Monday, February 27, 2012

Random Shots! Cruise Ship Passengers Robbed, Obama Not Welcome, and More!

First Shot!

President Obama Not Welcome In Southern California?

It seems that President Obama is not as welcome across the country as he thinks he is.

One report says hundreds, while another puts the number at a few thousand, protesters lined the Pacific Coast Highway to give Obama at least a little of what they think is going on. 

Unlike at violent liberal protests, such as the Occupy protests, there were no signs of hate or racism. This was all business. Yes, business!

Business, you ask?  Well, a peaceful protest is like a simple non-confrontational discussion between and Employer and an Employee. And yes, contrary to what the Politicians think, they are not "Royalty" but instead are simply employees.

Whether its in our Nation's capitol in Washington D.C., or for us out here California' state capitol in Sacramento, the Politicians who work there are supposed to be working for us. 

I know it seems odd. The employer, us, having to hold rallies and carry signs to get them to notice what we are not happy with - might seem odd. And of course adding to the scene is our employee, in this case the President, rolling by in his bullet proof Limo - and that also might seem odd.

But really, he works for us! And although I know it doesn't look like it, I believe that that rich guy in the Limo really does work for us. Well OK, so maybe I'm wrong? But I sure hope not!

I'm angry that at a time when gasoline prices are at record highs, and yes, today I paid $4.29 a gallon to get home from town - the President is off raising Campaign money instead of doing his job!

You would think the Jerkweeds that we have in Office would be hard at work figuring how to give the American people some relief at the pumps!  Instead the President plays golf, raises money, and sings with BB King! And yes, the Congress sits on their ass doing nothing because its split between Democrat and Republican control.

So the result is that the Actor & Chief does nothing and laughs about it, the Congress remains on its ass, and we suffer having to make the choice between food and gas, or work and gas, or the mortgage and gas, or simply not being able to hold a job because you can't get there because you can't afford to buy gas.

Second Shot! 

Fund Raisers! Why Are There So Many Wealthy Liberals?

This has a lot to do with Obama, His Royal Self, at another Fund Raiser. This time in Newport Beach.  

Total monies raised from the fundraising stop in Southern California were not released, but a ticket to hear Obama read his teleprompter costs a lot of money. Those tickets ranged from $2,500 to a whopping $38,500!

Imagine that! So answer me this, where are all of these Rich Liberals getting their money from? The media is always talking about "Wealthy Republicans," but the fact is that it seems that the Liberal Left is the real Wealthy in this country!

It's true, it is statistically a proven fact. Yes, the majority of rich people in the United States are not Republicans or Conservative - but instead are Liberal far-left Democrats.

I'm sorry to say that that Red & Blue State Map shows more than just Democrats and Republicans. Those Blue States are places like New York and Hollywood and San Francisco and Chicago and Silicon Valley. And friends, that's not what I'd call Conservative areas of the country.

Fact is that most of the richest Congressional Districts in America are represented by Democrats. And yes, from everything that I've read, most of the richest people in the United States Congress are Liberals.

Don't believe me? Well, ask yourself this, who are the Conservative equivalent to Liberal Millionaires and Billionaires like George Soros, Tom Hanks, George Clooney, Arthur Blank, Warren Buffett, Barry Diller, Michael Eisner, David Geffen, Charles Gifford, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Norman Lear, John Kerry and his wife, Ted Turner, Penny Pritzker, Steven Spielberg, or even Oprah Winfrey?  No one!

Liberals in America are the Super Rich. But why do they have the money to throw at politicians? Why can't Conservatives match their wealth?

And honestly, I'd really like to know why there are so many extremely rich Liberals? Especially when they're always talking about helping people in need, yet they don't. 

How come the majority of the money given to relief victims in national emergencies, like to who were affected in Hurricane Katrina, come from Conservative Americans and not extremely wealthy Liberals?

How come they support things like the Occupy protest riots? And really, how come there are so many filthy rich Liberals across the nation who can afford $38,000.00 for breakfast with the President?

I'm sorry, but their hypocrisy stinks!

Third Shot!

Cruise Ship Passengers Robbed.

The Los Angeles Times reported on Sunday that hooded bandits robbed 22 Carnival Splendor Cruise Ship passengers at gunpoint.

The robbery happened several days into their cruise while the passengers took part in one of the excursions from the ship when it pulled into Puerto Vallarta, Mexico.

The passengers, who departed Long Beach, California, on February 19th and returned Sunday, were traveling on a bus after going on a nature hike Friday when the bandits struck near the Mexican port city.

The gunmen, armed with fully automatic weapons, stole the passengers' valuables which included their cameras and money. No one was reported to have been hurt during the robbery.

"Carnival sincerely apologizes to its guests for this very unfortunate and disturbing event and is providing its full support and assistance," the Miami-based company said in a statement.

"Carnival is working with guests to reimburse them for lost valuables and assist with lost passports or other forms of identification."

The company has suspended the nature trail tour from its list of activities for cruise passengers.

For me, this is too close to home!

You see, many years ago, I took the opportunity to take an excursion that was offered as an activity when I was in a foreign port - and something very similar happened.

It was when I was a young Marine. The ship that I was on pulled into port in Subic Bay in the Philippines. It was an American base so it was OK on base. Outside of the gates was another story. In those days the Philippines were under Martial Law, and the local police had way too much power.

As something to do, a friend and I signed up for a bus trip up to Bagio City. It was going to be my second trip to Bagio.

We had to take the Liberty Bus to travel up there from Olongapo.

If you have ever seen the movie "Romancing the Stone" and saw the bus that Kathleen Turner was on in Colombia. The wrong bus she took to Cartagena. Well the Liberty Bus was a lot like that. It was a mix of local folks who also had with them their chickens and pigs and produce.

The locals were pretty understanding of us tourist. The year was 1975. 

Along the way, the bus stopped at a Police Check Point. The Police in the Philippines are called the Constabulary. They were all armed with fully automatic weapons had ordered everyone to get off the bus.

They separated the men from the women, and moved the women around the back of the bus. For my friend and I, along with two other Americans, we and the other men were told to kneel with our hands behind our head. We did so without resistance.

The Philippine Constabulary is part of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. I knew there reputation to shoot first and ask questions later, so I did as I was ordered and knelt there with my hands behind my head.

One Constabulary officer, who was positioned behind us, kept walking back and fourth behind us. He would laugh and tell us that he was going to shoot us. He would now and then put his rifle's muzzle to the back of my head and tap my head forward.

I can still remember keeping my head up and looking forward. I can still remember feeling like a Prisoner of War (POW).

They took our money, rings, watches, and some of our clothing. In those days, I traveled with my ID in my socks and only carried a my money in my front pocket - so all in all they got my money but not my ID.

For a moment when the Constabulary was arguing behind us, I have to say that I really thought that they were going to kill us Americans. Once they drove off, we all got back into the bus and headed up the road to another small village. Since we had no money, we went back to Subic.

I've always found it interesting that the things that happen to us - always stay with us. I remember being stopped once for a speeding ticket by a California Highway Patrol years later.

He ordered me to kneel and place my hands behind my head. But I refused and told him that he could cuff me and take me in to be booked - something that I've never had done to me yet - but I told him that I do not kneel like that.

I am not a POW!

I think he was sort of shocked because I was cold sober and refused to be treated like a POW. Instead of pushing the issue, which I'm sure he could have very easily, the Officer gave me a warning for speeding and let me go. 

Last Shot!

