Another Slap Upside the Raisins for Bloomberg


This isn’t about guns this time, although it’s nice to see Bloomberg’s nanny statism thoroughly spanked in every arena possible.

No, this time I got a note from my old friend Alex – a doctor, by the way, and an avid gun rights supporter, as well as a fellow Johns Hopkins graduate (one of maybe three I know who aren’t worshiping at the twisted, leftardian, statist altar of fellow alum Bloomberg) – who shows me that salt – the boogie man Bloomberg banned while acting as nanny for the state of New York, leaving thousands of homeless shelters without food donations, because *gasp!* Bloomberg and his statist food police couldn’t control the salt content of donated goods - just ain’t that bad after all.

(And yes, that particular link was intentional)

The results published yesterday in the New England Journal of Medicine showed the expected link between heart complications and high levels of sodium, which is known to boost blood pressure and cardiovascular risks. Those at the lowest end, as measured by the amount of sodium in their urine, were also at greater risk — a 27 percent increased chance of heart attack, stroke and death from cardiovascular causes, the study found.


The study, to my non-medical eye, confirms a very simple meme: everything in moderation.  And those of us who are smart enough to obey that simple rule without being ordered to do so by the tyrannical, dictatorial shit weasel former mayor of NYC, are happy to be vindicated.

The American Heart Association, apparently, isn’t backing down. According to the note Alex sent me:

Recall that the American Heart Association (AHA) has been pushing a 1.5 gram per day (g/d) limit on sodium intake for some time.[1]

But in 2013, when the Institute of Medicine (IOM) reviewed the evidence for what should be the suggested guideline for sodium intake, the agency reported that there was no evidence to support the 1.5 g/d limit.[2]

The most recent controversy over sodium guidelines comes in the August 14 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, which published 3 major papers[3-5] on the health effects of sodium consumption. The papers detail the results from 2 study groups: the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) group[4] and the Global Burden of Diseases Nutrition and Chronic Diseases Expert Group (NutriCoDE) group.[5]

The PURE study demonstrated the expected relationship between blood pressure (BP) and magnitude of sodium intake, whereas the NutriCoDE study was established by the proxy of urinary excretion and looked at sodium’s effect on global cardiovascular mortality. The PURE study found that the relationship between sodium and BP was nonlinear, with BP really only increasing when sodium was consumed at a rate of 3.5-4 g/d and higher.

Although there was a trend of higher adverse cardiovascular events with sodium excretion of > 5 g/day, this was much more pronounced at levels < 2 g/d. In other words, consumption of too little sodium is as harmful as consumption of too much sodium. In fact, the AHA guideline would lead — at least according to this latest research — to about a twofold risk for major adverse events.

To put these findings in context, these data are from 101,945 individuals in 17 countries. NutriCoDE was a modeling study that suggested that this relationship may not hold, but there were no direct measurements made; the data were extrapolated from published surveys from 66 countries. Both studies had warts, as Suzanne Oparil, MD,[6] nicely explains in an accompanying editorial. The usual call for a large, long-term randomized trial was made, but I think it is quite clear that that will go nowhere.

In other words – eat your salt, boys and girls! Bloombergian diktats may actually kill you!

Stupidest thing uttered by politician this week


That dubious honor goes to Nanny Bloomberg – the gun-banning, soda-limiting, salt-hating tyrant from New York, who has decided to dub himself saint.

In an interview with the New York Times, Bloomberg asserted he was doing God’s work by controlling every aspect of his subjects’ lives.

“I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in heaven. It’s not even close,” Bloomberg said.

Thank goodness I’ve already decided I’m going to hell. I going, buying a hotel and charging extra for air conditioning, bitches! Because if that oozing hemorrhoid in the asshole of life is off to heaven, it would be an unbearable place to spend eternity.

No thanks.

Feds retreat from Nevada ranch… makes one wonder (UPDATED)


I’ve never been a conspiritard. Y’all know this.  Most of the time I ridicule them mercilessly. But even a broken clock is right twice a day, so there may be something to the theory that the Feds nearly instantaneous retreat from the Bundy Ranch, where they have been congregating in what appeared to be an attempt to start a bit of a range war over grazing rights.

For those of you who don’t know…

[Cliven] Bundy claims his herd of roughly 900 cattle have grazed on the land along the riverbed near Bunkerville, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, since 1870 and threatened a “range war” against the BLM on the Bundy Ranch website after one of his sons was arrested while protesting the removal of the cattle.

“I have no contract with the United States government,” Bundy said. “I was paying grazing fees for management and that’s what BLM was supposed to be, land managers and they were managing my ranch out of business, so I refused to pay.”

The federal government had countered that Bundy “owes the American people in excess of $1 million ” in unpaid grazing fees and “refuses to abide by the law of land, despite many opportunities over the last 20 years to do so.”

