Another Ammo Buying Frenzy?

Here we go again, another ammo buying frenzy evidently is well underway (and please note I did not say definitely underway but the evidence seems to support that such is the case).

BATFE recently announced that it is moving to remove the exemption for 5.56x45mm M855 ammunition as armor piercing ammunition which would in effect make it illegal to manufacture, import or sell within the USA (at least in the commercial market). I got that wonderful news at three different sources:  Knuckledraggin My Life Away, at Nobody Asked Me and at their source: the NRA/ILA. (I obviously was behind the times on that one since the NRA/ILA alert came out this past Friday; I have since resigned-up for alerts from them.)

That news spurred me on to check to see if I could find any available M855 at online retailers. I checked with 17 different online ammo dealers. Almost all of them that I checked were already out of stock although three (3) dealers had it at (one of them appeared to have it but did not list it as M855). In my opinion, all offered it at very over inflated prices – one for as much as about .72 cents per round (which would work out to about $720 plus dollars for 1K rounds). Here are the results of my search for 5.56x45mm M855 ammo, as of 1730 hours, on February 15, 2015:

AIM Surplus sold out of M855 

Able Ammo M855 out of stock

Ammo Man – while they have 5.56x45mm 62g, FMJ ammo, none of it is M855 

Ammo Supply Warehouse out of stock 

Cheaper Than Dirt none in stock although they offer 62 grain 5.56x45 

Classic Firearms – no M855 in stock 

Keep Shooting sold out M855 

Lucky Gunner M855 out of stock 

Midway USA M855 shown as out of stock or temporarily unavailable depending on brand 

Military Shooters no M855 in stock 

Natchez Shooter’s Supplies out of stock M855 

PSA M855 out of stock 

Surplus Ammo - ammo labelled M855 not available in bulk 

U.S.A.C. M855 none in stock 

Some of the above sites were indexed on www.gunbot.net as having M855 in stock within the last few hours prior to my checking the actual sites; however, when I checked with the actual sites they were almost all out of it. A few sites had it in stock but at inflated prices: 

Ammunition Depot had 150 round boxes of Federal American Eagle 5.56 NATO 62 Grain XM855 FMJ Ammo at $67.47 per 150 rounds (about .45 cents per round) see this link.  
 

Cabela’s has Winchester 62 grain, green tip ammo, for $12.99 per box of 20 (about .65 cents per round), see this link. Note: I am not certain if this is actually M855 spec ammo or not but it is shown as 62 grain, green tip.

J&G Sales has, what I think is, the outrageous price of $649.80 for 900 rounds (about .72 cents per round) of Australian Defense Industries M855, see this link.

Good luck finding any at a reasonable price within at least the next month. BATFE is accepting comments on the proposed change up until mid-March. Please see the NRA/ILA article on how to contact BATFE to oppose this change.

 

All the best,

Glenn B

Rocks Can't Hurt Law Enforcement Officers - Yeah Right!

I remember, it was way back when I was a Border Patrol Agent, the agency head (or possibly one of the heads of the I&NS in general) came out with a statement that in essence said the agents were not justified to use deadly force against someone throwing rocks at them because rocks could not hurt us. A new policy came out that we should not shoot at rock throwers. If I remember correctly, it was less than a month later that a Border Patrol helicopter was flying low to the ground in the Chula Vista Sector of California when illegal aliens started to throw rocks at it. A rock evidently hit the rotor blade breaking it and that caused the helicopter crashed (source). Note, that as I recall this was in 1980 and not in 1979 asstated in the linked article but that is my memory speaking just as the article relied on another agent's recollection for the date. Also note that, in 1979 I was not in the field yet, I was at the academy, but my recollection is vivid as to the point that this took place while I was already actually working in the field in Calexico, CA. Then again my little grey cells are not as sharp as they once were once upon a time in the west.

Regardless of the time frame, I do not remember if the pilot or passenger were injured but the potential for them, or for anyone else in the chopper or on the ground under it, to be killed or badly injured was certainly there (just look at the photos in the above linked article). As I recall, the new policy about being unable to defend yourself against a rock thrower, by using deadly force, was rescinded almost immediately after the downing of the chopper.

