Nom de plume: Rivrdog

Suck on THESE sour apples, Obama

Yep, even CNN can stick a knife in the back of our corrupt President.

Read the article, then consider these things:

• The poll shows that sending flunky "Baby-Face Pfeiffer" to hit all five talk shows yestiddy was a giant FAIL, as in FAIL with we-the-peeps and FAIL even with Bob Schieffer and See BeeEss, usually a peddler of the Obama line. The article then lamely tries to puff up Obama by claiming a small rise in his popularity, but "scoreboard don't lie" applies here.
• Consider the downside though: the GOPes will probably FAIL also. They haven't shown any inclination to put any skull into this opportunity. They need to announce a schedule of investigation actions, and announce that given certain results, indictments for lying to Congress will be forthcoming.

The folks have given you their support for investigations, Speaker Boehner. Lead or get out of the way.

 

Holder Lite

Here in Oregon, we have USAG-OR Amanda Marshall, who takes space offered by the anti-gun fishwrap to "make a case" against being able to buy guns privately.

In Marshall's op-ed, she lists a few scary-sounding cases, then jumps right into her preferred fix of mandatory background checks for all gun transactions.

One problem:

Marshall does not claim that any of the "scary" cases she presented is a case of the purported "gun-show loophole" case, and in fact, all the gun possessions mentioned were already illegal by laws already on the books, and a quick look at the perps would show that they were not the types who would have followed any sort of law, anyway.

That's an inferential leap which requires Warp Drive to cross, I'd say.

Then, she ignores the 900# gorilla in the room in writing her op-ed: Holder and the USDOJ simply can't be trusted. In fact, the entire US Government can't be trusted.

Refer to Chris Muir's "Day By Day" 'toon for today. In that first panel, Muir apparently quotes a Miami attorney in summing up the malfeasance of the Obama Administration, very concisely.

Ms. Marshall, should you read this blog, please tell me why any citizen with even a minor education would trust the US Government at this point. Trust is important, since there are Federal Laws prohibiting the Government from maintaining a gun registration list from FFL's records of purchase of guns. If that system of background checks, now in effect only for FFL-purchases, were extended to all purchases, what is to keep the Feds from ignoring the restrictions and making their own list? Bear in mind, for the failed Manchin-Toomey Bill, the feds would have had up to 72 hours to complete a check which is now generally completed in less than a half-hour. What were they planning to do with the extra time if not produce an illegal record of the checks?

If I can't trust your boss, Ms. Marshall, why should I trust you?

Trust is everything, and the Government has exactly none to sell us at the moment.

The "printed gun" - Joke's on the .Gov

Apparently, the printing program they just banned is so buggy it can't complete a printed gun anyway.

Maybe I should cobble up some garbage code, and garbage proof-hashes to go with it, put it online and claim it produces something fantastic in the printer, just to see who comes after me. I'd do a mind-reading dildo that only gives gasms to persons of a certain persuasion, or something like that. 

The "printed gun guy" may have just pulled off the biggest RF ever, getting the .Gov into a state of PSH over something that doesn't work.

H/T to Uncle

The First Shot of the Second Revolutionary War

...may have just been fired, by the Obama Administration.

First, go read Joe's excellent explanation of ITAR, the vehicle by which the Administration hopes to kill both the First and Second Amendments to the US Constitution.

For the first time, yesterday ITAR was implemented against a "Joe Sixpack", not a firm dealing in arms, or export of computer technology, just a guy with an idea on how to use evolving technology.

The Joe Sixpack in this case is the Printed Gun Guy.

Several things to disregard:

• The Printed Gun Guy is a jerk. Comes across as one, anyway. He's about on a par with the Open Carry folks who DO TRY to intimidate others with the sight of big scary guns. Ever hear of an O/C guy openly carrying a Kel-Tec P3AT?
• Cody Wilson claims to be advancing this 3-D Printer technology for the purpose of spreading Anarchy. Goodness, we all need more of THAT, don't we?
• The "Printed AR" that Wilson developed is a POS. It fell apart in this test after 6 rounds fired, and is a huge danger to the firer. It would be lawyered out of existance if it was sold on the open market.

Given that Cody Wilson and his "WikiGun Project" is apparently in full-failure mode, why couldn't the Feds have just let him fail, or perhaps sued him for making/spreading the use of a dangerous product?

But no, the Feds jumped the shark.

They trot out ITAR, which they claim, (read Joe's blog) gives them the right of control over ANY information or process that offers ANY chance to arm or improve the armaments of an enemy. That position, were it to become tested in court and be the Law of the Land, would negate the First AND Second Amendments to our Constitution, and thereby, make the Federal Government into a prima-facie dictatorship, controlling thought, speech, dissemination of information and of course, all guns.

I repeat, ALL guns. It also means all training with guns, accessories for guns, ammo for guns, etc.

If the Feds can claim a non-battleworthy POS like the WikiGun (or the data set to build it) could possibly be considered of value to an enemy, then ANYTHING is of value to an enemy. For that matter, since the basic society of the USA is superior to the basic society of any of the shitholes we call our enemies these days, you could, by extension, say that US society itself is of aid to the enemy.

