition to some demands of the South over slavery, while steadfastly refusing to give up federal property to the 7 states that had already seceded from the Union. Then, just over one month later on April 12, 1861, the first shot of the Civil War rang out as the South attacked Fort Sumter, SC.

He was right though, in the end, the better angels of our nature saw the Union come together again, and it still stands strong today because of, and in some instances despite, the resonance of those mystic chords of memory.

All the best,
Glenn B