Scientist Now Think They Know What Caused The Collapse Of The Mayan Civilization.

Bottom line, they still don't know. Its all conjecture. Fact is that there is no universally accepted theory to explain their collapse.

Personally, I think they screwed up their calender the same way they screwed up their civilization. Their downfall came in 900AD, but they did not disappear.

But wait, if you listen to the so-called scientist - they give you the idea that the Mayans are gone. Well, they're not.

After the human sacrifices stopped and the Spanish came in to take over, they simply blended into the culture that followed theirs.

Fact is that the Maya peoples never disappeared, neither at the time of the Classic period decline or with the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors or with the subsequent Spanish colonization of the Americas.

Today, the Maya and their descendants form sizable populations throughout the Maya area and maintain a distinctive set of traditions and beliefs that are the result of the merger of pre-Columbian and post-Conquest ideas and cultures.

Believe it or not, many Mayan languages continue to be spoken as primary languages today.

Pretty enlightening stuff huh! Have a great day!

Story by Tom Correa

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Smith & Wesson - A Tough Success Story - Part 1

Talking with a few friends over at the American Legion, the conversation got around to American manufacturers of anything.

We all agreed that because of Government regulations, American manufacturing is at an all time low.

I believe that more things are now made for us overseas than are made here at home.

One friend mentioned that Smith & Wesson was bought out by the British and is no longer an American company.

I remember hearing something about that, but honestly, I just didn't know if a British company still owned Smith & Wesson or not.

Smith & Wesson has been around for a long time. The association between Horace Smith and Daniel Wesson began in 1852 when they entered into a gunmaking partnership in Norwich, Connecticut.

Just as Colt was established on the production of the first successful repeating cap and ball revolver, Smith & Wesson was founded with the development of the first practical cartridge revolver.

It was actually formed in 1855 after they developed on Walter Hunt's idea of what was called "Rocket Ball" ammunition and a lever-action mechanism.

They made an improved version of the "Rocket Ball" ammunition, and eventually produced a pistol version of a lever-action gun to fire it. Their lever-action pistol was called the "Volcanic" pistol.

The company became known as the "Volcanic Repeating Arms Company."  But because of financial difficulties, Volcanic went into receivership. Interestingly enough, the firms assets were purchased by Oliver Winchester who was a Volcanic stockholder. 

Volcanic was then reorganized as the New Haven Arms Company under Winchester. Production was discontinued entirely in 1860, but the company survived, and by 1866 it became known as Winchester Repeating Arms Company.  

Soon after the purchase of the Volcanic Repeating Arms Company by Oliver Winchester, Horace Smith and Daniel Wesson left to strike out on their own once again. So in November of 1856, Smith and Wesson formed a second partnership to develop and manufacture a revolver that chambered metallic cartridges.

Then by 1857, they came out with a newly-designed revolver-and-cartridge combination firearm.

They produced the first metallic cartridge breech-loading revolver in America, and it was a success. It would become known as the Smith & Wesson Model One.


Smith & Wesson Model 1, First Issue
File:Smith & Wesson Model 1, 2nd Issue.jpg
Smith & Wesson Model 1, Seond Issue
Smith & Wesson Model 1 and a half
File:Smith & Wesson Army No 2.JPG
Smith & Wesson Model 2

It was a revolver that everyone was looking for. It was small, easy to carry and conceal, and they sold like hot cakes! Everyone wanted one!

Introduced in 1857, the tiny 7 shot .22 caliber S&W Model One is what began the Smith & Wesson legacy. It was the foundation for all modern cartridge handguns.

The Model 1 was a 7-shot chambered for the original .22 rimfire, which is dimensionally about identical to the modern .22 Short.

Now, if you are lucky enough to own a Model One, please be advised that although it is dimensionally about identical to the modern .22 Short - it is important that you know that today's modern .22 Short is loaded to much higher pressures because of today's use of smokeless powder.

Simply put, this means we should not use modern .22 Short ammo in an old S&W Model 1.  It just might blow up in your hands! 

The success of the Smith & Wesson Model 1 was due to a combination of new innovations. First, it had a bored through cylinder, and second, it took self-contained metallic cartridges.
The patent to the bored-through revolver cylinders for metallic cartridge use was held by a gunsmith by the name of Rollin White who had patented his invention. Smart man!

Smith and Wesson owned the famous April 3, 1855, "Rollin White patent" covering the right to make a revolver cylinder bored-through end to end which was an obvious requirement for an effective cartridge revolver.

Both Smith and Wesson personally negotiated with Rollin White for assignment of the patent. In the end, they agreed to pay him a 25 cent royalty on every pistol sold.

In return, Rollin White agreed to pay any legal fees associated with the defense of his patent against any infringements.

After that, for more than a decade, Smith & Wesson was the sole proprietary manufacturer of this technological improvement. However, the success did not come without a fight - and in some cases the technology was stolen.

There were many firms who proceeded to make the highly popular cartridge style revolvers with the S&W design.

Some of these firms used their own designs, and some just produced outright copies of the S&W pattern.

Other manufacturers quickly developed unique metallic cartridges and cylinders designed to circumvent White's patent - and of course, Rollin White would take those manufactures to court.

With S&W seeking redress in court, several gunmakers were required to mark their revolvers "Made for S&W" or words to that effect. But no, that didn't stop foreign companies from making copies, and some domestic makers from borrowing the design after the patent had expired.

It is interesting to note that though Jack McCall was said to have used a .45 caliber handgun to shoot Wild Bill Hickok in the back of the head while Hickok sat at a poker table in Deadwood, North Dakota - it was later reported that he used a Model One Smith & Wesson pistol.

The 1860s was a great time for gunmaking in America. Innovations and new designs were coming out of everywhere, and many small gunmakers found a great deal of opportunity show what they had to offer.

Just for the record, in November of 1865, Colt did attempt to purchase a license to the Rollin White patent from their competitor Smith & Wesson.

Surprising to me, Rollin White and Smith & Wesson would take no less than $1.1 Million - so Colt decided it was too large an investment on a patent that would expire in 1868.

For one thing the onset of the American Civil War was just a few years away. With the coming war, there would be a great demand for all sorts of arms and munitions. 

Smith & Wesson Model 1 was produced with two generations between 1857-1882, but that doesn't mean they sat on their success. Just four years later, soon after the Model 1, they came out with the Model 2 Army revolver. And yes, Smith & Wesson brought out their Model 2 in 1861 just in time for the Civil War. 

The Model 2 was a full sized revolver with a 6" barrel and .32 caliber rim fire ammunition. It was chambered for either the .32 short or long cartridges.

Of the 77,000 made from 1861 to 1874, approximately half were made during the Civil War. Because the Model 2 was much bigger more powerful pistol than the S&W Model 1, the Model 2 was much more effective. After all, anything up from a .22 caliber ball had to be considered an improvement by those needed a more effective pistol.

So why was it called the "Army" or even the "Old Army"? So why, especially since the pistol was non-military? Non-military meaning that it was never officially purchased through the military system.

Well, believe it or not, the S&W Model 2 picked up the moniker of "Old Army" because of its popularity. It was just that popular!  In fact, it was bought in very large quantities by Officers and Enlisted men alike during the Civil War as the sales numbers show.




Part of the popularity of the Model 2 can is due to the way it loaded. It was like the second generation Model 1 in that it was a "Tip Up" design. A "tip up" loading system is where the barrel tips up and the entire cylinder can is replaced with a full cylinder if needed.