See, if you refuse the government’s “services,” because they… you know… suck, they are apparently entitled to steal your property. Or so they thought.

Bundy thought differently and was ready to defend his property, if the need arose. For a while there, things got tense, and those of us watching really thought the need would arise.

And then, all of a sudden, the feds decided to pull out.

“Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public,” BLM Director Neil Kornze said.

“We ask that all parties in the area remain peaceful and law-abiding as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service work to end the operation in an orderly manner,” he said.

I’d say that’s a pretty smart move. I doubt anyone wanted a land war in Nevada. But some believe there might be more to the pullout than what meets the eye.

Now, there’s no way I’m linking to the Infowars psychos or driving any kind of traffic their way… ever. But that said, their claim is that the Bureau of Land Management’s Director, who was conveniently Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-ickhead.) former senior adviser, purged documents from the BLM’s site indicating that the reason BLM wants Bundy’s cattle off the land is to make room for solar panel power stations. The documents that were deleted by the Director, apparently entitled, “Cattle Trespass Impacts” claim that the presence of Bundy’s cattle impacts the construction of “utility-scale solar power generation facilities” on “public lands.”

Now, I have no way of knowing if any of this is truly real. I do know this, however, that almost immediately after the alleged “news” broke, BLM announced its retreat from the area.

Fortuitous timing, no?

I’ll leave it at that.

UPDATE: I knew there was a reason why I refuse to link to Infotards. Breitbart has some interesting information that actually refutes the conspiritard theory du jour, but admits there are definitely questions.

Despite the obvious partisan gain to be had if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s son Rory (a failed 2010 Nevada gubernatorial candidate) had somehow been involved in a “land grab” affecting the Bundy family ranch operation—the facts just do not pan out as such. Indeed, Rory Reid did in fact have a hand in plans to reclassify federal lands for renewable energy developments. Just northeast of Las Vegas and Nellis Air Force Base, plans were drawn by Reid allies to potentially develop 5,717 acres of land for such use. While it would be fair to claim that such activity was in Bundy’s relative neighborhood, the federal lands once leased by the family were more than 20 miles away, east of Overton, Nevada. Contrasting maps offered by InfoWars and those entered into federal court record prove such a theory to be a stretch.

Additionally, this feud began more than 20 years ago, and only RECENTLY did Harry Reid’s senior advisor purged the documents from BLM’s records? Not sure I believe that either. But again… why the purge? Why was it needed in the first place?

As I said earlier, I take everything with a grain of salt, because Alex Jones and the drooling fuckwads at Infotards do nothing but screech “CONSPIRACY!” at every turn. But there are definitely questions to be answered here – especially those about the federal government’s authority to simply push out families from the ranching business by restricting more and more land because of some random squirrel or reptile it claims to want to protect. Do the rat’s rights trump the humans’? I don’t think so.

On the other hand, “I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada,” Bundy recently told a radio reporter. “…I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But, I don’t recognize the United States Government as even existing.”

Really, dude? You might want to read this nation’s founding documents. That little document called the Constitution, even. I somehow get the feeling this guy quickly admits that the US government exists when it suits his purposes.

In other words, he strikes me as a douchebag, so…

Lots of interesting things going on here. Wonder what will happen.

Feinstein at it Again


Like herpes – the gift that keeps on giving – Dianne Feinstein (D-umbass) of California is at it again, trying to erode the right to keep and bear arms in the United States. I swear, this woman is a sore on the genitals of life! She just doesn’t stop! This time, she’s encouraging Dear Leader to use his Executive Order powers to ban firearms that make her shit her granny panties.  She wants 2014 to be a “Year of Action” vis-a-vis “assault weapons.” I keep wondering if that’s kind of like the “Year of the Pusillanimous Anti-Gun Dicknugget.”

The Great Claire Wolfe at JPFO has more.

Specifically, she targeting guns that are imported legally, looking like whatever she thinks “normal” weapons look like, but are later altered. Once in the country they’re taken down and rebuilt with made-in-USA parts to look more like military weapons. That is, they’re given features like thumb-hole stocks and higher magazine capacity. These, according to Feinstein’s letter, are “assault features.”

No one at JPFO has ever heard of an “assault feature.” We can’t even imagine how a feature could commit assault. But Ms. Feinstein seems to know an “assault feature” when she sees one, even if nobody else does.

Feinstein especially gets her knickers in a knot over one particular gun, the WASR-10, an AK-variant of Romanian origin, which is supposedly a favorite in Mexico.

Does me wanting to throat punch anyone this stupid make my fist into an “assault feature?”

Claire notes that the one good thing about Feinstein is that she and her ideas are getting old. Unfortunately, there’s never a shortage of gullible idiots willing to believe her tyrannical tripe.

