Yes, that’s right. From the moment he signed on, or shortly after, when he reviewed the documents and was made aware of the FISA problem, and the issue with I-Can’t-Keep-My-Peter-Out-Of-Lisa, Robert Mueller knew that he had no chance of getting anywhere with a prosecution of Trump. That was because he knew Trump didn’t do anything unlawful, although with enough fictionalized window dressing and a few process crimes (that are even now breaking down) he could keep the charade going through November of 2018. And that’s what he did.
Mueller was never about getting a conviction, it was “investigation theater” with enough leaks and bombshells fizzling on a weekly basis to make you think that the New York Times and Washington Post were actually conducting explosive ordnance disposal of duds. Virtually none of what they published turned out to be true. But it didn’t matter, because the media knows people are basically lazy, and they could scare a few people into voting Democrat because the president “might be” sponsored by Russia. And sadly, it worked. Mueller’s job was to give the Democrats the House and Senate, and he batted .500. The media won’t tell you that, but its true.
Presidents Ask Other Countries for Investigative Help All the Time
That’s right, we have treaties that allow other countries and their police and prosecutors to cooperate with our police and prosecutors. They secure evidence, gather documents, and perform other functions that our government cannot perform in those nations. But the media won’t tell you this because they want to make this look like this was Trump trying to get Biden, and they further want to make it look like Trump is scared of Biden. But the bottom line is, Trump wants to get to the bottom of the 2016 election interference scam, the Mueller scam, and he was asking for help from the new president of Ukraine. There is absolutely no mention anywhere of a quid pro quo, except in the disorganized minds of a few people who hate Trump. Nothing Trump did violated U.S. Law, and it is important to remember that if it did Adam Schiff, when he tried to dig up dirt from the two Russian shock jocks who pranked him back in 2017 would have already been indicted. No single Democrat has stated a single section of the United States Code that Trump violated: nor can they. Because there is nothing wrong with acting as the Chief Executive. That’s what Trump has been doing.
The Whistleblower Setup, Scam, and Impeachment Debacle Benefits Warren and Harris.
This whistleblower scam is not just a coup attempt against Donald Trump. It’s a very clever takedown of Joe Biden as the front-runner too. No one is excited about Joe except the few Democratic voters that haven’t gone full Commie on us. People like Michael Moore and Bill Maher recognize Joe couldn’t get a crowd excited juggling hand=grenades. But citizens like Joe. They like Joe because he looks thoughtful and likely won’t turn us in the a Socialist state. He might actually oppose that.
But the Hunter/Joe Money for Dismissal thing isn’t going to go away. It isn’t Russian propaganda, and it’s only going to get worse. Already people are talking about the deals Hunter made in China while Daddy Dearest was in the VP slot. That’s not good for Joe or Hunter. If I were Hunter, I’d be looking for a good defense lawyer.
But by going down this road, bringing this matter out in the open to live or die by this impeachment charade, they are kneecapping him while elevating Harris and Warren who are seen as “deserving” and are entitled to the “woman vote.” Of course, if you have outdoor plumbing instead of indoor plumbing, both these hags scare you to death. And if you own firearms, double that.
This whole thing has been calculated by senior kingmakers in the DNC to take out Biden and install Chief Sitting Bullshit and Homewrecker Harris. Don’t be confused by all that. The impact on Biden’s favorability ratings is intentional. But what they do not see is how badly it is hurting their chances in 2020. Because they will never get President Trump, and all they will wind up doing is looking even more stupid than they look today.
You can take that to the bank!
4. Finally, Where Are Our Senators?
We need senators to start calling Biden and Son to the Senate to testify, under oath, about their shady dealings. You want to have impeachment theater? Why not Obama Administration Accountability Theater? Let’s get these slimy jerks on record. Let’s nail down the story, and then let’s prosecute the lies they will undoubtedly tell.