I also remember having the windshield of my Border Patrol vehicle smashed by a rock thrown at me and glass winding up all over my face and in my eyes. That was because a group of wetbacks threw several rocks at me in an ambush for which they had set me up. I fired on a guy in the group, who was winding up to throw another rock at me, and was subsequently fully justified for having done so (too bad I missed). In another case, a brother agent, in Calexico, was afoot chasing an illegal alien and when he reached a blind corner. The illegal he was chasing ambushed him and a relatively large rock at him striking him in the testicles. They blew up to the size of grapefruits and the doctors at the time considered that injury to have been life threatening and believed he would possibly be sterile after the incident. There are many other cases of people being injured and even killed by rocks that have been thrown at them.

Yet for some reason today - just like with the head of the agency back then - politicians, bureaucrats, race baiting individuals and groups, and sometimes even the public in general seem to think that rocks being thrown at a law enforcement do not constitute deadly force being used against the officers. I just don't get it because they certainly are deadly weapons and when a deadly weapon is used against you it definitely constitutes deadly force. I suppose it is mostly political correctness gone amuck, ignorance or even anti law enforcement sentiment that would make someone believe a rock thrown at an officer cannot seriously injure or even kill the officer.

Such sentiments seem to be in play if the suspect in this linked article was throwing rocks at the police, as claimed by police and witnesses, then ran from them, then turned and appeared as if he was about to throw another (or even grab another to throw). However, the police involved are now the subject of a multi-million dollar lawsuit and the potential for criminal charges against the officers is being weighed. Tell me though, why would the police have been wrong to have shot him if the facts, as I just mentioned them, are correct? Of course, the actual facts could conflict with those I just stated; they are what I have gathered from news reports but my guess is that people are all to ready and willing to hang law enforcement officers even when they were justified in doing whatever it was they did that led to the controversy.

I would prefer to wait for all the facts to be presented and reviewed in an objective manner, unaffected by political correctness, police cronyism, racism and or money grubbing mud-shark lawyers, before anyone makes a decision on this one. I would also prefer that people wake up and realize that if you are going to attack a law enforcement official with deadly force, law enforcement officers involved are likely going to take appropriate defensive measures to stop you and those will include the use of deadly force to defend themselves. Just as you have a right to defend yourself against the unlawful use of deadly force, so too do law enforcement officers have the right to defend themselves.

All the best,
Glenn B

Saudi Arabia Calling Killings Heinous Terrorist Act

Of course, they are not calling the killings committed by Muslim terrorists that. Wouldn't it be something noteworthy and a step in the right direction if the nation of Saudi Arabia condemned every killing of a Jew, Christian, Hindu, Muslim (or anyone else) by Islamic terrorists? Sure it would but that is not the case. What they did, by way of their official press agency, was to condemn the killings of the three Muslims in North Carolina as a "heinous terrorist" act. The killings they condemned were apparently motivated by a dispute over a parking spot and not by terrorist ideology. Whether or not that was a so called hate crime, and whether or not their religion was a factor, that played a part in the motive for their murders - the act was not terrorism per se. Yet, in Qatar, Muslims are marching in protests by the thousands and an Egypt based Muslim institute, al-Azhar, has called the killings of the three people in NC a "cowardly terrorist act." (Source.)

Even if it winds up being classified as terrorism by investigating authorities, what about all those other terrorist killings on which Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Muslim world have remained mum - the ones committed by Muslims. Sure, they have spoken out now and again on a few of them but for the most part they ignore them and by their silence are, in essence, supporting them.

Isn't Mecca in Saudi Arabia - if we nuked it until it glowed - wouldn't that give the Saudis and all of Islam a good reason to call something a heinous terrorist act and this time they would be right! (Yes, the sarcasm alert should be on, or on second thought...)

All the best,
Glenn B

Black Sabbath My All Time Favorite Album

Sometimes I actually give some little time wasting consideration to the question of what is my all time favorite album and I kind of teeter back and forth between a few from The Grateful Dead such as: Workingman's Dead (the original) or American Beauty or Reckoning (disc 1 & disk 2) or Grateful Dead (the album) as compared to Black Sabbath's first Album - Black Sabbath. Such was my mindset this evening and I arrived at my usual and unerring conclusion. Without a doubt, the hands down winner is Black Sabbath. Now, let me tell you, I was and remain a bigger fan of the Dead than I was ever of Black Sabbath. Yet, nothing in my mind beats that album for music or lyrics.

Listen to it here, and hopefully this is an unadulterated version:

 

I love it, not only because it was one of my first albums, if not the first album, I ever owned and not only because it was banned by the Catholic Church in its newspaper The Tablet but because it was and remains one hell (no pun intended) of an album. It is truly an excellent work.

My favorite set begins at about 27:43 and ends at about 38:08 in this version of the album.