That, my friends, was a big deal! You see, with the exception of Smith & Wesson pistols, all other pistols during the Civil War were tediously loaded with either combustible paper cartridges or with loose powder and ball.

Both loading methods consisted of inserting the powder and bullet from the front, and then with the rammer was built into the gun you would swage the bullet into place. The swaging held the bullet from falling out when the gun recoiled when fired. Finally, a percussion cap was individually fitted to the back of the cylinder with one required for each of the five or six chambers.

Because reloading could take minutes, if extra cylinders could be found, two or more spare cylinders were carried pre-loaded. The cylinders would be switched much more quickly than reloading a fired one.

Because of this, and even though it was under-powered with its small .32 caliber round, the Smith & Wesson Model 2 Army can hold the distinction of probably being the most popular secondary pistol carried in the Civil War.

And please remember that the Great Western Migration was still going strong after the Civil War, so the Model 2 was not only popular during the Civil War - but it also very popular afterwards on the Western frontier.

I've read lately where General George Armstrong Custer, who owned a lot of different makes of guns, owned a pair of Model 2 Smith & Wesson pistols.  I've also read that Wild Bill Hickok carried one on the night that he was shot in the head and killed, but I haven't been unable to confirm that.

There is one Model S&W pistol hardly talked about. It is the "Model One and a Half."

It appears that after Smith & Wesson produced the Model 2, they then set out to provide the more powerful .32 rimfire in a more handy "pocket" size revolver. That's when they came up with a five shot .32 rimfire with a shorter 3½" barrel.

Since they already had the small Model 1 and the large Model 2, and the new model was in between and size, Smith & Wesson came up with the somewhat awkward name of "Model One and a Half."

No kidding, it's might sound dumb - but it's true.

Some say the original Model 1½ looked like a shrunken Model 2, others say it looked more like an enlarged Model 1 Second Issue. In reality, in 1868, S&W redesigned the Model 1½ to look more like an oversized Model 1 as a Third Generation Issue.

Because of that, we have the Model 1½ "Old Model" with the square butt, octagon barrel, and the unfluted cylinder, and we have the Smith & Wesson Model 1½ "New Model" with bird’s head butt, fluted cylinder, and round ribbed barrel.

In 1867, Smith & Wesson began a global sales campaign that introduced the company's revolvers and ammunition to new markets, such as Russia, and established the company as one of the world's premier makers of firearms.

Then came the year 1870 and the Smith & Wesson Model 3, and as far as I'm concerned - it was actually a pistol ahead of its time in many ways.


The Smith & Wesson Model 3
One version of the Smith & Wesson Model 3 eventually became known as the "American Model."

Other versions became known as the "Russian Model," the "Schofield Model," and the New Model 3 which was a favorite of none other than Wyatt Earp.

The US Army adopted the Model 3 as the "Schofield" and used it throughout the Indian Wars of the West.

This is large frame Smith & Wesson top-break revolver with a trigger guard, manufactured in three variations from 1870 to 1915. The Model 3 includes the American, the Russian, and the Schofield models.


It was a "top-break" revolver, so a shooter could easily fire his last round, crack her open, dump the used shells, and reload. Later models actually had an ejector when it was opened so that the spent shells would automatically be tossed out. Half-Moon clips were designed as an 1870s version of a speed-loader.

Yes, it was quite a gun!

Years ago I read that it was a British gunmaker by the name of P. Webley & Son who were the first to develop the "top-break" system, but for right now I haven't been able to verify that.  

As you can see by the illustration that the top-break system and the ejector rod extended to rid the pistol of its spent rounds was quite a technological break through. 

Compare the loading procedure of the Model 3 to that of the Colt Peacemaker which arrived on the scene in 1872, and you will quickly see why the Model 3 was a fan favorite of Lawman and Outlaws alike. 

And remember, in the Old West, sometimes the lawman who carried the Model 3 in his job as a Lawman was also Outlaw wanted somewhere else at the same time.

All in all, it has been reportedly used by Jesse James, John Wesley Hardin, Pat Garrett, Virgil Earp, Wyatt Earp, Billy the Kid, and many others.  In fact, the Smith & Wesson Model 3 American was famously used by notorious Wyatt Earp at the shootout near the OK Corral. 

The Smith & Wesson Model 3 was produced in the newly developed .44 S&W caliber round.

The U.S. Army adopted the Model 3 American in 1870, which makes it the first standard-issue cartridge-firing revolver in the history of the U.S. military. Most military pistols up until that point were black powder cap and ball revolvers.

But wait, I'm sure someone is going to write me to inform me that Colt's first metallic-cartridge revolver was produced in 1871 as an open-top revolver. They will probably inform me that that was a completely new design for Colt as the parts would not interchange with the older percussion pistols.

The caliber was .44 rimfire and it was submitted to the U.S. Army for testing in 1872.

Actually, the U.S. Army rejected the Colt pistol. And yes, the Army did in fact ask Colt to come back with a more powerful caliber with a stronger frame if they wanted a contract.

Colt redesigned their frame to incorporate a top-strap, which was strangely similar to the Remington revolvers that were already out there at the time, and placed the rear sight on the rear of the frame.

The first prototype was chambered in .44 rim fire, but the first model was in the new caliber known as the .45 Colt. That model Colt revolver was chosen by the U.S. Army in 1872, with their first order asking for 8000 revolvers.

Shipping in the summer of 1873. The Colt Single Action Army or "Peacemaker" was born. And yes, it became one of the most prevalent firearms in the American West.

In 1875, the U.S. Ordnance Board granted Smith &Wesson a contract to outfit the military with the new Model 3 Smith & Wesson revolver that incorporated the design improvements of Major George Schofield.

His improvements on the Model 3 made the Model 3 loading system that much more easier to use. The design became known as the Smith & Wesson Model 3 "Schofield" or simply the "Schofield revolver" as a tribute to the Major.

So why did I talk so much about Colt? Well, that's because of what happened next.

The U.S. Army loved the new design but demanded that they make their new Model 3 Schofield revolvers work with the new .45 Colt round.  First, it was proven to be more potent than the 44 S&W caliber rimfire round that the Model 3 had been chambered for - and second, besides the issue of it being a more potent round - the Army had all sorts of .45 Colt ammo in supply.

Because the Army already had the 45 Colt Peacemakers in service, along with the ammunition to go with them, the U.S. Army working with the Navy and Marine Corps wanted to standardize their weapons.



You would think that re-chambering their pistol's design to accommodate the longer .45 cartridge would not be that hard to do. In 2012, Smith & Wesson sells a Model 3 Schofield exactly like the one the Army asked for back in 1875.

All that Smith & Wesson had to do was to just re-chamber its design, then sell them by the thousands!

But no, instead of doing so, Smith & Wesson decided to develop their own slightly shorter .45 caliber round - it was called the ".45 Schofield."  Later it would be called the ".45 S&W" - and yes, it was less potent than what would become known as the ".45 Long Colt."

When it became obvious to the U.S. Army that the .45 Colt and the .45 S&W cartridges were not interchangeable between the Smith & Wesson Model 3 Schofield  and the Colt Peacemaker - yet both rounds did work in the Colt - the U.S. Government decided to take action.

They decide to adopt the Smith & Wesson Model 3 Schofield with the shorter .45 S&W cartridge as their standard pistol and cartridge.

But wait a minute, why the Model 3 Schofield?