For some time now I have been inactive here. In large part this is because I routinely posted my content here and linked it to Twitter and it went out to people interested. But since May 26, 2019 I have been off Twitter. This was not by my choice. I posted the following tweet:
Essentially I took the position that people with gender dysphoria, a recognized mental health issue, should be helped rather than be pandered to by companies like Gillette. Almost immediately I was red-flagged by Twitter for “hateful conduct.” Yes, that’s right, pointing out truthfully that people who have a penis and think they’re women have a mental issue is apparently “hateful.” Much the way telling someone who came in from a rainstorm that they are “wet” would be hateful.
So, I did what anyone would do in this situation. I appealed. I filed my appeal that night, and added to it the next day. I then waited a week, and then noted they had not ruled on my appeal. Didn’t get anything from Twitter, so again at the 14 day mark, another clang on their “help” bell, and again, radio silence.
So, it’s apparent to me that no one at Twitter is paying attention, so I wrote to the Assistant General Counsel for Human Rights and pointed out that my human rights are being violated because no one would adjudicate my appeal. Here is part of what I said:
As Twitter’s new deputy general counsel for human rights, and, as a fellow attorney, I am directing this correspondence to you. I do that not because I am threatening litigation, but simply because I believe a lawyer may actually take a litigator’s common-sense approach to this problem. Twitter’s censorship and appellate procedure display a disregard for the human right of free expression. In short, I’m asking for your help in rectifying an injustice.
Attached as an enclosure is a screen shot of the message that has been on my Twitter Account since Sunday, May 26, 2019. I was suspended for the following tweet sent in response to an advertisement from Gillette:
@Gillette you just lost a life-time customer. Transgendered people have a mental disorder. They should be helped, not pandered to. https://t.co/QF8gMSrPBu
I was suspended for “hateful conduct.” There is no hatred anywhere in that tweet. It is objectively true that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder, and that it is treated (some would say mistreated) by gender reassignment surgery.
I recognize that in San Francisco where Twitter is headquartered, and presumably where its pool of talent is drawn, the idea that someone might oppose pandering to confused and sexually-frustrated individuals is somehow controversial. But stating biological fact is not hate. I realize that there are those who deny science and claim gender is a “social construct.” I actually did quite well in my Anatomy and Physiology courses, and I understand the basic biology of human reproductive organs. I realize my reliance on science and medicine for my opinion might not be something others agree with. That’s okay. I welcome the disagreement. Disagreements are good. For example, I do not agree that streets should be littered with used syringes and human feces. I do not agree that people should be trafficked or exploited for profit. I suspect if we got right down to it, the person that adjudged my tweet as “hateful” would find that we agree on more things than we disagree. But we can’t have an intelligent discussion when the reaction to something you disagree with is to shut off the flow of information. As an attorney, you know this.
I believe the call on the original suspension was plainly wrong, and I believe you can look at the tweet objectively and determine that. Yet, as bad as the original suspension is, it alone is not why I write. I write because I have been denied my right of appeal that Twitter promised and includes within its terms of service. Twitter is simply lying when, in the body of the screen acknowledging the appeal it says “We’ll take a look and respond as soon as possible.” It is objectively false, and my account is proof.
The tweet was appealed on May 26. Today is June 23, 2019, and I still am locked out of my account; my appeal is still “pending.” I believe Twitter actually does not grant a right of appeal, and makes no attempt to make a substantive determination on an appeal. There are two reasons for this.
First, it doesn’t take 28 days to decide the propriety of a single tweet. And if it does take that long – if the volume of suspensions is so great that your staff is working on appeals 24/7 for 28 days – then perhaps you are suspending way too many people in the first place. But you and I know that’s not the case. This is simply an edict from your SJW staff telling me to shut up and take my medicine. It’s wrong. It is an illusory appeal process.
Second, when I went to appeal I encountered an “additional info” block supposedly to allow me to offer rationale for why my tweet should not be adjudged offensive. Yet, the number of characters allowed in support of the appeal permits fewer characters than the original tweet. From these facts I conclude there is a serious issue of whether Twitter is in fact proceeding in good faith in its appellate process. I get 32,000 words at the Missouri Supreme Court, and while I realize that Twitter is not a court, fewer than 256 characters to appeal a suspension is frankly an upraised middle finger to your customers.