By the way, for second place - it's probably a tie between one of those Grateful Dead albums I just mentioned. Man do they bring back memories of time gone by.

All the best,
Glenn B

Thinking Of You

 

All the best,

Glenn  B

Food For Thought - Are Shooting Lessons Appropriate Mental Therapy

You know,  I believe the guy who shot them should be executed (or at least wind up in jail for life) if convicted; yet, I also find myself pondering why they ever took a guy reportedly suffering from both PTSD and schizophrenia out shooting (source). I know the reason - on the face of it - was to help him. Still, I find myself asking did they consult with anyone who was treating the guy or with any mental health quack professional to see if that would an acceptable activity or if it would be considered a dangerous risk with a guy in his state of mind at the time they took him shooting? (It is my understanding, and I may be wrong, that they knew he reportedly was suffering from both PTSD and schizophrenia.)

Don't get me wrong, I am not faulting them in any way, they were trying to do good for the guy. Now that it has happened, I am just trying to give food for thought to others who might think that a day at the range might be just the thing for a person with a mental illness. I am thinking that in some cases the answer is a definitive yes but also that in other cases, such as folks suffering from a psychosis, you would be risking your life, or the lives of others, to do so. If you plan on taking a mentally ill person, especially a severe case, to the range, you had best give it some long hard thought beforehand and may want to consider consulting with a mental health professional beforehand.

Hopefully justice will be done.

All the best,
Glenn B

Survey Says - Police Brutality Or Not - Was The Officer Justified

Based on the scant evidence available to the public, what is your judgment as to whether or not the police officer, in the following video, is guilty of assault or was merely doing his job as trained and as justified by use of force guidelines and by the actions of the suspect? Watch the video. Then please answer my question by jotting down your answer immediately after watching the video, don't read ahead until you do so. 



Maybe you want to watch it again before proceeding.

Okay, now that you have watched the video and jotted down your determination as to justified or not, please read the article at this link (also watch the video that is in the article, it is a bit different than the first one as it shows two views). Pay careful attention to the facts that are divulged in the article and accept them as facts on the face of it until proven otherwise just as you accepted what you saw in the video as factual on the face of it. Now that you have read the article, telling you what the police said happened, is your determination as to whether or not the officer was justified the same as it was before reading the article. Please jot down another note marked as #2 as to what you now believe. When you make your note this time, please do it independently of the statements and or actions of the chief of police and the district attorney and based only on the facts you know so far (after seeing both videos and reading the news account) directly bearing on the actions of the officer. After watching video and reading the reported facts, is your take on this the same as that of the chief of police who said the officer will be fired and the same as that of the District Attorney who has charged him with assault. Do you think those determinations correct or do you think they were made due to political correctness after recent police related incidents which resulted in violent protests?

Bear with me please for just one more request for another comment from you. I want you to determine yet a third time as to whether or not you think the officer was justified or not. Before making this third decision, bear in mind that:

The officer legally had a right to stop the man after receiving a call about a suspicious man, engaged in suspicious activities, in the neighborhood. He also had a right to question him. If what the police said is true, about the man continually trying to walk away from him and then trying to jerk away from him during the frisk (which is apparent in yet a longer length video of the incident) and you add that to the call of suspicious activity and maybe add that the suspect (which indeed Mr. Patel was a suspect at that moment) was acting hinky (nervous) and that Mr. Patel reportedly put his hands in his pockets as he tried to jerk away, the officer probably had enough reasonable cause to frisk him for weapons. Also bear in mind (and I readily admit I could not tell one way from the other by watching the video) if the officer reasonably believed that the man was going for a weapon (putting his hands into his pockets as he tried to jerk away from the officer), the officer had the right to stop the perceived threat to defend himself.

As for the move he used, the officer was almost definitely taught the move he used in his police training and even if not, it would have been considered an acceptable and legal amount of force in such an instance (if indeed the suspect put his hands into his pockets and tried to move away while being frisked) in any training I ever received or taught during my 32 years in federal law enforcement if an officer reasonably believed a suspect was reaching for a weapon (or even if merely trying to escape under some circumstances). There is no reason for that to have changed in the three plus years since I retired except maybe because of someone using political correctness to guide his judgment.