If this is an isolated case, just an inept Administration's way of trying to snuff out a concept that has the potential to obsolete the entire National Firearms Act (if properly applied, which it isn't in this case), then fine, it will soon cease to be of importance.

There is, however, a huge danger that this Administration will expand on their use of ITAR as an anti-freedom tool, and in that case, make a note of it, History fans:

May 9th, 2013, the Federal Government fired the first shot in the Second Revolutionary war. That shot hit it's intended target, which the Federal targeting mavens had wrongly guessed would pre-emptively end the fight for freedom.

If we see more of ITAR though, there will be more shots fired, and they likely will NOT be fired from POS plastic guns or lawyer's processes, they will be fired from real rifles, at important targets ON BOTH SIDES.

Do you want real Gun Control, Mister Obama? If you do, just leave us alone. Our guns already ARE under control, and will stay that way. Loss of control for YOU, Mister Obama, will stem from trying to erase our gun freedoms. Only an Idiot fails to see that, and you're supposed to be a smart guy, not an idiot. 

More bad news for Napolitano

...the Gauleiter can't be happy with this poll, taken by one of her fellow-traveller institutes, the WaPo, and reported in my Newsmax blast-mail this ayem:

"A poll conducted just days after the Boston Marathon bombings shows that despite that tragedy, Americans are more concerned that government will trample constitutional rights than they are about the government failing to prevent terrorist attacks.

The Washington Post survey posed the question this way: “Which worries you more: that the government will not go far enough to investigate terrorism because of concerns about constitutional rights, or that it will go too far in compromising constitutional rights in order to investigate terrorism?”

Nearly half — 48 percent — said they are concerned the government will go too far, while 41 percent believe it will not go far enough. The rest said “neither” or had no opinion.

As recently as 2010, a Post poll found that just 27 percent feared government will go too far, compared to 63 percent who said they were more concerned it will not go far enough.

The new poll also disclosed that 66 percent of Americans believe “terrorists will always find a way to launch major attacks,” while 30 percent say the government can eventually prevent all major attacks.

Respondents in a Fox News poll also conducted after the Boston bombings expressed sentiments similar to those in the Post survey.

The Fox poll asked: “Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?”

Only 43 percent said “yes,” while 45 percent said “no” — the first time since 9/11 that more respondents said “no” than “yes” in a Fox News survey.

Just 38 percent of respondents under age 35 in the new Fox poll said “yes,” while 51 percent of those 65 and older said “yes.”" 

FWIW: polls tend to be spur-of-the-moment replies to age-old questions.

 

Milsurp ban coming

Milsurp & military-origin everything, if this JPFO article is to be believed, and most of them should be taken at face value.

Of course I predicted this some time ago as to guns and ammo, but JPFO says the issue will get down to small parts for milsurp guns as well.

Read and heed the JPFO article, even if you're not inclined to follow my advice about getting ahead of Obama's various gun-grabbing and banning plans.

At some point, ALL Second-Amendment-protecting organizations are going to have to shift their strategies to defending the 2A as protecting the right to form militias, with militia weapons. That is the only way to end this sort of death-by-import-ban strategy the President's about to uncork.

If the 2A orgs are not willing to take that stance, which this blog has taken forever, they will have given up THE major force to be applied to keep the definition of the 2A original. Once that definition gets "nuanced", the whole militia thing goes away, and so does the 2A. The Elmer Fudds will then prevail, and we'll be Australia.

A "grassy knoll" on Boylston Street?

It would seem so. Seems the rozzers are anxious to find the "third bomber", despite evidence that the Tsarnaev brothers acted alone.

Actually, this Third Bomber is not known to have been on Boylston Street at all. He is supposed to be the spiritual advocate responsible for radicalizing the boomer-lads.

They know who he is, some guy named "Misha". Misha Rasputin, maybe?

This whole idea of going after a spiritual adviser is fraught with danger for the Administration. How could they go after Misha and not go after the Mad Mullahs in Qom, Iran?

Congress wants to exempt itself from Obamacare

Yep, you read the healine correctly. Now read the story behind it.

As usual, Henry Waxman tries to spin it madly. He says, essentially, that we might find that our leges are already exempted from Obamacare's increased costs.

Isn't it about time that the SCOTUS took this matter under the advisement of it's own motion, and looked at all these huge, previously unknown, cost increases? SCOTUS determined that these fees were "taxes" last year, but no tax can automatically increase by itself ad infinitum, so, if they are taxes, only the fees out there at the time of enactment are legal, since Art 1 Sec 7&8 of the Constitution says that Congress gets to have it's say on new taxes, and Congress hasn't had that say.

Gun confiscation begins in New York State

...it says here.

When I warned Veterans about PTSD and gun rights being terminated, I wasn't far off. The dot.mil offers any troop who claims disability for PTSD these psychoactive drugs.

In New York State, those taking the drugs are now being physically stripped of their legally registered firearms, along with  "accessories" - I guess they get the holsters, too. It's all "executive action", there's no due process involved.

I expect that armed resistance in favor of the Bill of Rights will start any day now, and Obama will pull out his plan to disarm the entire country. We'll see who blinks first at that point.

Where is the brave NY US Attorney who can empanel a Grand Jury, and indict Governor Cuomo? There are plenty of brave Sheriffs and their Deputies who will serve the arrest warrant. This won't stop until some politicians are in jail for denial of civil rights under color of law*.

H/T - There will be no more Hat Tips on this subject unless I have explicit permission to reveal my source. Sorry attribution fans, I am not going to make it easy for Gauleiter Napolitano.

##############################################################################

* 18 USC 242-245

The police are your enemy?

...contrary to what the Left would have you believe, law enforcement is firmly on the side of our Constitution, as they have sworn to be.

Via Uncle, this interesting survey of law enforcement professionals who have to prove their actual police status to join this group which surveyed their members.

Quoting from the survey summary:

• 92 percent feel that banning semi-automatic firearms, or “assault weapons,” would have no effect or a negative effect on reducing violent crime
• 71 percent support law enforcement leaders who have publicly refused to enforce more restrictive gun laws within their jurisdictions
• 91 percent support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or have not been deemed psychologically incapable
• 91 percent said the use of a firearm while perpetrating a crime should lead to a stiff, mandatory sentence with no plea bargains.
• 86 percent feel the currently proposed legislation would have no effect or a negative effect on improving officer safety.
• 80 percent feel that legally-armed citizens would likely have reduced the number of casualties in recent mass shooting incidents

Several "truths" that are promoted by Bloomberg* and his ilk are directly refuted by this survey:

1. "Cops all want less guns in the community, especially semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity pistols" This is a lie, a direct lie.
2. "Real police leaders are all in favor of gun control" Another direct lie. Since the survey is done within a police-only organization composed of all ranks of cops, and nearly 3/4 of the responding officers support those police leaders who Just Say No to anti-2A laws, we can put this frequent mantra of both Bloomie and the POTUS to the lie. Every time you see an anti-gun pol standing for a photo-op with a bunch of ranking police officials, that pol(s) are doing a deliberate distortion, and those cops are in a very small minority of LEOs.
3. "Cops just want you to let them control crime, they don't need your armed help". A very insidious lie. Several of the above points in the survey (as I listed them, the first, second and last) address this canard of Bloomie's, and all those points give it the status of a lie.

I found another excellent article on refuting Bloomberg's and the Left's gun control ravings. Forbes Magazine is one of the best business magazines out there, and the ten points which their article lists to refute Bloomie speak for themselves.

You have to ask yourself, as I have been asking from the start, just why do these lefties all want to restrict the Second Amendment?

As I have told you before, but now with added proof, "Gun Control" is not about controlling guns, it is about controlling Gun Owners, about nullifying the very intent of the Second Amendment, which granted the status of a Permanent Civil Right to those seeking arms to form Militias to act as a check on the power of our Central Government..

When are we, the Unorganized Militia duly authorized, going to hold our Governments responsible for directly attempting to subvert our Constitution?

We need to think about our duty and responsibility to our Constitution, for if we do not take steps to defend and uphold it, it will soon be gone.

It's tempting to write and promulgate Amendments to the Constitution for purposes of restricting the National Debt and other worthy causes, but in MY humble opinion, the next (28th) Amendment should deny all criminal immunity for any politicians who want to remove any of our enumerated Civil Rights as written in the Bill of Rights. This Amendment needs to provide for immediate removal from public office, any elected or appointed official other than a Judge of the Supreme Court, who proposes or advocates for any restriction of the Constitution and it's amendments as originally promulgated and adopted by the several States in 1787. The new Amendment should leave open the possibility of a Constitutional Convention calling for a NEW Constitution, but unless the politician or Administrator's proposals lead directly to such a Constitutional Convention (without advocating for the denial of the present Constitution), their proposals to alter the present Constitution must be considered treasonable.

Our Constitution is presently under attack by those who have assumed that they have the right to advocate for it's destruction, in whole or in part. There.Is.No.Such.Right., nor has such a right ever existed. The First Amendment gives us the right to air our opinions, but when those opinions begin to sound like they are proposals for reducing the Constitution's basic enumerated Rights, the right to make those utterances, to propose those laws, simply does not exist. When those utterances and proposed laws become the focus of a political party or a political Administration, both of those groups have exceeded their Constitutional authority, and it is then up to the 2A-authorized Militia to take appropriate action to protect our Constitution.

Yes, it is really supposed to work that way. The Founders actually imagined that a Federal Government might have to be removed to restore the Constitution, and those musings led to the Second Amendment being written as a shield for the Constitution. You may read, in the Federalist Papers, Federalist # 28 and 29 by Alexander Hamilton and #46 by James Madison, just why these Founders believed the Second Amendment to be so important to our very survival as a Nation of free people.

############################################################################

* Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, possesses huge wealth, and uses it to try to destroy several Constitutionally-guananteed freedoms, notably the freedom to Keep and Bear arms. It occurs to this writer that we have Federal laws to seize the funds that terrorists use to make war upon this Nation and it's Constitution, so why haven't Bloomberg's funds been seized?