Granted the Army sees that the .45 round used in the Army's S&W Model 3 Schofield will also work in their Colt Peacemakers which they already had on hand, but the Army also sees that the .45 S&W cartridge is an inferior round to the .45 Colt.  So why did the U.S. Army adopt the inferior round?

Well it appears that Major George Schofield had patented his locking system used on the Schofield revolvers - and earned a payment on each gun that Smith and Wesson sold.  That it itself might not be illegal, but when the Army brass found out that his older brother, John M. Schofield, was the head of the Army Ordnance Board - well that was not a good thing for Smith &Wesson and the Schofield revolver.

Imagine that! Having your brother on the Board that may approve the purchase of thousands of guns with your patented locking system might be seen as being inappropriate? Some might see it as an "unfair edge" to have your brother on the board approving the purchase of the equipment that you're selling?

Maybe, but that's not what really killed the Schofield for the U.S.Army.

You see despite the official change, old stock of the longer and more potent .45 Colt rounds were still in the supply line.  This availability of a proven "man-stopper" caused the Soldiers to stop using the new Schofields and go with the knock-down power of the .45 Colt Peacemakers.

So between the Soldiers not wanting the Schofields, though they did load easier, and of course the potential scandal regarding the conduct of the Army Ordnance Board, the U.S. Army ended their purchases of arms from Smith & Wesson.

And all in all, the .45 S&W Schofield revolver was manufactured from 1875 to 1878 with just under 9000 manufactured. Supposedly, many Schofield revolvers saw service in the Indian Wars. And yes, there are even reports that some of them saw some small use in the Spanish-American War and Philippine-American War.

It is believed that Teddy Roosevelt used a Smith & Wesson .45 Schofield revolver in Cuba with the Rough Riders. As for the Schofield, well after the Spanish American War in 1898 - the U.S. Army sold off all their surplus Schofield revolvers.

Personally, I can see why Teddy Roosevelt would have used the S&W Model 3 Schofield. Its ease to load, it's reliability, and it's ruggedness really make it a great pistol.

But then again, I really believe that the .45 S&W round that it was chambered to use was anemic in comparison to the knockdown power of the .45 Colt - and frankly, from what I've read about TR, I really don't know if he would want anything anemic in his arsenal.

Of course he could have opted for another maker, like say Colt, or he could have opted for a double-action revolver from an an assortment of makers at the time.

Of the two top gun makers in America, Colt came out with their double-action revolvers in 1877 and Smith & Wesson came out with theirs 5 years later. 

As stated before, the U.S. Army adopted the .44 S&W American caliber Smith & Wesson Model 3 revolver in 1870, making the Model 3 revolver the first standard-issue cartridge-firing revolver in US service.

Prior to that, most military pistols until that point were black powder cap and ball revolvers.
All in all, when looking at the Smith & Wesson Model 3. it was a single-action, cartridge-firing, top-break revolver that saw a production from 1870 to 1915.

It was produced in several variations and sub-variations.

Smith & Wesson New Model 3 ( 1878 to 1915)
In 1877, Smith & Wesson discontinued production of its other Model 3 variation's such as the American, Russian, and Schofield -- in favor a new improved design called the New Model 3 in 1878.

Smith & Wesson New Model 3 was their perfected single action top break revolver, generally smaller and lighter than previous models. And yes, because it was smaller and lighter, it was more concealable.

It returned to the original Smith & Wesson barrel latch system of the American model, a change stemming mainly from the company's desire to stop paying royalties to George W Schofield.

It was one of the most popular revolver of the later frontier era.

In fact, according to records, more Smith & Wesson New Model 3's were made than Colt Single Action Army pistols during the 19th century -- though the majority went to foreign military contracts.

And yes, it is believed that Wyatt Earp used a Smith & Wesson New Model 3 revolver during the OK Corral gunfight.

S&W Fourth Model - A Double Action 
Smith & Wesson's Fourth Model was a .38 caliber pistols, again using the popular top-break design, but these were in the newly created double-action firing system.
And yes, they were also known as "Self Cockers."

Usually these were smaller "pocket" pistols, but they did make a "Target" version - as well as a Combo Set which came with two different length barrels.

Though S&W had their huge overseas Russian contracts with a Russian version top-break design first introduced in 1870 in their large frame Model 3, they followed the Model 3 with medium frame top-breaks in .38 and .32 centerfire in 1876 and 1878.

The .38 S&W CF cartridge was more briskly loaded with a 16 grain black powder charge, topped by a 145 round nosed bullet.

Smith and Wesson manufactured and shipped in excess of 130,000 “New Model” or “Baby Russian” .38’s before finally taking it off line in 1891.

This medium powered round went on to be one of the most popular calibers of its time. All in all, the Fourth Model was a downsized Model 3 and were produced until 1907.

The Smith & Wesson Fourth Model differs from the S&W "New Departure" because the "New Departure" is hammerless and has a grip safety.

The gun was offered with white Mother of Pearl grips or black hard rubber grips as standard. 

Magazine Article photo
S&W Double Action "Pocket" Pistol (aka "Lemon Squeezer") with Grip Safety

This "pocket pistol" was also known as the S&W Safety Hammerless was also known as the S&W "Lemon Squeezer". 

The "New Departure" got the nickname "Lemon Squeezer" because the grip safety had to be squeezed in order to fire the pistol. 

They were blued or nickel plated, and manufactured from 1888 to 1937, and they were chambered in the small .32 S&W (.32 Short) and fairly weak .38 S&W (aka .38 Short) 

Both of these calibers were discontinued at Smith & Wesson just before World War II for economic reasons and practicality. Simply put, there were better .32 and .38 caliber rounds out there to chose from.

With a five-shot cylinder, they were produced with a 2 inch, 3 inch, and 3.5 inch barrels. The first generation was manufactured between 1887-1902. It was followed by two more generations until it discontinued production in 1937.

The .38 caliber model was based on S&W's medium Model 2 frame, and the .32 caliber model was based on the small  Model One and a Half frame.

They did come out in a few different variations including "Hammerless" with a "Grip Safety."  It was because of this Grip safety that the New Departure Model "Safety Hammerless" is known fondly as the "Lemon Squeezer."

As requests for them went through the roof, the double-action pistol took the place of the single-action pistols in no time.

The "New Departure" was a very popular little gun selling over 500,000 during its production.

It should be noted that in 1952, S&W introduced its Centennial Model revolver, so named because it commemorated the 100th year of the company's history.


Model 40 - Smith & Wesson website
S&W Model 40

It was a .38 Special J-frame 2" barreled revolver with no external hammer. It had a grip safety almost identical to that used on the Safety Hammerless models.

This was a swing-out cylinder type, of course, but the concept was very much in line with the immensely successful "Lemon Squeezer" which was its ancestor.

In fact, that nickname stuck with the newer gun, as well.

The Centennial Airweight model with an aluminum frame was also introduced in 1952, with full-scale production beginning in August 1963.

At first the Airweights had aluminum cylinders, but were replaced with steel cylinders quickly for safety reasons.

Model 42 - Smith & Wesson website
S&W Model 42


They became the Models 40 and 42 in 1957, when model names were replaced by model numbers at the S&W factory.

In 1974, these two revolvers were dropped from the S& W production line.

The S&W Model 640 stainless steel Cenntenials, with no grip safety have been made since 1989 and the Model 642 Centennial Air weights (aluminum frame and stainless cylinder) since 1990.

The blackened aluminum/stainless Model 442 Centennial Airweight came on stream in 1993.

Then in 2007, an updated and strengthened all-carbon steel modern "Lemon Squeezer" version of the Model 40 was introduced as the Model 40-1, available in blue, nickel, and case-hardened finishes.

These revolvers are complete with grip safeties and their heritage goes back to the original Safey Hammerless models of 1886.

Unlike many other revolvers in the Smith & Wesson lineup, the 2007 version Model 40-1 has no politically correct internal key-lock on the left side of the frame.

 

So yes, during the 1800s, Smith & Wesson would produce some of the most iconic firearms in history -- and many would influence the production of other designs many many years later. 
 
But frankly, that was only their beginning, they would became even more famous during the 20th Century!



 


Story by Tom Correa



Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Random Shots - Gas Prices, Kids Lunches, and More!

First Shot!

Price of Gas Shooting Up!

I know that most of you who read this blog have the wisdom to understand that America needs to look out for America first and above all else.

But for you folks out there who are still against drilling here in America, who still don't want to get oil from North Dakota or ANWR, and who are against the Keystone XL Pipeline, I have to ask.

If you're happy these days with what its costing Americans at the pumps these days? I mean, if you're happy with the way things are going than it shouldn't matter to you that Gas prices are the highest ever for this time of year.

The national average is at $3.53 a gallon. Prices have already gone up 25 cents since January 1st, and yes, Experts say that Gas Prices could reach a record $4.25 a gallon by late April across the nation.

The Obama economy grew at a sluggish 2.8 percent in the fourth quarter.

When President George W. Bush was saddled with the similar problem, he lifted the moratorium on drilling. Within 7 months, gas prices went from above $4 a gallon nationally to $1.85 a gallon nationally.

He knew that America could not sustain such a burden and took action even though the Liberal News Media would attack him. He knew that working families needed help and he opened up more Federal land to oil and gas drilling as a way to get American on the road to U.S. Energy Independence.

Friends, American Energy Independence starts with lower pump prices!

High oil and gas prices now set the stage for even sharper increases at the pump because gas typically rises in March and April.

Every spring, refiners shut down for repairs and maintenance operations, and of course to change from types of gasoline.  Winter gas supplies are sold off before March, when refineries need to start making a new formula of gasoline that's required in the summer.

That can mean less supply for service stations, resulting in higher gas prices. And summertime gasoline is more expensive to make.

Why is it more expensive to make? Government Regulations!

The Federal government mandates that it contain less butane and other cheap organic compounds because they contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, a primary constituent in smog. That means more oil, a costlier component, is needed to produce each gallon.

The Oil Price Information Service predicts that gasoline could peak at $4.25 a gallon by the end of April - although it could top $5 a gallon in many parts of the country. The record of $4.11 a gallon was in July 2008 when President George W Bush was still in Office - and didn't wait for political advice, instead he took action.

The national average for gasoline began the year at $3.28 a gallon. The average price for February so far is $3.49 a gallon. That's up from $3.17 a gallon last February, a record at the time. Back in 2007, before the recession hit, the average for February was $2.25 a gallon.

Here in California, we are already paying more than $4 a gallon!

According to the latest reports, prices are already higher on the East and West Coasts where prices are always higher - but never this high!

And yes, watch the economy because as higher gas prices put a strain on people's budgets less money will be available for things like new cars, appliances and even everyday items.

"Americans spent about 8.4 percent of their household income on gasoline last year when gas averaged an all-time high of $3.51 a gallon. That's double the percentage of a decade ago. They could pay even more this year, even though demand is the lowest in 11 years as people drive fewer miles in more efficient cars," says Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at OPIS.

And let's be real honest about a few things here!

People in the city don't feel the pinch like other Americans do. People in the suburbs, and out away from the urban sprawl and into rural American have to buy gas. We have to drive for everything.

City people can afford to take this lightly only so far. Yes, you have buses and trains and taxis and subways, and what have you, so you can shirk the concern about driving and the price of gas. But friends, don't make the mistake of thinking that this doesn't concern you big time!

If you're some lettuce munching vegetarian? Guess what, your lettuce is going up in price. If you're some style conscious dude who likes to wear this year's fashionable trendy clothing? Well dude, your clothes will get more expensive.

And how about you, you know who you are! You're that College student who hates America, but yet loves it's wines, it's music, its books, and its electronic gadgets! Get ready, you Turkey, because you are going to be paying more for your pretentious bullshit Socialist lifestyle!

Second Shot!

Republican Senator Caught Cheating!

During the last Presidential Election, we the American people got a great look at corruption at Voting Booths across the nation.

If you remember correctly, ACORN was an organization that Barack Obama once worked for. ACORN took it upon itself to register all sorts of votes for the Democratic Party to vote for Barack Obama.

They did all sorts of under-handed things. They registered dead people, they registered people who signed up with all sorts of fictitious names including Micky Mouse. They also bused Democrat voters into areas that they did not live in. They registered 43 people to a two bedroom home in one city.

I know what you're thinking, isn't there laws against that sort of thing? Well, I guess not. And yes, because of that, I expect Democrats to do it whenever and wherever they want to.

Watch this year, it will be no different. The Democratic Party will most likely truck people to vote the way they are told. And no, I don't know if they will most likely be Union Workers who owe their livelihood to their Unions and not to our country.

And no, I don't know if those being bused in would mostly be Welfare Recipients or more College Students like those in other Occupy Protesters who have shown a genuine hatred for America.

So my friends, since we know that no one should be voting in an area where they do not live, should we allow someone to Represent us in Congress if they are not from our area and do not live among us?

Well, that's what has been happening since 1977!  Republican Senator

That's right! Dick Lugar has not had an address in the area he has represents in more than 30 years!

Indiana Republican Sen. Richard Lugar does not actually live at the address he uses to claim residency.

To me, this is truly unbelievable! I cannot understand how he has gotten away with this for so many years!

The senior Indiana Senator has been using the address of a home that he actually sold all the way back in 1977.

Even the address on his Driver's License belongs to the house that Dick Lugar sold in 1977 after he was first elected to the U.S. Senate. Lugar told reporters that he sold the house because "it was too expensive, at least for us at that time in our lives, to maintain two houses."

He said after being elected that he moved his family to the Washington, D.C., area.

The Indiana state Election Commission plans to take up the controversy at a hearing this Friday, though Lugar maintains that two attorneys general have found he is a legal Indiana resident. But how can that be?

How can anyone say that he is a legal resident of some place that he doesn't live in? In that case, he can say that he's resident of anywhere.

Lugar's re-election campaign reports that between February 2011 and February 2012, the Senator spent 89 days in Indiana - and that Lugar still owns a farm in the state. 

But wait, Lugar told Fox 59 that he doesn't use the farm as his official address because "I do not live there."

Dick Lugar is taking heat from both sides, so much so that even all of his good Liberal friends are leaving him. And yes, even though he is supposed to be a Republican, Dick Luger is a Republican In Name Only.

Yes, he has been a RINO for years.  Yes, while Republicans remained steadfast in their opposition to many of Obama's proposals and nominations, Dick Lugar has been a steadfast ally of Barack Obama.

But this time, Harry Reid and even Barack Obama can't help him. As his primary challenger and the Indiana state Democrats rag on him over the residency issue, conservative groups are now lining up against him over his voting record.

His Voting Record is impressive if he were a Liberal Democrat. He voted for the DREAM Act. He voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, supporting both of Obama’s Judicial Nominations to the Supreme Court even though they are both Pro-Abortion.

Lugar voted to raise the debt ceiling, and is the only Senate Republican to publicly endorse the New START pact that Obama has negotiated with Russia.

He has voted consistently to increase his own salary. He voted for TARP. He backs Cap & Trade, and he is against American Oil and American Oil Independence. Dick Lugar has even voted for tougher Federal Gun Control laws.

Dick Lugar is as against the Tea Party as a politician can get. He has gone on record saying that he blames the Tea Party for Republican Party problems. He went so far as to say that the Tea Party destroyed the chances for Republican majority in the Senate at the last elections.

He claimed that the Tea Party didn't want a Republican majority because the Tea Party did not want Republicans like him. And no, he doesn't understand that the Tea Party doesn't march to the tune of the Republican Party - the Tea Party feels it doesn't have to sell its soul like so many Republicans do.

That's right - Republicans like Lugar just doesn't get it!

And folks, after November, I hope Lugar finds another job. Although I'm sure he won't have to worry too much about work, after all, he can always go to work for the Democratic Party and come out of the closet once and for all.

Next Shot! 

Man Goes To Jail For Failure To Get His Dog A License

No kidding! In Denver, Colorado, a couple is fighting fines after the husband was jailed for failure to get a license for his daughter's service dog.

And that's not all! Local authorities say that another 50 people in Jefferson County could face the same fate.

Matthew Townsend says he spent seven hours in jail after the dog got out and he was issued a $50 ticket. Townsend ignored the ticket and was arrested. His wife was fined $100.

Last year, the county issued nearly 500 citations for violations.

OK, so KCNC-TV ran down exactly what was going on when it reported that the dipsticks in Jefferson County need the money to pay for a new $10 million Foothills Animal Shelter.

Friends, raising $10 Million for an Animal Shelter is crazy as it is, but for them to arrest and jail people for not licensing their Service Dogs is just about one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard of.

First off, with the problem with not having enough room in most jails, you folks in Jefferson County are using needed space for these hardened criminal types! Give me a break! Where is your common sense?

For you folks in Foreign countries reading this, allow me to explain that a service dog is a companion dog that has been specially trained  to help people who have disabilities - including visual or hearing impairment, and also to help people with mental disabilities including severe depression.

Some dogs are even trained to help with medical conditions such as recurrent seizures or diabetes. So yes, we Americans now have a County Government in Colorado that is penalizing people with service dogs for not having the money to get their companion dogs licenses.

Like true caring individuals that they are, they throw these people in jail! And yes, God only knows what they do with repeat Dog License offenders?

For you folks in Jefferson County, Colorado, I have only one question.

Have you folks been completely taken over by liberals from California that you now find it OK to do things like this? What sort of California refugee told you folks that building an Animal Shelter that you obviously can't afford is OK to build - as long as you get the needed funds from those who need their money more than you do?

Oh well, I guess folks with Service Dogs should just stay out of Jefferson Country, Colorado!

Last Shot!

Pre-School Government Agents!

This is about as bad as what's going on in Jefferson County, Colorado, but it's different!

On Valentine's Day, a Pre-schooler's homemade lunch replaced with cafeteria chicken nuggets.

In Hoke County, North Carolina, a 4 year old pre-schooler was fed chicken nuggets for lunch because a State Worker felt that her homemade lunch did not meet the State and Federal mandate.

The West Hoke Elementary School student was in her classroom when a State Agent who was inspecting lunch boxes decided that her packed lunch - which consisted of a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, apple juice and potato chips - "did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines."

This is for real folks! I scan the news looking for bullshit like this, because honestly the whole idea of there be a "State Agent" that has the job of "inspecting" lunches made by Mom just irks me to no end!

According to the report filed by the Carolina Journal, the decision was made under consideration of a regulation put in place by the the Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services, which requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs to meet USDA guidelines.

In other words, the Feds think they know how to feed your children better than you do Mom!

The student’s mother told the Journal that she received a note from the school about the "incident" and was charged $1.25 for the cafeteria tray, from which her daughter only ate three chicken nuggets.

The note explained how students who did not bring “healthy lunches” would be offered the missing portions and that parents could be charged for the cost of the cafeteria food, the Carolina Journal reports.

The little girl's mother expressed concern about School Officials telling her daughter that she wasn’t "packing her lunch box properly."

The mother wrote a complaint to her State Representaive Republican G.L. Pridgen of Robeson County. In her letter she states, "I don't feel that I should pay for a cafeteria lunch when I provide lunch for her from home."

According to the Carolina Jounal, the girl’s grandmother, who sometimes helps pack her lunch that she is a petite, picky 4-year-old who eats white whole wheat bread and is not big on vegetables.

"What got me so mad is, number one, don’t tell my kid I’m not packing her lunch box properly," the girl’s mother said. "I pack her lunchbox according to what she eats. It always consists of a fruit. It never consists of a vegetable. She eats vegetables at home because I have to watch her because she doesn’t really care for vegetables."

The Carolina Jounal reported that when the girl came home with her lunch untouched, her mother wanted to know what she ate instead. "Three chicken nuggets," the girl answered. Everything else on her cafeteria tray went to waste.

"She came home with her whole sandwich I had packed, because she chose to eat the nuggets on the lunch tray, because they put it in front of her," her mother said. "You’re telling a 4-year-old., 'Oh. your lunch isn’t right,’ and she’s thinking there’s something wrong with her food."

While the mother and grandmother thought the potato chips and lack of vegetable were what "disqualified" the lunch, a spokeswoman for the Division of Child Development said that should not have been a problem.

"With a turkey sandwich, that covers your protein, your grain, and if it had cheese on it, that’s the dairy," said Jani Kozlowski, the fiscal and statutory policy manager for the division. "It sounds like the lunch itself would’ve met all of the standard."

The lunch has to include a fruit or vegetable, but not both, she said. There are no clear restrictions about what additional items — like potato chips — can be included in preschoolers’ lunch boxes.

What should bother everyone reading this - folks, this is not uncommon these days. Schools in America want the State to be the parent. This is not that strange a concept. It's happening more an more across the country.

In some States, schools are handing out Condoms against the wishes of parents. In other States, some classes like those teaching children about sex and accepting homosexuality is being forced on kids.

There are schools out there right now that are teaching classes on the Occupy protest - sort of a "How To" class to encourage distain for America.

The concept of having the State become the Parent is not uncommon in large scale applications. In the 1930s, Adolph Hitler used this idea to start the Hitler Youth groups and engineer the so-called "Master Race" which was to be obedient only to Germany.

Communist and Muslims both have this in common as well. Both believe that their greatest impact on a person's thought process, belief system, the way to get people obey them - whether they are a totalitarian State like say the former Soviet Union was, or if they are a hate filled religion only interested in killing "non-believers" - conditioning during the child's forming years is the key.

I don't like the whole idea that we have "State Agents" in amongst our children, especially when the State's agenda and a parent's might be polar opposites.

It's a shame that people are surrendering so much of their freedom to the Federal Government. And please understand where I'm coming from on this.

It is one thing to have "guideline" and "recommended" practices from the Federal and State governments. It is one thing to have to work to establish codes and standards. It is one thing to have laws that safeguard.

But the idea of any government agency trying to usurp itself with some sort of self-imposed authority and take the place of the parent, especially when there is a caring nuturing parent available, then the Federal and State governments are out of line.

The government is not supposed to be involved in our daily life, they have no business being a part of things.



Story by Tom Correa

Friday, February 17, 2012

Random Shots - 4th Best President? Sean Penn? Dipsticks!

First Shot!

Sean Penn Warns Great Britain! 

Yes, that's right! Another American Hollywood Leftist thinks he's important enough to have his or her words count as something more than Hot Air!

The Associated Press reported that while in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Hollywood's Left-wing ambassador Sean Penn is now taking Argentina's side in the latest Falkland Islands dispute between Great Britain and Argentina.

How or why anyone who allow Sean Penn to meet with Argentine President Cristina Kirchner is a question that many people really can't understand. But after his meeting, the leftist actor then had the gaul to think he's important enough to actually issue a "warning" to Great Britain and to join the United Nations sponsored talks over what Penn is calling "the Malvinas Islands of Argentina."

The actor's warning to Great Britain, "the world today is not going to tolerate any ludicrous and archaic commitment to colonialist ideology" Penn said.

As if that were the case, which it is not. Colonialzation went out years ago, but please try explaining that to High School dropouts who take up acting.
Great Britain has refused to negotiate with Argentina for a reason. As long as the citizens living on the Falkland Islands want to remain part of Great Britain, then they will remain British citizens and part of Great Britain.

Known as "Falklanders," they have recently started increasing the island's military defenses ahead of the 30th anniversary of the Falkland's War.

It is amazing how a ultra-left winger like Sean Penn can skip over the history of almost any subject and take the position he does.

So allow me to help the dipstick. The Falkland Islands were uninhabited when first discovered by Europeans. The islands were first discovered by British navigator John Davis s in 1592. The islands were called the "Davis Islands" for a few years.

In 1594, the islands were visited by English commander Richard Hawkins, who, combining his own name with that of Queen Elizabeth I, the "Virgin Queen", gave the islands the name of "Hawkins' Maidenland."


In 1600, Sebald de Weert, a Dutchman, visited them and called them the Sebald Islands (in Spanish, "Islas Sebaldinas" or "Sebaldes"), a name which they bore on some Dutch maps into the 19th century. Please remember that Spain had influence on the Dutch for many many years.

English Captain John Strong sailed between the two principal islands in 1690 and called the passage "Falkland Channel" - it is now known as Falkland Sound, after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland, who as Commissioner of the Admiralty had financed the expedition and later became First Lord of the Admiralty.

From that body of water, Falkland Sound, the island group later took its collective name.

So where does Sean Penn's ""the Malvinas Islands" come from? Well, the French! I bet you though Spain!  
 
You see, France established a colony at Port St. Louis, on East Falkland's Berkeley Sound coast in 1764. The French name "Îles Malouines" was given to the islands – "malouin" being the adjective for the Breton port of Saint-Malo. In 1766, the French left.
 
The Spanish translation for the French name "Îles Malouines" is "Islas Malvinas."  It is a direct Spanish translation of the French name for the islands.
 
In 1765, Capt. John Byron, who was unaware of the French presence in the east, explored Saunders Island, in the west, named the harbour Port Egmont, and claimed this and other islands for Britain on the grounds of prior discovery. The next year Captain John MacBride established a British settlement at Port Egmont.
 
The population, estimated at 3,140, primarily consists of Falkland Islanders, the majority of British descent. Other ethnicities include French, Gibraltarian, and Scandinavian. Immigration from the United Kingdom, Saint Helena, and Chile has reversed a former population decline. The predominant and official language is English. Under the British Nationality Act of 1983, Falkland Islanders are British citizens.

It was almost 200 years later, that Argentina first made its claim to the islands - that was in 1938.

Their claim died off and no further interst was made, especially during World War II when German warships were patroling the islands. The Argentine government at the time had no opposition to Great Britain having ownership of the islands while the Nazi War Machine was in the picture.

Argintine interest in the Falkland Islands only resurfaced as a diversion while the Argentine "Dirty War" was underway and thousands upon thousands of Argentine citizens were killed by it's dictatorships.

In early 1982, President Leopoldo Galtieri, the head of the Argentina's ruling military junta, authorized the invasion of the British Falkland Islands.

The whole reason for the operation was to draw attention away from Argentina's Human Rights Violations, and the economic crisis that plagued Argentina. It was in the middle of their so-called "Dirty War" where the Argentine govenment slaughtered thousands upon thousands of their own citizens. They epitimized the term, "Gone Missing" when it came to their citizens being arrested, taken into custody, and simply disappearing. 

It seems that Socialist all seem to use the same playbook. At the time, Argentine President Galtieri used his invasion of the Falklands in an attempt to bolster National Pride and take the heat off his regime.

After an incident between British and Argentine forces on nearby South Georgia Island, where Argentine forces landed in the Falklands on April 2nd. The small garrison of Royal Marines resisted, however by April 4th, the Argentines had captured the capital at Port Stanley.

Of course, the Falklands War was the last time Argentina tried seizing the islands using military force.

On April 2nd, 1982, a huge Argentine force landed in the Falklands. Two days later it captured the islands. After the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands, which resulted in the imprisonment of all of the islands inhabitants, Great Britain reacted with huge public support and a sense of overwhelming justification to rescue its citizens.

On the 5th of April, a large British naval task force set out on the 7500 mile journey to liberate the tiny group of small fairly flat windswept islands in the South Atlantic.

On 1st of May, the British began the biggest naval action to take place since World War II. The initial phases of the conflict occurred mainly at sea between elements of the Royal Navy and the Argentine Air Force.

On May 21st, British troops landed on the island to confront the Argentine troops. Ironically, because of military spending on the part of Argentina, both nations had armed there forces with similar infantry rifles.

Though the Argentine forces heavily outnumbered the British, by June 14th the British had compelled the Argentine occupiers to surrender.

In 1982, during the military engagement to rescue the "Falklanders" and regain the islands, the British lost 255 men and women. And of course, that doesn't even count the almost 800 wounded.

Of the 28,000 British Airmen, Sailors, Soldiers and Marines who sailed south in May of 1982, 255 did not return.

Sources state that there were 123 British Army personnel, 88 Royal Navy, 10 Royal Fleet Auxiliary, 9 Merchant Navy, 25 Royal Marines, 1 RAF, and 3 women civilian casualties - for a total of 255 British men and women killed during the Falklands War.
So why did I repeat myself so many times with the numbers of British servicemen and women lost in the Falklands War?

Well, it's because I really feel that Left-wingers don't care about those who have died in the service of their nation. It really appears as though they simply do not matter to the Left, especially those Leftist in Hollywood. 

I really believe, in my opinion, that people like Sean Penn have absolutely no respect for those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the military - especially in the service of a democratic nation like Great Britain.

Unlike years ago when actors served their country proudly, I see today's Hollywood left as being made up of the spineless and the loud, the creepy, the queer, the uneducated, the shallow, the extreme, the anti-American, the puppet, and the used.

Second Shot!

Dipsticks Running Loose All Over Washington DC!

Liberal Democrats Accuse Clergy of Acting in Complicity with Republicans

Today, a panel of Religious leaders testified in front of Congress about the Obama mandate for all religious organization to provide contraceptives supplies and abortion needs - even though directly goes against Catholic beliefs and violates Church teachings and policy.

Democrats got pretty testy with their Republican counterparts at a House hearing that has intensified the debate over Obama Care and the president's recent mandate.

One ultra-left Democrat even went so far as to call into question the motives of the clergymen who were there.

"I believe today's hearing is a sham!" said Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Va., of the first of two session held by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee during the day.

His angry tone was sharp as he pointed his finger. Then Connolly went on to declare the witnesses - who included a Catholic bishop, a Lutheran reverend, an Orthodox rabbi, and two Baptist theologians, all opposed to the Obama mandate as being "complicit" with the Republicans.

Complicit how? Well, Connolly believes that the Republicans' were "trampling" on House traditions that would, if observed, have produced a more balanced panel - that was his opinion.  And yes, I can't help but wonder if that dipstick would have wanted Planned Parenthood to be present at the hearing.

"You are being used for a political agenda," Connolly told the religious panel, after Republicans brandished images of President John F Kennedy and others to enforce their points. "This is a panel designed - with your conscious participation or not - to try, one more time, to embarrass the President of the United States and his administration, by overstating an issue which is sacred to all Americans: religious freedom. But of course, in order to do it, we have to, in an almost Stalinist-like fashion, have signs of Democratic icons to rub Democratic faces in it, as if those icons would be on the same side of this dispute today."

Yes, he called President John F Kennedy a "Democratic icon"! Image the cojones on this guy! Well folks, I hate to be the one to enlighten this Congressman - but just for the record, President John F Kennedy is an American Icon. And that trumps his political affiliation.

Besides, the truth is the truth. Like it or not, President Obama is the first president to be anti-American in his beliefs and attitudes toward the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution.  He has demonstrated himself to be openly anti-Christian.

And yes, if one is to look at the policies of President Kennedy, anyone would see that he has nothing in common with the Modern Democratic Party of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the Democrat who serves as the District of Columbia's non-voting representative in the House, clashed with the Hearing's Chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., about the composition of the religious panel - screaming out - "I want to have the right to make a parliamentary inquiry!"

Issa rejected the minority members' complaints about the witness list, offering a timeline by which the list was developed and noting that he had included some witnesses at their behest, even though House rules did not require him to do so.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., who sat next to Norton and averted her gaze when the D.C. delegate yelled at Representative Issa, then registered her own objection to the religious composition of the witness panel.

"What I want to know is, where are the women?" she asked. "I don't see one single woman representing the tens of millions of women across the country who want and need insurance coverage for basic preventive health care services, including family planning."

Imagine that! Give me a break! It was a Religious panel there to discuss the Obama Contraceptive and Abortion policy mandate. What would non-Religious clergy woman be doing on that panel? Nothing, other then supporting the use of contraceptives and abortions as a means of Birth Control.

Then another Democrat Rep. Elijah Cummings, of Maryland, the son of two ministers, took up the Liberal Birth Control mantel to underscored Maloney's point.

He wanted to get his colleagues to consider the "interests of women" as well as Religious Freedoms. "The pill has had a profound impact on their well-being - far more than any man in this room can possibly know,"
Then the liberal Cummings went on to accuse Representative Issa of "promoting a conspiracy theory that the federal government is conducting a war against religion."

At issue is the Obama Care policy that mandates all employers to provide free contraception and abortion counseling to women as part of their health care plans - Religious groups included - even if it goes directly against the beliefs of that religion.

Under pressure from religious groups like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Obama announced an "accommodation" under which Catholic-affiliated charities, hospitals, and schools - where the use of birth control is opposed on doctrinal grounds - would still have to provide the contraception and abortion counseling - but their insurers would have to pick up the tab.

Just for the record, yes, it's a perfect example of Chicago Politics 101: If you want them on your side - tell them that someone else is paying for it.

They believe that anyone can be bought! Too bad it didn't work!
The Conference of Catholic Bishops rejected the Obama bribe, as did the witnesses on the House panel. Reverend William E. Lori, the bishop of Bridgeport, Conn., and chairman of a committee on religious liberty at the Conference, related "the parable of the Kosher Deli" to make his point.

"It is absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich," Lori said. "But it is beyond absurd for that demand to be backed up with the coercive power of the state."

"While we are grandfathered under the very narrow provisions of the HHS policy," testified Reverend Dr. Matthew C. Harrison, president of the Lutheran Church's Missouri Synod, "we are deeply concerned that our consciences may soon be martyred by a few strokes on the keyboard."

Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, director of the Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought at Yeshiva University, said Obama's attempted compromise had proved "no accommodation at all."

"The religious organizations would still be obligated to provide employees with an insurance policy that facilitates acts violating the organization's religious tenets," Soloveichik told the lawmakers.

To that Rep. Carolyn Maloney, of New York, angrily said, "You can have your own beliefs about birth control, but Americans are entitled to theirs, and I don't think they agree with you."

And no, I don't think she is a practicing Catholic or Christian. If she were, then I don't think she would have made such an asinine statement!

Third Shot! 

California Judge deems ramming a Jewish Woman with a Shopping Cart is "Free Speech."

This is a story from last month, and honestly, I found it hard to believe that this can happen in America.

Back in June of 2010, a so-called leader of a pro-Palestinian student group at California State University  Berkeley allegedly rammed a Jewish woman with a shopping cart as she staged a counter-protest to an anti-Israel "Apartheid Week" rally conducted by the Muslim Student Association and Students for Justice in Palestine.

The counter-protest was dubbed "Israel Wants Peace Week."

In January, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg deemed that the Muslim students who harassed Jessica Felber and other Jewish students were simply engaging in "protected political speech."

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg said the harassment, even if true, constituted protected political speech and dismissed the case against the university.

Judge Seeborg went on to say that the University of Berkeley did not have any obligation to intervene in any dispute where a private individual on campus was allegedly interfering with another’s constitutional rights. He instead appeared to indicate that the incident was an outcome of Felber’s counter protest.

Felber and another Jewish student claimed the University did not do enough to prevent the harassment which included the Muslim group conducting checkpoints around the campus. Students were asked if they were Jewish while passing the checkpoints.

"The incident in which Felber was assaulted with a shopping cart, for example, did not occur in the context of her educational pursuit," Judge Seeborg stated. "Rather, that event occurred when she, as one person attempting to exercise free speech rights in a public forum, was allegedly attacked by another person who likewise was participating in a public protest in a public forum."

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Seeborg said that much of the conduct involved "pure political speech" that is constitutionally protected even if it "contained language that plaintiffs believe was inflammatory, offensive or untrue."

Jihad Watch founder Robert Spencer said, the judge’s decision affirms that Muslims assaulting Jewish students is now protected speech.

"This is an outrageous decision. The Muslim students were trying to silence the freedom of speech of the Jewish students. The judge says this is a ruling in favor of free speech, but actually the freedom of speech was being infringed and the judge is saying that is ok to protect the freedom of speech of the Muslim students. Don’t the Jewish students have freedom of speech as well?"

My question is this, say those Muslims on campus decided to use baseball bats instead of a shopping cart? Or let's say they used a car instead of a shopping cart? When does their "freedom of speech" become simple Assault and Battery?

I also can't help but wonder if the roles were reversed, and it was a Jewish man who rammed a Muslim woman, would the ruling be the same? For some reason, I think not!

Last Shot! 

"I'm the Fourth Best President in American History!"

This is too funny! It happened during an interview on 60 Minutes last December. 

During the interview, Barack Obama said, "I'm the fourth best President in American History!" 

So you don't think that Obama could possibly be so full of himself? And what, you really don't believe me. Well, he can thank 60 Minutes for editing it out when it was first aired.

But if you want to hear him say it, click here!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-57341009-10391709/president-obama-the-full-60-minutes-interview/?tag=contentBody;listingLeadStories

http://youtu.be/TxvSjDkF7HE

It might give you a great laugh.

 
Story by Tom Correa