Now, accepting that what I said that the legality of the stop, the pat-down and the use of force are legitimate, please note down one more time if you think the officer was justified or not in the use of force. Please do not argue that you think it not justified based on your personal opinion and feelings. Unless you can argue those points from a purely legal standpoint don't distract from this discussion by ranting on and on about how the state is a tyranny and officers are running amuck. In other words, please go by the law and not by your opinion of the current law. If you want, please also add an explanation as to why you think he was or was not justified. Then put all three of your answers labeled 1,2 and 3 into a comment for this post. I am looking for intelligent and respectful discussion here, any deviation from that will be deleted. Don't read further here until you have done so because I do not want to influence your decision by what else I have to say here.

As to the extent of injuries suffered by Mr. Patel (the suspect and or victim depending on how one sees it), I can only imagine that the man suffered from some condition by which the bones of his vertebrae were weakened. I base that on lots of experience with takedowns over the years, both personally doing them and seeing other officers do them - most onto sidewalks or blacktop and not onto front lawns. After participating in and seeing literally hundreds of them, I never once saw anyone injured in anyway that even came close to the injuries sustained by Mr. Patel. About the worst I have seen, from such a takedown, was a broken nose. In fact, I and probably you have seen way too many news reports with videos of people getting brutally beaten but that have not resulted in such horrific injuries.

One thing I have seen though that you probably have not unless you are in LE, and have seen it at least scores of times, was suspects reaching into their pockets to pull out a weapon. I have never seen a man put his hands into his pockets, in a frisk situation, for no reason except to either pull out a weapon or to try to dispose of drugs or other evidence (usually running suspects are those who try to dispose of evidence but I have seen it with stationary suspects as well but with them a weapon has been more likely in my experience). Before you say it, allow me to note that not even once have I seen someone try to pull out ID when I was frisking them like that and not even once have I seen a guy just put his hands into his pockets like that during a frisk for no apparent reason. In my experience it would have been probable that it was due to him trying to grab a weapon. I am not saying that it might not happen simply because someone has a weird reaction to being stopped and frisked but what I am saying is that a move like that, if it indeed took place (which I cannot tell from the video) would be more than enough reasonable suspicion that the man had a weapon for the officer to have used a defensive takedown, in fact with all things considered that the officer knew, it would have amounted to probable cause.

Now think about it, it was evidently a defensive takedown (in my opinion) on the face of it if in fact the officer believed he was at risk (and again I am not sold on that yet but neither am I denying the possibility of it). It was defensive because as soon as the officer took him down and controlled him, he handcuffed him. He, nor any of the other officers, began to beat or otherwise do anything to Mr. Patel except try to get him up to complete the frisk and they did so without applying any unnecessary force. Then they gently helped him back to the ground when they realized he was incapable of walking or standing. They did nothing that would indicate police brutality as far as I can see unless the takedown itself was brutality and was not legally justified. On that point, without me making up my mind one way or the other on the actions of the officer, I believe the chief of police and DA has overreacted out of political correctness but, of course, they may have more evidence available to them so that is merely my guess right now.

Note just one other thing, I am not making a determination one way or the other as to whether or not the officer was justified so, don't start an argument with me over what you believe is my mindset on this issue. My mind truly is not made up on it but I am very curious to see what others out there think after they see the video, then after they see some additional background on it, and then after they understand what would justify those actions on the part of the officer.

As a final note, bear in mind that if you are ever stopped by law enforcement officers, whether you think the reason for the stop legitimate or not, I highly recommend that you do not make any sudden move(s) that the officer(s) might see as you reaching for a weapon. Again though, with this last comment, I am not justifying or condemning the action(s) of the officer in question, just trying to let you know a good way to prevent yourself from being injured when in a stop situation.

Oh, one more question. I mentioned a longer version of the video above - in the event you would you take the time to watch it, I have embedded it below. It gives a lot more information:




I wonder, did the additional content of the longer video change your mind at all as to the facts and as to justification or not?

All the best,
Glenn B

 

An Arsehat & A Cell Phone = A New Boyfriend?

Watch this video all the way to the end. It's a perfect example of why we need to put down the cellphone now and again. The guy in the video is obviously oblivious not only to his girlfriend but to a whole stadium of hooting fans who are all falling out of their seats over what an arsehat he is being. You can probably bet safely on four things being the result - the arsehat now pays more attention to what is going on around him, he was never so embarrassed (or in his case angry) before in his lifetime, his girlfriend now has a new boyfriend, the bull is a very happy stud.

  

That was excellent.

