Saturday, January 19, 2013

Fraud? Hornswoggle? Bullshit? You tell me...

This is it? This all there is? It reminds me very much of the "757 hit the Pentagon" story.

Not one school surveillance video? Not even a still shot from the surveillance video? Not one mobile phone video?

Take a long look at these two videos on youtube. Then tell me what you think. I am not asking you to debunk the videos. I am asking you to address the questions raised. Anyone?

Eidt: this one also.

The MSM? We all know the answer, so we don't even need to ask the question. What is astounding, is that not one MSM reporter even wants to know.

Why is there NOT ONE Law Imposement officer in the Newtown vicinity asking and answering these questions?

Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.

How many have there been with the same formula?

Are we all truly this stupid?

Friday, January 18, 2013

Two Pieces For You To Read

First, from Patriot Post is a challenge to pledge as our forefathers did, to protect and defend our natural rights. Folks we must make this Pledge to each other, and do it for the whole world to see, just as they did.


"We, the People, affirm that we will support and defend Liberty as 'endowed by our Creator,' enshrined in our Constitution and empowered by its Second Amendment, against all enemies, foreign and domestic."


On that note, enough is enough.
Liberty is "endowed by our Creator," not determined by executive decree or congressional legislation or judicial diktat. Liberty is an innate human right. It is a gift from God, not from politicians.
I have, herein, publicly declared that I will not comply with any executive order, legislative action or judicial diktat, which violates our Constitution, or the innate human right to defend self and Liberty. I know that there are tens of millions of Patriots who are, likewise, committed. As our Founders affirmed in the last line of the document codifying their rejection of tyranny: "For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."
Fellow Patriots, I can handle the consequences of my very public declaration of intent to reject Obama's assault on the Second Amendment. I am not asking you to make the same public commitment, though I know most of you would step up to the line."

Go and read it all!

Also, from American Thinker is a piece on playing chicken. Think clearly, folks.


"The federal officers are going to tell him that his weapon has been banned, that the deadline has passed for him to turn it in at the local police station, and that he must turn it over immediately.... 
If this man gives in and hands the officers his weapon, he will feel for the rest of his life that he has been broken -- that when push came to shove, he did not have the courage to stand up for his children's future. This, in short, is how the federal officials who sent the officers to his door want him to feel, and how they want everyone to feel: weak, ineffectual, emasculated, and submissive. It is how they want you to feel when federal agents molest your wife at the airport, and photograph your pubescent daughter in a naked scanner. It is how they want you to feel about your "private" health records being permanently on file with a half dozen federal agencies, to be opened at their discretion. It is how they want you to feel about the thousand bank-breaking regulations you are obliged to comb through and comply with in the names of "sustainability," "social justice," "anti-discrimination," and a dozen other fronts in the war on self-governance."

Please go read it all!

My Senator's Reply

Here is what I received vi email:

Dear Longbow,

Thank you for contacting me about gun violence and gun control proposal.
Mass shootings are tragically becoming too common and as a U.S. Senator, it is my responsibility to address the growing issue of violence in America's schools and public places.  In the coming weeks, I hope that our country will consider how we can help keep people - especially innocent children - safe while protecting our constitutional rights. 
Moving forward, we must find careful, balanced solutions that do both.  I have a long history of protecting the Second Amendment, and I will keep that value in mind as we consider these important issues. With input from residents of Our State, I look forward to rising to this important challenge.  Please do not hesitate to contact me again if I can be of further assistance.

Jon  A. Judas
United States Senator


"Yeah, I got yer letter. Yeah I hear you, but I don't really care. There is an agenda and we in the United States Senate will pursue it. Please contact me to praise me for the next unconstitutional agenda item I pursue... if you want to."

He was recently re-elected. He simply doesn't care. 

Remember, vote for the other team next time! That'll show 'em!

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

My Congresscritter's Reply

I told him in the first sentence of my letter not to respond to me with a form letter. This is what I received.

Dear Mr. Longbow:
Thank you for contacting me to express your support for continuing to protect our nation’s Second Amendment rights following the unspeakable tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. I value your point of view and appreciate the opportunity to respond.
As a father of four, I am deeply saddened by the tragedy in Connecticut and pray that nothing like this ever happens again. It has become increasingly clear that there is a need to be proactive in increasing access to mental health resources and helping schools strengthen their ability to protect their students. Without a doubt, our nation’s health care system is in need of common-sense reforms that put patients and their relationship with their doctor first, and mental health must be part of that equation.
With that said, I am committed to protecting our Second Amendment rights, and I do not believe Washington should make rash decisions on controversial firearm restriction proposals that many experts believe would be ineffective in preventing violent crimes. While I believe we need to strictly enforce current laws forbidding potentially dangerous persons from possessing a firearm, I will work to ensure that Congress protects the constitutional rights of the thousands of Residents who safely and lawfully possess or use a firearm.
Again, thanks for contacting me. It is my number one priority in Congress to represent the values and interests of the people of Our State, and your input is very helpful as I do. Please do not hesitate to contact me again in the future regarding this or any other federal issue important to you.
Crappy S. Congresscritter
This letter is a pre-written piece of hogwash. This indicates the man's wet finger is in the air and he will blow the way the political winds direct him. Since he sent me a form letter back anyway, I must assume that he didn't read my first letter. So, I contacted him again and told him I didn't think he even looked at my letter nor the points I made, so I sent it in its entirety again.