I have been locked out of my account for 28 days. Yet, every time I check I am reminded that if I am tired of waiting I can cancel my appeal and delete my objectively true tweet because medical fact coupled with biological science offended someone. The gestalt of the advice offered by people on the internet is to forget the appeal, accept the punishment, and move on. If I believed I had transgressed on the transgendered, I would do that. But I did not. I cannot agree to accept a black mark for something that is unfair and where there is no real opportunity to challenge the fairness of that determination.
It has probably taken you less than five minutes to read this letter, but by the time you finish it, I will have been suspended for well over a month waiting on an answer on my appeal decision that was supposed to come “as soon as possible.” Coming from Ebay and StubHub, you are a person who understands that customers drive your success. Already there are numerous other sites that are operating without the draconian and oppressive censorship that Twitter has put in place. You understand the obligation to your shareholders likely better than I do. You might ask yourself how the issues I’ve raised here would affect the attitude of D.C. based regulators and investors in “flyover country.” The idea of regulating providers like Twitter and Facebook has already been offered as a means of solving these kinds of problems. I would be against that, but my case is Exhibit A for why it may be necessary.
I am going to give you a few days to work the problem before I write additional letters and raise these issues with other entities. I believe Twitter should have the chance to address these issues internally before I get others involved. I’m not asking for any relief beyond having my account restored. I’ve already been offline four times as long as I would have been if I had actually been at fault. That’s unfairness compounded by arrogance and deceit. If you offer an appeal, you damned sure ought to give people the appearance of some kind of rational decision-making. As one attorney to another, I am asking you for help.
I look forward to a proper resolution of this matter. Please call me if you have any questions.
So, a fairly well-written letter, not threatening a lawsuit, just asking for help solving a problem. Again, radio silence. Not even a word.
Undeterred I wrote to Jack Dorsey personally, sent the letter by certified mail and got a return receipt.
Surely this would get results, right?
You may ask “why not take the 7 days and get on with it?” Fair question. I did nothing wrong. I refuse to be punished for something I did not do. I have not decided whether to wait until hell freezes over for a decision on my appeal, or cancel my appeal. I honestly plan on waiting them out. But I may decide to do something different, I don’t know.
Essentially, while they will not respond and will not admit it, what Twitter does not want you to know is that there is no appeal when one of their social justice warriors gets offended at something you say online. It is September 16, and I have been waiting 110 days for Twitter to address my appeal. Yet, this is what I get, even today:
In other words, there is no appeal. When you appeal, all you do is set yourself up for frustration and for having to throw in the towel at some point because it is clear that Twitter is not going to adjudicate your appeal.
Now, why would they not? Because they might have to admit they were wrong. They might have to admit that science and biology triumph over “feelings.” They might have to accept that everything someone says you don’t agree with isn’t hate speech. In short, they might have to abandon their God complex.
And do not, for one moment think that Jack Dorsey is telling the truth when he says that Twitter is not censoring conservatives. It may not be his personal aim, but he turns a blind eye to it. If he believed in free speech he would supervise his staff. He would ensure appeals were heard and decided. But he won’t. He won’t because he lacks the courage to demonstrate the kind of leadership that’s necessary. I wrote directly to him. It appears he personally signed the receipt. And yet, in spite of all that, no one has even the decency to send me a letter more than a month later.
Do not expect Twitter to be fair. Do not expect Twitter to be operated on a rational basis. Do not expect to experience free speech on that site. Corporate censorship is just as wrong as government censorship. Yet Twitter gets by with exactly the kind of censorship that places like North Korea, China, Russia and Venezuela engage in on a daily basis.
Shame on Twitter. And shame on Jack Dorsey. He is either a liar or an incompetent manager and coward. I’ll let you decide which.
So, it’s Miller time for Mueller Time. The sad saga of the most irredeemably corrupt investigation in modern history has come to an end with the person that performed that presidential colonoscopy, Robert Mueller, telling Congress in no uncertain terms that they could “stick it” where the sun don’t shine. He isn’t going to testify. “My report is my testimony.” For the first time in two years someone in the Special Counsel’s office has done something arguably laudable. That being telling the Congress and the press to stick it. The report is a collection of rumor and innuendo, and it most certainly is not laudable.