All the best,
Glenn B

Rafael The Pussy Scumbag

He evidently liked to abuse his girlfriend's dogs but now that the police are looking for him he is on the run too scared to face whatever he has coming to him. The girlfriend knew something was wrong with her dogs and set up hidden video cameras to record what was going on when she was out. This is what those cameras captured - Rafael being a piece of crap to two small French Bulldogs:
 

This reportedly happened down in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil recently. More info here in a brief news report:

http://www.myfoxla.com/story/28073290/womans-hidden-camera-captures-her-boyfriend-abusing-her-dogs.

Too bad someone can't smother his nutsack with Alpo and let those dogs at it when they are really, really hungry.

All the best,
Glenn B

Almost A Good Shoot?

Here is a case of the police being involved in what probably can be described, by some, as 'almost a good shoot' and that some will even try to attempt to classify as a good one. Two police officers reportedly saw a 15 year old boy holding what appeared to be a hand gun while he reportedly was pointing it at another boy. They ordered him, more than once, to drop it but he did not. One of the officers fired striking the boy in the back. The thing is, the officer shot the other boy standing next to the one holding the replica gun and not the one who was actually holding what appeared to be a weapon (source). It seems the officer almost got it right and almost hit his target.

'Almost' does not count except in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear weapons. 'Almost' certainly does not count in making a determination of whether or not a police shooting was a good one as far as who you hit went. It could have been a big enough mess had the officer struck the kid holding the suspected handgun (a justified mess at that but still a mess) but 'almost' shooting a suspected bad guy and instead hitting someone else instead should be considered a terrible shoot under the reported circumstances.

I wonder - did the officer who fired consider, for even a single moment, that he (the officer) would be endangering the lives of innocents by shooting? Did he ask himself, is this a shoot or no shoot situation? Did he think that maybe if he missed the guy holding the gun would open fire on the person at whom he had been pointing it? Did he ask himself if this was a hostage situation better handled by a negotiation team? Did he take appropriate cover, allowing himself that moment to consider all those factors even if in only a split second? Did he wonder, were there risk mitigating factors that allowed him to, even demanded that, he take the shot? And again, did he at all think of the possibility of not firing because others were in the line of fire?

I don't know the answers to any of those questions but someone needs to find out because we don't need police officers who are willing to unnecessarily risk the lives of innocents because of their possible recklessness. Now don't get me wrong, I am not condemning the officer who fired. He could fully could have been justified to have done so. It wasn't just two teens there but a larger group. For all we know, the guy who was shot could have been standing next to the one with the replica gun and doing something that made it appear as if he were the gun holder's accomplice and making it seem as if the others were victims. That alone may  not have justified him getting shot but there may have been additional contributing factors as well that would have.

In this case though, it seems the police are implying that the shoot was a mistake. Yet, they obviously, in an official statement, have blamed it on the kid holding the "replica" gun. An official police statement was: "It’s certainly an unfortunate situation..." "But because of people bringing replica weapons out like that, it certainly could have been a terrible tragedy." There was no reported hint that the police said it could have been a terrible tragedy because of a mistake made by the officer or because of poor shooting skills on the part of the officer. maybe they said it and it was not reported by I tend to doubt it.

Regardless, the fact is, had that child been shot, the one holding the gun, then yes I would agree - it was his fault. Truth is though, that child was not shot, it was a bystander who was shot and unless there were legal justifications to shoot him - or unless there were legal, ethical and appropriate risk mitigating factors* that justified taking a shot at the boy holding the weapon that overrode the risk factor to others - that shot should never have been fired. The justification for that shot being taken could have been there (and note even though that may justify taking a shot under risky circumstances it does not justify hitting the wrong person but it may fully negate any criminal liability and may also mitigate the civil liability somewhat). Anyhow, as I said:  'almost' only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and nuclear weapons.

*By Appropriate Risk Mitigating Factors - I mean circumstances  that would override the potential risk of shooting a bystander while trying to stop the bad guy. In other words, they would allow the officer to take a risky shot regardless of the risk it posed to others. Such a case could arise if the threat posed such a large risk to the public, that if the officer did not attempt to immediately stop that threat,  many others would be hurt by the threat if the officer did not shoot him immediately and the threat to the public from the shooter was much greater than the threat of the officer firing at him. An example would be a shooter who was firing into a large crowd and obviously hitting people injuring them with his shots. An officer arrives, commands him to drop his weapon and he just keeps shooting into the crowd and wounding people. The officer has a chance to shoot him but there are innocent bystanders in the path of the officer's shots beyond the shooter. If the officer misses, he realizes, he will almost surely hit one of the bystanders but if he does not shoot, he realizes, that shooter will most likely hit and wound or kill several other people. The officer would be justified, in my opinion based upon my training and experience, in taking the shot or shots necessary to terminate the threat because the threat posed to innocents by the bad guy continuing to shoot is much greater than the threat posed to innocents by the officer trying to shoot the bad guy. It would be one hell of a tough call to make but likely one that would have to be made in a split second with almost no time for delay.