Ok folks, I have shown you mine. Now show me yours!

Friday, January 11, 2013

My Letter to Congress and My Line in the Sand

This is the letter I am sending to my Congressman and Senators. I believe in being direct. The time is now to draw the line.

101 Main St.
AnyTown, USA 00001

Hon. Crappy S. Congresscritter
206 Cannon House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC  20515

10 January 2013 A.D.

Dear Crappy,

Recently, the subject of Gun Control has reared its ugly head. I want to make sure you know where I stand on this issue.

First, DO NOT send a form letter back to me. I am not interested in seeing and hearing you mouth the words. If you understand my intent, send a letter saying, “Ok, Longbow I understand.” That will suffice.

The actions of criminals do not and cannot ever nullify my rights, or the rights of any free men. Do you understand?

The Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees my right, and my neighbor’s right, to keep (own and possess) and bear (carry) arms. Those arms are the same arms issued to the infantryman. I will not suffer any further restrictions on my natural rights as a free man, most especially those rights secured and guaranteed to me by the Federal Constitution.

 This is my line in the sand. I will not comply.

If Congress passes any ban, I will not comply. If Congress attempts to expand the list of weapons regulated by the National Firearms Act, I will not comply. If Congress passes any bill, which attempts to make me a criminal for exercising my Natural, and Constitutionally secured, Rights, I will not comply.

Let me give you a glimpse of what might happen. The Attorney General (the very man responsible for Fast and Furious) will send agents into the field to enforce a new ban. They will come to my house attempting to force my compliance. I will tell them no. They will attempt to arrest me. I will resist arrest. They will attempt to use force against me. I will resist with equal force. They will then murder me. Do you understand?

Enforcement of a firearm and/or magazine ban is a murder mission. I will not go quietly into the night. If I see my neighbor being subjected to similar enforcement efforts I will come to his aid. I will use force to defend my neighbor’s Natural and Constitutionally secured rights. Do you understand?

The answer to the problem of school shootings is VERY simple. Repeal the Gun Free School Zones Act. That abomination has contributed to these shootings and made the problem worse. In effect, school zones are free-fire zones, victim disarmament zones, and target rich environments for mad men and murderers. How can you, in good conscience, mandate that everyone in a public school be made helpless and by law unable to defend himself?  Encourage teachers, administrators, and security personnel to train in the use of personal firearms and keep those weapons at hand and ready to use.

You want to ban something? Ban SSRI drugs. Do about five minutes of research and see that every one of these mass shootings, which result in the suicide of the shooter, also involves the use of SSRI’s and other psychotropic drugs.

I also want you to have some historical perspective on this subject. In 1934 Congress handed President Franklin another in his long line of unconscionable and un-Constitutional bills to sign. It was known as the National Firearms Act (NFA). This act brought under Federal regulation, Machineguns, Short Barreled rifles and Shotguns, Sound Suppressors, and a nebulous category known as “any other weapon”. The excuse for enacting this law was criminal activity.

I remind you now, the actions of criminals do not and cannot ever nullify my Natural and Constitutionally secured rights.

The only time this act was contested before the U.S. Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, the Court said the following (paraphrasing here), “Show us how a short barreled shotgun is a militia grade weapon and we will say the right to own it is protected by the Second Amendment…”. There was no one present to argue the case for the defense, so only the government’s argument was heard. The case was remanded back to district court, which had previously held the NFA to be un-Constitutional, for reconsideration.

All Federal Gun Control legislation rests upon this decision. Congress proceeded on the presumption that there was no individual right, secured by the Constitution, to keep and bear arms.

This presumption was proven wrong in the Heller decision, with which you may be familiar.

If the Supreme Court hears a similar case, in light of Heller and McDonald, based on newly banned “assault weapons”, the whole house of cards (NFA) will come down. Do you understand?

One more note about the NFA, in 1986 Congress passed the “Hughes Amendment” to the Firearm Owners Protection Act. The Hughes Amendment disallowed registration and tax payment on new machineguns, under the NFA. It means Congress passed an unconstitutional law and then fifty years later passed another one which says, “Yeah, we know we required you to beg permission and pay a tax in order to comply, but now we will not even let you attempt to comply! Sucker!” Do you think this is good law? Do you sincerely think the status quo is good enough? The National Firearms Act should be repealed.

Proceeding incorrectly, Congress enacted the Gun Control Act in 1968 (GCA). This was supposedly an act to regulate firearms in “interstate commerce”. It granted to the Secretary of the Treasury (now transferred to the Attorney General) the un-Constitutional authority to ban any weapon from importation, which he believed wasn’t for sporting purposes. It also gave him the authority to require the registration and payment of a tax on any firearm with a bore diameter over .50 caliber which he thinks is not for “sporting purposes” The idea was to begin an ever-expanding list of regulated firearms, with the goal of eventual ban.

Let me be clear again. Hunting and Sport Shooting are forms of entertainment. The Second Amendment is NOT about entertainment. It is about my Natural Right to resist tyranny. Do you understand?

The CGA also regulated how firearms are delivered at retail to every customer. Even in transactions having nothing to do with “interstate commerce”.  This aspect of the Gun Control Act should be repealed. Congress has no such authority.

The “interstate commerce” clause has been used to justify any act of Congress passed without authority granted to it by the Constitution. The hinge pin there is Wickard v. Filburn. In this case the Supreme Court, under duress from the President’s threat to pack the Court with Anti-Constitutionalists, and attempting to salvage what was left of its Constitutional integrity, hoping to simply outlast the socialist administration of Mr. Roosevelt, decided that anything which somehow tenuously affects or is nebulously related to “interstate commerce” is subject to regulation by Congress. This decision was wrong. It was not only wrong, but I remind you it was made under duress. This decision should be overturned.

The “necessary and proper” clause is also cited as authority for Congress to do anything it wants to do. I remind you to read Amendments Nine and Ten to the Federal Constitution. Those Amendments are not difficult to understand.

If you and your colleagues seek to be true to your Oath, I challenge you to begin to deconstruct this house of cards. The original “Assault Weapons” ban from 1994, should not only not be renewed, it should be repealed in its entirety. It should be stricken from the books as though it was never passed. The National Firearms Act should be repealed in its entirety. Do want a good reason to do that? See the Dick Act (hint here, it will take about ten minutes of research). If Congress wants to regulate “interstate commerce” in firearms, there may be a way, legislatively, to put such commerce in good order, or to make it regular. The idea that “to regulate” means, “prevent, deny, disparage” is erroneous should be abandoned now.

Free men have the right to arms. They have the right to their own property and the right to prosper from the fruits of their own labor. You in Congress do NOT have first lien on the lives of the free people of these United States. The right to arms is the final expression of all the others. Do you understand?

I will now summarize. The right to arms is natural and inherent to the free people of these United States. The Federal Constitution guaranteed this in writing. The Federal Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. “Gun Control” laws are, on their face, a violation of the Supreme law of the Land. You swore an oath to Support and Defend that guarantee. I expect you to honor your oath. It is not good enough to continue with the status quo. The rights enumerated in the Second Amendment have been under attack since 1934. Any legislation which infringes on that right must be repealed. If you support the status quo you are in violation of your oath of office. Do you understand?

I will suffer no further restrictions, no further burdens. There will be no limits on magazine capacity. There will be no prohibition based on the function or cosmetics of any firearm I choose to own. There will be no begging permission from the FBI before I trade my private property with my neighbor. There will be no registration. There will be no transfer taxes paid, anymore than I would suffer a tax before I exercise my right to vote, or my right to speak my mind. There will be no Ban. I will not beg permission before I exercise a right guaranteed to me, any more than I will beg a bureaucrat’s permission to breathe. If the Attorney General sends his agents to enforce such a ban on me, or my neighbors, in violation of their Oath of Office, I will presume them to be on a murder mission and will act accordingly. Do you understand?

It is not enough for you to merely vote NO on the next restrictive bill introduced on the floor of the house. You should be fighting to turn the tide. Your efforts should ring throughout the halls of Congress. You may practice your polite collegiality on the floor of the chamber, but in the cloak room you should vigorously remind each of your colleagues of their Oath of Office and of their obligation. If you are not doing this, you are betraying the people who elected you.



Wednesday, January 09, 2013

T.L. Davis Says a Mouthful

Go here and read the latest from T.L.

I will say this, I would consider myself blessed to stand with any man as dedicated and principled as he.

I agree completely with this sentiment,

"That is unless we take a hard look at the realities of our position and realize that our fight is not just over the Second Amendment, but all of them. That if they force us to raise our weapons over this issue, we should not lay them down until all of the others have been resolved. Including a Supreme Court more accountable to their oaths."

How shall it be, folks?

Another Socialist Piece of Excrement Heard From, or, Iowans Why Do You Put Up With This?

This piece from The Daily Caller lays out what a State Representative in Iowa thinks of the people who elected him. I saw it on The Drudge Report.

Meet Dan Muhlbauer, Iowa State Representative.

The newspaper reports that he owns a .410 shotgun, a .22 rifle and a .22 pistol. He thinks he should possess his weapons, but you are not to be trusted nor permitted.

Quotes from the piece at Daily Caller,

"We cannot have big guns out here as far as the big guns that are out here, the semi-automatics and all of them," said his smugness. How very erudite he is. How precise in his chosen words, how utterly imperial his declaration is.

But wait, there is more!

"We can’t have those running around out here." Are you Iowans allowing your guns to go running around loose and unsupervised again? Who left the safe open?

It gets better, "Those are not hunting weapons." You see? The only reason the State permits you to possess firearms is for you to go hunting. If you are not a hunter, you have no legitimate reason to possess them. You don't have a bona fide "Need".

Now for the money quote, "We should ban those in Iowa... We need to get them off the streets — illegally — and even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them..."

Yes, that is the accurate quote in the Daily Caller piece.

"We can’t have those out there. Because if they’re out there they’re just going to get circulated around to the wrong people. Those guns should not be in the public’s hands. There are just too many guns."

Iowans, you elected this guy? This is who represents YOU? This is your expression of your best effort to make a choice?

This is what you want?

Tuesday, January 08, 2013

Dirtbag, Scoundrel, Oath Breaker.

Thank you WRSA.

Damn you, Oath Breaker!

Remember, there is justice, in this life or the next.

Meet Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Oath Breaker. Oath Breakers are, by definition, Perjurers and Liars. Liars are scoundrels. Scoundrels are dirtbags and I have no use for them.

Read what he thinks of your natural and Constitutionally secured rights. Remember folks, no officer gets a key to the Li'l General's room unless he is a bought and paid-for politician.

Read here and get it strait from the Scoundrel's mouth.

Quote, "“That’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.” You see how he differentiates himself, as a soldier from mere citizens?

The unorganized militia of these United States is We The People. We The People must, and of right ought to, possess the exact same weaponry as the infantryman. If we do not, we have no only given up our birthright, we have abdicated our place in the world as free men and abandoned our Duty.

You see, how the hoplophobes and would-be tyrants always frame the argument in in terms of making you think you must justify yourself by proving a "Need" first? This is where the Fudds think they have an advantage over us mere "gun owners". This is exactly what they mean when they join the debate by proclaiming, "I'm a hunter...!".

You see, Stanley there, has a "Need" as an active duty soldier. He believes that you, however, being a mere mortal, don't have a bona fide "Need", and therefor shouldn't be permitted.

Damn you! Permitted by whom?

Quote, "...I understand everyone’s desire to have whatever they want—but we’ve got to protect our children, we’ve got to protect our police, we’ve got to protect our population...”

First of all, Desire? How about Shall Not Be In-fucking-fringed, Gen. McChrystal?

Second, protect our police? Who shall protect us from the police and the military if we give up our birthright? I ask again, is Government your Daddy?

(Later, after some thought)

I have a suggestion for you Gen. McChrystal. I have decided that Al Gore is correct and that YOU are putting too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by breathing. You are contributing to Global Warming! You probably want to suffocate children and kittens and puppies!

How about I come over there and place some "Reasonable Restrictions" on your right to breathe? Oh, and I will be the one to decide what is "Reasonable".

What's that? You say need "Need To" breathe freely and deeply? Well, due to global warming and greenhouse gasses and all, we must sacrifice, some more than others. Are you a professional athlete or a professional scuba diver? No? Then I have decided that your breathing is subject to my reasonable restrictions. You see, you don't have a bona fide "Need".

Now, lets put this choke collar on. Easy now, we wouldn't want you to get hurt resisting whats good for you. There, see? You can still breathe some. You'll survive just fine under "Reasonable Restrictions". Don't you just love the fuzzy lining on your new collar?

Oh, what's that? You say you have a "Right" to breathe freely? Well, where is that right granted to you in the Constitution? What Supreme Court Decision can you cite which says that you have such a right? That is correct, you can't. So I suppose you had better shut the hell up before the EPA SWAT Team comes to your home in the middle of the night to terrorize your family and take from you what is left your Breathing Privileges. If you do not comply, we must assume that you want to suffocate children and kittens and puppies.

Onward to Socialism Progress!