As proof, I point you to my recent blog on the Nauckians of Arlington and their anti-gun shop dumbassery.

But I do hope Claire is right.

This is where I was born


For the past few months, I’ve been watching the events in Ukraine with interest and growing horror. What started out as fairly tame set of demonstrators, protesting President Viktor Yanukovich’s decision to abandon an Association Agreement with the European Union and move closer to Moscow, grew into violent suppression by the police against protesters, progressed into shooting of demonstrators after the Rada (Ukrainian parliament) passed a law banning most forms of protest, making thousands into criminals overnight, and culminated with more than 100 dead over the past few days.

Kyiv burns.

Anti-government protesters throw stones towards Interior Ministry officers during a rally near the building of Ukraine's house of parliament in Kiev

It looks like a war zone, even though most still describe the events there as mass protests and demonstrations.


And now, the rest of the nation mourns the events in Kyiv… the deaths… the blood… the corruption.

This is the city in which I was born. Lviv.


The situation in Ukraine is complicated. It isn’t as easy as Yanukovych is a thug. He is a corrupt goon, as is most of his administration and his inner circle. He saw his authority swirling the drain, and instead of displaying some accountability to the will of the people who put him in office, this dumb bastard decided to outlaw dissent.

In an era of the 24 hour news cycle and social media, this douchetard thought the news about his tyrannical oppression wouldn’t get out? He thought bloody suppression of dissent would somehow allow him to hold on to his power – power he would probably not have gotten without the support of the Russians.

Yanukovych was indebted to and feared Moscow. Not only did the Russian support help his Party of Regions win elections, but the Russians hinted they would cut prices on natural gas – prices that Kyiv complained were exorbitant – and would help Ukraine service its debt. Additionally, Moscow screwed with Ukraine (and other former Soviet states that were considering closer relations with the European Union). Last August, Russia blocked nearly all imports from Ukraine in an attempt to pressure Kyiv into rejecting an association agreement. Plus, the Russians and Ukrainians share historical, cultural and religious roots.

It’s a complicated relationship, and one I somewhat understand. During the Cold War, no one differentiated between Ukraine and Russia. They were both part of the USSR. I spoke Russian at home. I spoke Russian in school. I was considered Russian.

Cultural and religious ties aside, Ukraine is economically dependent on Russia. Russia is Ukraine’s largest trade partner. Loads of Russian tourists visit Ukraine every year. Ukraine buys its natural gas from Russia’s Gazprom, and Russia has been holding gas prices over Kyiv’s head for years.

Additionally, even though an association agreement with the EU would have helped the Ukrainian economy, the EU was demanding reforms, to include the release of imprisoned former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko. And Yanukovych, being the tyrant and coward that he is, was afraid to release her for fear that she would run against him, AND win, especially as unpopular as he is.

Yanukovych doesn’t care about the welfare of his country. Yanukovych cares about Yanukovych. He tried to suppress the very people who elected him to office, to keep his competition locked up and to cozy up to the very nation that manipulated him into turning away from an agreement that could have improved and modernized his nation’s economy.

But I guess he didn’t exactly count predict the insanity that ensued. Bloody suppression during the Olympic Games. Hundreds of people dead or wounded. Yanukovych forced to sign an agreement with the opposition that vastly dilutes his powers, as well as institutes a caretaker government until a special election can be held. The Rada passed a law that would free Timoshenko, and the Minister of the Interior has been booted for ordering his thugs to fire live rounds at protesters.

In other words, everything Yanukovych was trying to do to avoid losing his power has happened…

…but only after a lot of bloodshed, trauma and heartache.

Yeah. This is where I come from.

Is it any wonder I love this country as much as I do?



Submitted without comment, because… really… there’s just nothing I can say.

These are the progtards for whom Californians vote and give them the power and authority to disarm them and render them vulnerable not just to armed thugs, but also to sniveling tyrants.

Bob Bateman – doubling down on Teh Stoopid


So, there was once this military officer. He wrote this appallingly ignorant essay about how he would limit civilian gun ownership in this country, because GUNS=VIOLENCE, VIOLENCE=BAD, ergo GUNS=BAD! Plus, because of his awesome military experience, he was apparently the only one qualified enough, good enough and honorable enough to be allowed to have modern firearms. And, apparently this genius claims the Second Amendment doesn’t actually say what it says. He was, of course, slammed down pretty hard on these here Internets, including by yours truly, the guys at This Ain’t Hell, and my buddy Mike Williamson.

I guess Bobby boy didn’t like what was being said about him. As a matter of fact, he came over here this morning – not to actually answer the pretty overwhelming charges of douchebaggery leveled against him – but to laugh at the “8 readers” he thought I had. I suppose no one actually taught him that comments and hits on a blog are two different things.

He also apparently never learned the first rule of holes.