All the best,
Glenn B

A Public Service Announcement To All Men

Don't forget - Valentine's Day is on February 14th. Here is a little reminder to help you keep it in mind, it's quite the seasonal piece:
 

Just as a side note, Fur Elise has always been my favorite Beethoven piece and that's no shit.

All the best,
Glenn B

Why I Am Not A Do It Yourselfer

I believe in Murphy's Law. I am also a realist, at least to some degree, especially about my capabilities as me being a confident home improvement DIY type of guy. I am not. Sure, I do some minor things around the house. I can paint but I suck at plastering (unless I am getting plastered). I probably can even put up a wall fairly well and plumb (anyway a contractor once told me I had done a great job at three of them I had put up in my basement remodeling attempt that took me three years and was never completed until we hired the contractor). Yep, besides not having much confidence in my handyman skill set, I am also The Great Procrastinator. Again though, let me reiterate, I believe in Murphy's Law and I often have that feeling that any such job, that I attempt, will come out wrong - very wrong. So I avoid DIY crap as much as possible.

Too bad the guy in the photo didn't follow suit. He was a DIY type and apparently is also the perfect example of why all that DIY stuff is best left to the professionals.
 

 

Yes, that is a section of steel rebar that has pierced his head.  It fell from above as he was demolishing his house or part of it. You can read more info and see a video, here, of rescuers cutting the bar somewhat before he was transported to another hospital where the bar was surgically removed. Why they cut off a small section of bar like that, instead of just bringing him to another more suitable hospital immediately boggles my mind. Reportedly, he survived and was doing well after the incident, that is also pretty mind boggling.

 

So, I usually stay away from all that DIY home improvement (or in this case home demolition) stuff and hopefully am better off for it.

 

All the best,

Glenn B

Kanye Who?

I am none to sure of who is Kanye East (or was that West) except that he is (or is married to) an entertainer. I did see him on television a day or two ago, on the so called news, acting like a totally childish and disrespectful jerk-off during some award ceremony. He was saying the award that some guy named Beck (?) had just won should go to Beyondsay Beyoncé (yes I have an idea of who she is). Anyway, this video about sums up the whole way I feel about Kayne East West.

 

All the best,
Glenn B

This Day In History (Actually Yesterday Now) - Bubble Butt Lover's Paradise Came To Be

February 9, 1895 probably was pretty much just another day when William G. Morgan rolled out of bed in Holyoke, MA. Before that day had ended though, he had unwittingly (or maybe he was smarter than I give him credit) had created a new sport that would enthrall men up to and including this very day and probably for at least centuries into the future as long as women are playing it. While working at a YMCA he came up with the idea for the game of Mintonette and men have never looked at more women's backsides since. Never heard of it - sure you have but by another name, just look below and the name will come right to you:



 



Yep, he invented Volleyball. As you can see, it's a sport in which women have long loved to participate and I can assure you that men have long loved to watch (as long as women are playing). At first, the gals wore loose skirts when they played and that later changed to modest shorts and tee shirts but over the years it has morphed to something that a true ass man can sink his eye teeth into. Enjoy:

 

 

 

How can you blame the average guy for gawking when even our former president GWB can't seem to get enough of it:

 

 



Yes men, this gal seems to be indicating we have a lot to look forward to with volleyball butt...

 

 

...I don't think you can fault me for looking behind...

 

 

...again and again!

 

 

 

Any angle you look at it from though, we have this man to thank on this day (actually yesterday now) in history - February 9, 1895!

 

 

William G. Morgan - apparent ass lover and
the creator of volleyball. More on volleyball here.

 Hell, there should be a holiday in his honor and a statue of him surrounded by bubble butts at every venue in which they hold volleyball games. God bless him because he gave us this:

 

 

All the best,

Glenn B

 

 

I Hope The Driver Is Not Prosecuted But...

...if they are as tyrannical in Australia as they are in England in assuring that no one has a right to defend themselves, then the driver of the blue car is going to wind up in jail or at least charged with something like attempted murder. Being that it happened in Australia though, I imagine the driver will be given a medal for having done a public service by running down the dirtbag who was running from the police and who was shooting at the driver of the car.

Talk about epic fails - this bad guy was a true douchebag at being a tough guy. The guy driving the 1.5 ton blue bullet, he (or she) was the real bad ass and had great aim too. Too bad the car wasn't going faster.

Interested in finding out exactly what I am talking about, go here: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4040514467001

All the best,
Glenn B

Shooting Her Way

Just gotta admire a gal who knows how she likes to shoot and doesn't let anyone tell her otherwise.

All the best,
GB

Bursting Balloons

Saw this over at Bayou Renaissance Man and had to repost here. Fun and interesting video to watch. I guessed 5.



A hat tip to Peter for finding that one.

All the best,
Glenn B

It Will Be Like Preaching To The Choir But...

...in the event I have even one leftist anti-gun person, or someone sitting on the fence betwixt the Right To Keep And Bear Arms and Gun Control, stop by and watch this, I figured it would be worth embedding here.



Then again, some things she said sank home even with me especially the lesson to be learned (or reminded of in my case) at 11:01 of the video.  

All the best,
Glenn B

Oldest Survivor Of USS Arizona Has Passed

Joe Langdell, the oldest survivor of the sinking of the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor, has died. He was 100 when he passed away last Wednesday. Take a moment to read the linked article and to say a prayer or have a thought in his honor and to honor all of them who lost their lives protecting the USA.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2015/02/05/pearl-harbor-uss-arizona-survivor-langdell/22953077/

All the best,
Glenn B

When It's Too Good To Be True - Expect To Get Screwed...

...as in fucked over and definitely not as in sexually. I don't know what these Brazilian prison guards were thinking (really I do know) but it surely wasn't with the brains in their bigger heads when three scantily clad women, in police dominatrix type outfits, seduced them inside the jail they were guarding. The women got the cops snockered, handcuffed them and freed 28 prisoners who then stole guns and ammo from the jail before fleeing.

It is not the plot twist of a comedy movie - it reportedly really happened (source & second source). Imagine being one of those jailers, they are going to get screwed alright - just not the way they had hoped. Serves them right I suppose, you have got to be pretty friggin stupid to think that those women showed up there, dressed like that, just to have sex with them in a jail and not suspect that something else was up. Morons but I suppose such is the power of the brainless head once it realizes that the possibility of sex is nigh. It drives men to do things they would never do had they used the head on their shoulders but somehow it often overpowers that head regardless of its smaller size.

All the best,
Glenn B

I Had Peered Into Hell

"It's hard to imagine um, for a a normal human mind uh, I had peered into hell and that's (sobbing a couple or few seconds) it's not, ah, something you quickly forget and it's a little hard for me to describe." 

Those were the words of Sgt. Benjamin Ferencz, U.S. Third Army, speaking on the liberation of Buchenwald Concentration Camp in the documentary Night Will Fall right after he described things he had seen there. To say the least, it is a hauntingly memorable documentary about the making of another lost documentary 
covering the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps near the end of WWII. Much of the footage in the documentary was from that so called lost film - German Concentration Camps. That documentary was made by the allies contemporaneously with the liberation of many of the camps 1945 (and one made in 1944 by the Russians) but was shelved before it was completed. To say the least, the images portrayed are horrific and burn themselves into your brain. There were also some clips from the American documentary Death Mills.

Night Will Fall, along with the imbedded German Concentrations Camps documentary, illustrates the ghastly things that men can do unto other men. Regardless of the horror, or more precisely exactly because of it, it is a film that should be watched by every living soul in the hopes we never repeat the mass executions of 13 million fellow human beings. There are scenes in it that will shock you and that you are unlikely to forget. One for me was seeing the bodies at Belsen-Bergen Camp, I could only think that sights like that were in some way used as models for zombies in todays horror movies. Another and possibly one of the most shocking scenes for me showed only buildings. It was an aerial film of Auschwitz Concentration Camp - it was the largest of the concentration camps and seeing its size in this film was chilling considering what took place therein. I won't go on more about it except to strongly suggest that you watch it. It is an eye opener. It is currently showing on HBO.

My hope is that I will one day be able to see German Concentration Camps in its entirety. Despite being shelved right after the war, it was resurrected by a British museum that completed it the way they believe it was meant to be done.

All the best,
Glenn B

Catholic League Slams Obama Over His Uninformed Crusades Remark

During his speech at the recent national prayer breakfast, the Barack Hussein Obama  the NIC (nincompoop in charge) had this to say about the crusades:

"Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ."

Now while evil may have been done in the name of Christ during the Inquisitions (yes Mr. President that is plural because there were more than one of them, such as the Spanish Inquisition of 1478 and the Roman Inquisition [aka: Italian Inquisition] of 1542), the Crusades were of another ilk. They were, in fact, not evil committed in the name of Christ but were instead a response to the hundreds of years of evil persecutions of Christians that had been committed by Muslims, in the name of Islam.

The goal of the Crusades was to end such persecution and to restore Christian access to Christian holy places in and near Jerusalem - access that had been denied to Christians (and access denied to Jews to Jewish holy places) by Muslims after Muslims conquered those lands in the name of Islam hundreds of years before the first Crusade. Here, Mr. President, is a little time line to help you and your leftist cronies figure it out:

More information about the Crusades can be found here: http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/crash-course-on-the-crusades.

It sickens me at just how easy it is for an apologist and tyrant like Barack Hussein Obama to overlook history in an attack he makes on religion while at the National Prayer Breakfast. It also angers me how much he seems to be in sympathy with recent acts of barbarism carried out by Islamic Terrorists! 

A hat tip to my friend Kevin B for the Crusades chart above.

All the best,
Glenn B

A Little Follow-Up To My Previous Blog Post

All the best,
Glenn B 

IRS Hiring - Illicit Racketeering Shitheads

One would think that the government agency tasked with collecting and protecting the tax revenues of the United States of America would strive to hire individuals who are trustworthy, who have an excellent history of a good work ethic and who are on the record as always paying their taxes promptly and in full. One would be wrong though in the case of the Internal Revenue Service.

It has been reported here, that between January 2010 and September 2013 the IRS rehired 7,000 (that number is actually rounded off to the nearest thousand, it was 7,123 in that time frame - source) former IRS employees and of that number 824 of them had "a checkered work history". According to the report, that number includes people who were fired, or otherwise let go, by the IRS for such things as: not paying their taxes, fraud, unauthorized accessing of taxpayer information, falsifying documents,  disrupting the work place, being away without official leave (one person supposedly disappeared from the job for 8 weeks), threats, sexual harassment, unprofessional conduct, off-duty misconduct, and criminal misconduct. Of those people, 141 of them had "problems" paying their taxes!
 
So what has the IRS said about all of these problematic rehires. They in sum and substance say it is not a problem! According to a report by the Treasury Inspector General (IG) For Tax Administration, "the IRS stated that, during the process of evaluating qualifications of applicants, prior IRS conduct and performance issues do not play a significant role in deciding the candidates who are best qualified for hiring.  In addition, IRS officials stated that prior performance issues should be considered during the eligibility phase, while conduct issues should be considered during the suitability phase." The same report went on to say that: "We are concerned that the IRS may not be adequately considering prior performance issues when selecting former employees for hire." and  I say DAH! I also say - who wouldn't be concerned except for the IRS under the administration of Barack Hussein Obama. It is truly as if we are living in Bizarro World under this clown commander in chief.

I strongly recommend reading the IG's report, it is an eye opener and is relatively brief at 20 pages (a good amount of which are references and footnotes). You can make a lot more sense of the numbers in the news article by reading the whole report. It also gives additional information to some of the "problems" that led to the employees either being fired, voluntarily leaving the IRS after discovery of their wrongdoings or otherwise being out of a job with said agency. For instance, of the 141 who had problems paying their taxes, five of those employees were found by the IRS management "...to have willfully not filed their tax returns."! Yet these tax cheats were rehired by the agency responsible for taking our money out of our pockets to pay the salaries for what is seemingly, at least to me, the most corrupt collection of cronies to have ever run our government. So much so that the IRS stated that not rehiring these people after consideration of their former transgressions could be against government regulations! If that doesn't beat all, as one of the worst excuses ever for inept bumbling fools rehiring people that should never should have been rehired, then nothing does.

One other thing you will get out of reading the whole report is the bottom line as to what the IRS plans to do to change its hiring procedures. In essence it was that the IRS determined that they would in sum and substance do nothing as far as I could make of it and that they consider the matter closed.

If you are even considering a vote for a democrat or a RINO in 2016, either for the presidency or for Congress, you are out of your mind or a leftist lunatic or both. Folks, the only way you can run a government the way it is being done now is to run it into the ground and the current administration is doing just that at full speed ahead.

All the best,
Glenn B

Happy Birthday Mr. President - You Were The Best



Ronald W. Reagan was, without any doubt in my mind, the best president within my lifetime to date. I honor his memory on this day that would have been his 104th birthday. He was a great American.

All the best,
Glenn B