Of course, Mr. Mueller could not help himself. He took a jab at President Trump by saying that if he could be sure Trump wasn’t guilty of obstruction he’d say so, but he agrees that the President can’t be charged. So, let’s see if I get this right. You can’t charge him because he’s the president, but you can investigate him and no charge him and spill every damning bit of rumor and innuendo while maintaining you don’t want to be political. Right. Got it.
Here’s the most farsical part of this entire circus of the mad. The chain of command goes from the President, to the Attorney General, to the Director of the FBI. The only two people who can tell the Director of the FBI what to do are the President and the AG, and only the President can fire him. The genesis of the entire “obstruction” probe was the firing of the FBI Director, a comically pompous fellow with the worst case of “little man syndrome” shown in recent years. While Comey is out talking about how fair and equitable the FBI has been in its investigations of Clinton and Trump, the rest of the DOJ is preparing to decide whether to charge him with leaking classified information to reporters. But President Trump always had the power and ability to fire Comey. He didn’t even need a reason. But he had several, including the way he bungled the Clinton investigation. So, how can a president legally executing his authority to terminate a non-performing malignant employee be obstructing justice, particularly where it had no impact on the investigation? The answer, of course, is that it cannot be obstruction, and that has been known all along. Comey could have been fired on Day 1, just like Mueller could have been fired on Day 1, because the Constitution makes the President accountable for the actions of the Executive Branch. Now, perhaps it would not have been wise to fire Mueller, because it might have precipitated an impeachment attempt, but there is no question he had the legal authority to do so.
But careful observers now realize why, at this point, Mueller is leaving the public eye. He knows he was used. He knows Comey set him up. He knows he was the intended smoke-screen for the FISA abuse and spying that went on. And he doesn’t want his name blackened any more than it already has been. He is refusing to testify not because he fears the Democrats questions, but because he knows the answers to the Republican’s questions, and if he gives those answers heads will likely roll.
The next few months will be an embarrassingly enjoyable time in American Politics. Call it the Summer of Comeuppance. Get your microwave popcorn ready. Summer’s coming.
The tweet was in reference to Gillette’s ad featuring a “transgendered teen” being taught to shave. In other words, Gillette is pandering to the social justice warriors who believe that if you have a penis you can magically think yourself a woman, or vice versa.
Apparently the PC police at Twitter took umbrage and sought to suspend me for seven days for “hateful conduct.” Yet, objectively, there is nothing hateful in the tweet. In fact, it suggests that people with gender dysphoria (the medical term for people who think they can magically think themselves to be a gender different than the one their anatomy dictates) require help, not pandering. So, I was offered an appeal of this decision.
Keep in mind I got this slap at my account less than a minute after posting that tweet, which means it was picked up by Twitter filters and there was no complaint about the tweet. So, about 30 seconds to decide this was “hateful conduct.” Nice. You can tell a lot of thought went into that decision (perhaps as much as 20 seconds worth of it).
So after this knee-jerk suspension for seven days Twitter helpfully provides an “appeal” of the decision, which apparently means you get about 128 characters (less than an actual tweet) to defend your expression of personal opinion. I appealed immediately, but in spite of that, I continued to see a page telling me I could appeal. Later I realized I received an email telling me Twitter had my first appeal, because I got one on the second appeal too. I waited 24 hours to file the second appeal because the appeal form says they will get to the appeal “as soon as possible.”
So, when 24 hours passed and no word, and the “YOU ARE A BAD PERSON” message still showed, I filed a second appeal. Now I get a page that says “Thanks for your appeal,” tells me it will be decided as soon as possible, and then helpfully tells me if I don’t want to wait I can — I love this part — cancel my appeal.
So, you have the right to give them one sentence for an appeal. You have the right to cancel that appeal, admit hateful conduct, and accept the punishment, or you have the right to…. you guessed it… wait…..and wait….and wait…. So the upshot of this is that even if they uphold my appeal and let me back in Twitter, i will already have served a suspension imposed not by virtue of my conduct, but by virtue of their refusal to review the tweet and decide the issue. But, of course, I could always cancel…. Makes you wonder if their heads hurt up there in Twitterland when they think this way.
The original message above was flagged at 6:29 p.m. CDT on Sunday. Today is Wednesday, I just checked and, yep, still no answer on that appeal. Keep in mind that if they don’t grant the appeal I have to serve out a seven day suspension. But will I get credit for the 3 days I have already served since I am completely locked out of my account? Surely you jest. This is Twitter, and in the Twitter world, only PC and SJW rules apply. Old white males like myself…we’re relegated to the position of unimportance. The idea that Twitter protects everyone’s right to free expression is patent nonsense.
So, I have reported this event to the White House portal that deals with inappropriate censorship of conservative ideas. You can find that portal here. I encourage everyone that is maligned by Twitter to take that step. Let’s make sure the White House has ammunition in the war against censorship of conservative ideas.
Recently while watching this video I concluded that at home it may be somewhat wiser to have a big dog (or a big-sounding dog) than a firearm in certain circumstances.
In the video you can hear an angry young may screaming about how he is going to kill everyone in the house, that the cops had better shoot him, and that if they didn’t shoot him, he was going to stab them all. Insert the word “M*****-F*****” between every other word above and you’ll have a pretty fair picture of the dialog.
The police officer wisely calls for a K9 unit.
Now, I love my dog. I would never expect my dog (a smaller breed) to protect me against a knife-wielding rectal blister like the one in the video. I would simply have tried, like this officer did, de-escalation techniques until he charged me, and then, reluctantly, I would have shot him. Of course, before we ever got to that point, I’d urge him to leave my home. Crazy people do crazy stuff, and you just never know when the wrong word or phrase is going to send them straight into psycho-land. The cool-headed officer here instead called for a K9.
The K9 shows up and the handler tells the dog to bark. Sure enough, that dog starts howling, barking, giving that “I can’t wait to rip out your liver” snarl, and within seconds Mr. Big Bad & Ugly went from “give me what I want or everyone dies” to “don’t let that dog bite me.” We have a guy with a knife who isn’t scared of cop with a gun, but is scared to death of a dog.
What makes dogs such excellent protectors and terrific partners in law enforcement? First, they’re pack animals and for thousands of years the law of the pack has prevailed. The alpha male leads the pack, all the other males serve the alpha. In the event of a threat, the males respond as a team and put down that threat or fight it to give the rest of the pack time to leave. It is not uncommon for either dogs or wolves to willingly give up their lives for the pack.
Domesticated dogs do not lose that ingrained law of the pack. They see their humans as the alpha males (even where the alpha is a female) and they have as their prime directive the protection of the pack. That means both the human adults and especially the human children. In our house if I speak harshly to my wife, I get that guttural eat-your-liver growl from the terrier. She is my wife’s dog, and there isn’t anyone getting to my wife but through that dog.
Knock on my door and it sounds like a pack of wild dogs is coming through it ready to eat you alive. And, indeed, if you had evil intent your ankles would be shredded. It is amazing to me that these small dogs (one that barks louder than most shepards) put themselves in front of me, and refuse to go behind me even when I order it. Training, it seems, cannot replace instinctive behavior which is “protect the pack.” Dogs sense fear, and they sense danger, and a dog does not know how to back down when the pack is threatened. I would also point out that dogs function on loyalty. They are tremendously loyal. For a good description of what makes a dog man’s best friend, see Eulogy for a Dog, here.
Because we have cameras and can see who is at the front door I can tell any potential intruder to run or I will let the dog go. In about 90% of cases intruders will run from dogs, even small dogs, rather than get bitten. In some cases, it’s fear, in others it is simply the desire not to harm a small animal. Yes, most thugs are animals and wouldn’t think twice, but some out there are really just after the money and “stuff.” They aren’t looking for a fight, and don’t thrill when one comes their way.
But here’s what having a dog does for you if you get a real animal pounding on your door or kicking it down. If they are not scared of a dog, they are unlikely to be scared of you. That should define your mindset. Threatening them with a gun is likely a waste of time. If you give any warning, one should be your upper limit.
Most home invasions come about as burglaries gone bad, and are carried out by multiple parties during the hours of darkness. In our house the plan at night is for all of us humans to be in the master bedroom and all of the dogs in there with us. If the dogs raise an alarm, or the alarm goes off, we lock the bedroom door, call the cops, and tell the bad guys they can have anything they can steal so long as they don’t come in the bedroom. If they do that, they’re going to die. We have multiple 9mm handguns and a pair of AR-15s to handle the situation if, in spite of being warned, the idiots attempt to come through the door.
Our plan is based on a clear desire to show any reviewing official that the exchange of gunfire was a last resort. That we engaged in violence only when violence was coming directly for us. Yes, under Alabama law we would be entitled to shoot first in our own home. But the law and the application of the law are not always in harmony. Better to demonstrate your reluctance through procedures than to rely on the law, especially when friends and family of the burglars will later confide to the press that the felons were really just wonderful little altar boys looking for the stolen poor box from Our Lady of Pathetic Liars and just got the wrong address.
Having a plan, however, is no good if you do not practice the plan. You absolutely have to practice what you’ll do, even if its run, hide, call for help, then fight. And in that situation, where the attack comes before we have turned in for the night, my wife grabs the dogs, and I have my pistol on my body (pants on, gun on) and I move to the attack while she secures the dogs and herself in our safe room. Once there she retrieves her pistol from the fast-action gun safe and either waits for me to give her the all clear, or shoots the first thing that comes through that door (hence that whole “all clear” part). And, yes, we have duress words.
“Duress words” are words that you say to indicate you’re okay, or you’re a hostage. For example, a friend uses odd numbers. “Baby, I’m 3 kinds of okay.” Hearing the odd number, his wife knows not to come downstairs, but rather, stay upstairs with her children. But if he says “We’re four kinds of clear down here” she knows he hasn’t been disarmed.
We have insurance, and we can get replacements for anything stolen. We have cameras so we will have photos of the people doing the crime. Thus, even if they get something, they won’t get far. We hope we never have to activate our plan, but having it, and practicing it, gives my wife and I a very sound feeling of security.
One of the things you frequently hear is that if the liberals take away our Second Amendment freedoms, the First Amendment will be next. All you have to do is look north to Chicago, home of the world’s most ineffective and draconian gun control, to see this is true.
Newspapers there were investigating the drowning death of an autistic child. They received documents from the school system, and planned to publish them. Instead the school’s lawyer sought an injunction against the publication. In this articlethe ABA details how the judge imposed a prior restraint on the publication. Under the First Amendment there is never supposed to be a prior restraint.
This is a loud alarm klaxon sounding here. First they will take away the right ot defend yourself, then they’ll take away your right to complain about it. We can only hope that the First Amendment survives this kind of challenge.
Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish
The Supreme Court has recently allowed a muslim to be put to death without his iman present. (It is the policy of this blog not to mention, by name, convicts that seek the media to gain sympathy, hence, no name) Here in Alabama it seems that the Department of Corrections employs a chaplain who just happens to be Christian. Some low-life that raped and murdered a 15 year old girl in 1995 (yes, that’s 24 years ago) complained that it was unfair to let Christians die with a minister of their choice while denying him the same right.
But, wait, that’s not really the issue. The issue is delay. He waited until January 29, 2019 to bring this claim to the federal courts. He had about 20 years to make this claim previously. He didn’t. More importantly, nothing forbids the iman from coming to the prison and praying with the inmate before he gets the Kevorkian Cocktail and slips off peacefully into Hell. It just forbids him from being in the death chamber right before the pervert’s lights go out. I’m sure the fifteen minutes between heading in there and dying are what would have made the difference…
Where do I begin, to tell the story of how great an AIWB holster can be.
Wait, let me back up. First, let me say this. For years I have subscribed to the idea that AIWB carry was dangerous and presented a serious risk of death or disability resulting from negligent discharge. I still believe that it presents risks, although in much the same way that carrying any firearm presents a risk. But if you watch a few videos where knuckleheads shoot themselvespracticing fast draws it’s pretty easy to take 2 and 2 and put them together and come up with 4. And, if you wear an AIWB holster while sitting or in the car driving, and you’re male, let’s just say that Mr. Johnson should be afraid given that Mr. Smith is pointing at him. Oh, and at your femoral artery. Let’s not forget that. Standing or walking the risk is minimized, but still somewhat present if you’re a big guy and have that muffin top. I have the whole damned muffin, and I have always worried that AIWB just would not work for me.
Then I met Jake. Jake has a YouTube channel called Evolving Daily. Along with John Lovell of the Warrior Poet Society he did a videothat demonstrated how AIWB could be safe, fast, and efficient in terms of execution, and he made me laugh a lot while demonstrating this. Both his videosare worth watching on AIWB.
So, if I am going to do this, I need a holster that does several things. First, it has to completely cover the trigger guard, and it has to be functionally impossible for anything to wiggle its way into that area and cause the firearm to discharge. This is because if you have a bad holster, or a holster that is not designed for AIWB, or one that allows things to get caught in it easily, you stand the chance of having a negligent discharge that will have you singing soprano. Watch this video and see what I mean.
One of my favorite things about firearms and the firearms community is that race and religion don’t have a great deal of bearing on your views on guns. I’m a Caucasian male, and if you listen to the liberal media, I supposedly hate my brown and black brothers because, well, you know. They look different. Or something. I’ve never figured it out. If you have, let me know in the comments. At any rate, I digress. One of my favorite channels, mainly because he is so smooth and just down right cool, is Locs n Load on YouTube. He is an African-American male and he constantly reviews new and innovative products. He’s fun to watch, fun to listen to, and he just generally has great content. So a few months ago he talked about Harry’s Holsters. He had switched to AIWB and he was wearing a Harry’s Holster.
Using the link from his page (he gets support from Harry’s) I ordered an Executive Holster with softloops for my M&P, and a few days later, another with hard clips for my Sig P320 X-carry. I am quite glad I did. Both holsters have performed very well, although I like the softloops better than the hard plastic clips. That’s just a personal opinion in terms of how the holster behaves on the belt, which I will explain later.
So, first, the holster is very well designed. It’s kydex, not a hybrid. That’s good because if Mr. Johnson is going to have visitors, he doesn’t want something pliable protecting the trigger. Mr. Johnson doesn’t mind sharing the space, but he vehemently objects to high velocity lead poisoning.
Both firearms fit inside the holster properly and snugly, although I did have to adjust retention for the Sig X-carry. I would also note that the Sig P320-RX with the Romeo sight does not fit insider the P320 holster because of the sight. I am sure they could accommodate that if I chose to carry that, but obviously for carry purposes I have the X-carry.
So, the first time I carried, I carried the M&P Model 2.0 in the holster with the softloops, and I used a stiff leather belt. Stiff leather belts and stiff plastic hooks are not a good combination on an AIWB holster. But stiff leather belts and softloops work terrific together.
Here’s the issue. When you have a little girth, you need for the weapon and holster to give a little in relation to the belt when you sit down. The softloops allow that to happen. The holster rides up when you sit down, and then when you stand the holster slips back down into the inguinal notch.
It also has a claw, to force the kydex upper portion deeper into the abdomen for better concealment, and the Raven Wedge that pushes the barrel away from the prime real estate down south. Both of these are important features for someone who is a person of abundance, like me.
In addition to my leather belt, I have a nylon web belt I bought from Propper (via Sportsman’s Guide). Since I carry the Sig X-carry now most of the time, I got the hard plastic clips, and they work better on the nylon belt because it’s much thinner than the leather belt.
I have found my draw time (previous best 1.75) is now down to 1.25 with the AIWB holster, and I get on target much faster. And, assuming I get the holster placed properly on the belt (with the barrel going down into the inguinal notch and the grip sitting above the belt line I am comfortable riding or sitting with the Harry’s Holster.
I can recommend this holster. It is reasonably priced (meaning its cheaper than any of its competition) and it meets or exceeds all my minimum standards. I look forward to carrying with it for a long time.