But in any case, because of the overwhelming response to his missive, Bobby felt he didn’t get enough, so he decided to pen another froth-flecked essay, which Esquire was thrilled to publish. In it, Bob, as he likes to refer to himself, whips out…

…if you guessed “The Victim Card,” you are absolutely correct!

OK, so let us start with the facts. A total of 2,324 emails came in following my post about guns, so far. I responded to every single one of them.

Well, aren’t you a prince, Bob! I wonder how many of those responses were actually factual, polite or even logical, and how many were similar to your responses on the Esquire site, some of which were homophobic and downright bigoted!

This was in the wake of my essay about developing some sort of rational, peaceful, non-confiscatory way of removing guns from the hands of criminals and reducing the drain on our national resources.

Lie #1 Bob. Removing all modern firearms from the hands of the People is not rational or peaceful. Removing the right of inheritance and confiscating people’s property after they die, when it rightfully belongs to their heirs is not rational or peaceful, and it’s CERTAINLY confiscatory.

And, as one concerned about national defense, that is how I think about the issue. I cannot avoid contemplating the drain on our national resources of the 100,000+ Americans who are shot every year as anything but a national defense issue. We are a weakened nation because of this, and I want us to be stronger.

If you’re worried about national defense, as you claim, Bob, you might want to focus your concerns on training, operations and maintenance and the oodles of procurement pork Congress has packed defense authorizations with. What you should also focus on is the benefits of gun ownership, which when examined through reams of research are much greater than your “weakened nation” claim. I will quote Gun Facts here:

Because guns are used an estimated 2.5 million times per year to prevent crimes, the cost savings in personal losses, police work, and court and prison expenses vastly outweighs the cost of criminal gun violence and gun accidents. The net savings, under a worst-case scenario, is about $3.5 billion a year.

Guns are used 65 times more often to prevent a crime than to commit one.

The medical cost of gun violence is only 0.16% of America’s annual health care expenditures.

But Bob doesn’t get it. He thinks that we n00bs just want to go bang bang and be like the professionals – you know those military planners – the ones who have no concept of the Constitution they swore to support and defend.

Unfortunately, a lot of people just want to shoot guns.

And a lot of people want you to uphold your oath, dildo.

But instead of admitting that maybe… JUST MAYBE… he was wrong, Bob paints himself to be the victim.

“Kerry Johnston” said, “Are you still in the active military? You swore to God and your cuntry that you would uphold the Constituton. How can you run your mouth about what you aparently know nothing? You are a disgrace and you’re days are numbered. There will be no mercy and no place for you to hide. Fool!”

Now I don’t mind death threats which claim, “you’re days are numbered,” in general, but that is one of the only ones which inserted an inappropriate apostrophe. The spelling, well, that is sort of par for the gun-advocate course that I saw these past couple of days. You can infer what you like.

Translation from Doucheweasel to English: I’m a martyr. I’ll take one for the cause of “national defense.” I don’t mind death threats, because I’m oh so brave and I will suffer for my principles. And by the way, gun rights advocates are stupid.

Bobby boy goes on to post a bunch of badly written alleged threats against him, for which he blames… are you ready for this? The National Rifle Association!

The NRA posted an essay about this assgoblin, who wrote a very public essay about confiscations and depriving the people of the United States of their basic rights, and therefore it’s the NRA’s fault that some people emailed threats to him.

It has nothing to do with his very clear statements that advocate the violation of his oath, the violation of the Law of the Land and the infringement on people’s rights to armed self defense. It’s only the NRA’s fault for publishing an essay opposing him, which incidentally did not incite anyone to violence, did not advocate any kind of action against Bob, but it’s their fault anyway, because they published something that contradicted his “expert” opinion, bashing not just the Supreme Court, but those mere mortals who think they should own guns.

So what do you think about the NRA’s advocacy? Just curious, since their essay resulted in death threats to me, threats of rape to my wife, and threats of abduction and murder of my six-month-old daughter from the people who read the NRA’s column. Personally, I think a little bit less of an organization like the NRA, which incites their members to threaten rape and murder and the abduction of babies. But perhaps, if you are an NRA member, you may approve of some of the messages above. That, of course, is your right.

What do we think of the NRA’s advocacy? We think you’re a large, blubbering vagina, Bob. That’s what we think. Let me guess… you think anyone who disagrees with you and dares to publicly state so, is to be held responsible for a few douchebags who allegedly emailed threats to you and your family?

I suppose that’s consistent with your view that the American people as a whole are to be held responsible for the actions of criminals with firearms and therefore should be relieved of their rights.

But that makes you a pathetic tool. As someone said on This Ain’t Hell earlier, “This guy needs to take the crossed rifles off his uniform and replace them with crossed vaginas.”

I would replace vaginas with tampons.

You’re a pussy, Bob. Get over yourself.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: