Tag: Obama

Following through on a campaign promise, President Trump has nominated 10th Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch. Trump promised a strict Constitutionalist would fill the seat left by the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia. Like Justice Scalia, Judge Gorsuch interprets the Constitution and its language as that language was understood at the time of a passage’s adoption. For our proposes here on these pages, that means that “militia” means, as it did in c. 1788, “the whole people, except for a few public officials”, and not the National Guard; a 20th Century invention.

Predictably, the wingnut left has retired to their fainting couches. Gorsuch, who was approved by the Senate in 2006 on a voice vote, is suddenly an outrageous, “extremist” pick for the Supreme Court. (And keep in mind who was part of that Senate which approved Judge Gorsuch that day!)

Leading the howls of outrage is the Old Grey Lady. The NY Times editorial board refers to Judge Gorsuch as the “Nominee for a Stolen Seat“. Let me say from the start that I didn’t read the entire OP-ED piece. There quickly came a point where I just couldn’t stop laughing. It was probably this part…

It’s been almost a year since Senate Republicans took an empty Supreme Court seat hostage, discarding a constitutional duty that both parties have honored throughout American history and hobbling an entire branch of government for partisan gain.

President Trump had a great opportunity to repair some of that damage by nominating a moderate candidate for the vacancy, which was created when Justice Antonin Scalia died last February. Instead, he chose Neil Gorsuch, a very conservative judge from the federal Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit whose jurisprudence and writing style are often compared to those of Justice Scalia.

Those, by the way, were the 1st two paragraphs.

Let’s break that down a bit, shall we? The “constitutional duty” the Times refers to is to provide “advice and consent” to a President’s picks for positions such as Supreme Court justice. This would be Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the US Constitution. This is not, however, an obligation to rubber-stamp whatever picks the President may make. Indeed, the last Senate opted to abide by the Biden Rule and abstained from a vote on Merrick Garland’s nomination.

Some of the “damage” the Times mentions is spelled out later; namely the toxic political environment that the Times and others like them created following President Trump’s election! Apparently, Trump should have nominated a “moderate” (i.e. a barking mad liberal) because Muslims or some such. Maybe it has something to do with vagina hats. I don’t know. It’s hard to read while I’m laughing.

That last line, however, is a ringing endorsement of Judge Gorsuch. Anyone who compares to the late Justice Scalia is a fine pick for the high court.

Legal News

In a recent article, Politifact gave President Obama’s a mixed score on his promises for more gun control. Yes, he failed miserably in his quest to relieve you of your God-given right to own a firearm; but, it wasn’t for lack of trying. I might disagree with the guy, but he deserves an A for effort!

…or at least a nice participation trophy.


I was going to use another ICYMI title for this, but that makes the assumption that you could have noticed it in the first place. Minitrue did a good job of burying this…

As we’ve mentioned before, NICS checks are setting new records every month. Now one would think, given the Obama regime’s fondness for “universal” background checks, that the would also be record numbers of federal prosecutions resulting from the denied checks. While most are cases of mistaken identity, some are felons and other prohibited persons. Their attempts to buy guns are federal felonies and should result in prosecutions.

One would think.

However, Loretta Lynch, when she’s not taking secret meetings with Bill Clinton, is dutifully ignoring these opportunities to put potentially violent felons in prison. Rather than going up, federal prosecutions are setting records for all time lows!

So one has to wonder, why would we give the regime more gun laws when they ignore the ones already on the books? To borrow a phrase from Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make?



Apparently not. Our President chooses instead to play Pinocchio Go. His latest “Gotta catch ’em all” moment came when he bagged another three with the same Pinocchi-ball by claiming that “it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book.” The Washington Post fact checkers awarded this bizarre claim 3 Pinocchios saying  that this is “an exaggerated claim based in no real statistics, and which does nothing but distract the public. The president earns Three Pinocchios.”


Couldn’t he go out and look for a Charmander rather than try, again, to deceive the American People?


Are you also reminded of the underpants gnomes when you listen to the anti-gun types? They both have equally nebulous business plans. For the anti-gun left, the plan is…

  • Phase 1: Pass laws.
  • Phase 2:         ?
  • Phase 3: No more guns!

The 2nd phase of the underpants gnomes’ plan is a complete mystery. There is no conceivable Phase 2 that could actually link “Collect underpants” to “Profit”. No one, not even Cartman, could tell us what Phase 2 could possibly be.

The 2nd phase of the anti-gun plan, however, is actually quite obvious: Gun owners cooperate and surrender their arms. What’s not clear is whether or not the average anti-gun leftist is aware that our cooperation is a necessary ingredient for the plan’s success. As we’ve mentioned before, Americans are remarkably uncooperative when it comes to obeying gun laws. Thus a plan that requires the active participation of its victims is not one with a promising future.

The “senior partners” in the movement are likely aware of the missing and unobtainable component of their plan. They probably know that the goal they claim to support cannot be achieved. In short, they’re lying to their followers about ridding the US of its guns. While they know that the movement is seeking the impossible, there’s real profit to be made. For them, that is. They raise money by tricking the rubes into thinking that there’s really a way to disarm the American people. Better still for them, their “investors” are people who reward intentions rather than results.

This November, Gavin Newsom is banking on that habit of rewarding intentions over results. His “Safety for All” initiative doesn’t actually have to win in November. Nor does it actually have to work if it does win. What matters to California Democrats is that “his heart’s in the right place” and that “he means well”. So when it comes to his 2018 gubernatorial bid, “Safety for All” is already paying dividends. Even if Prop 63 turns into an election day disaster, (i.e. turning out millions of screaming mad gun owners who flip the State for Donald Trump!) Gavin Newsom will still reap a tidy profit from his investment. So while his business plan isn’t anything close to the anti-gun business plan, Newsom does have a plausible Phase 2: “Trick them again”.


Still tingling from the recent “victory” on the House floor, and by floor I mean the carpet itself, the anti-gun, whack-a-do wing of the Democrat party is planning on a unique way of celebrating Congress’ Independence Day recess: By encouraging Americans to surrender their God-given freedoms.


Now here’s the part that I don’t believe they’ve really thought through. They plan, as part of whatever it is they’re going to do (They’re kinda short on specifics.), to remind the American People that is was the Waskawy Wepubwicans that stood between our due process rights and the Democrats’ thirst for power. I’m no political expert, but there seems to be something a little off with that message.

But by all means, Democrats, please remind the American People who was doing what in DC this past week. And please do remind American voters, and American gun owners in particular, that it’s Donald Trump and the Republicans that are standing for freedom this November. And please do remind us all that it’s you folks who are blaming law-abiding Americans for the actions of Islamofascist terrorists. (Terrorists that you imported into the US, by the way.) Please do remind the electorate that it’s you who wants to disarm the American People while it was Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who armed ISIS. Yes, please do give us all a refresher course. I’d hate to see us all forget these little details.


News Politics

Dom Raso has a simple message for Hillary Clinton and her anti-gun media allies: Stop talking. The more they run their mouths, the more the expose their ignorance for all to see.

Despite TOTUS‘ bloviating on the subject, the AR-15 and other semi-auto rifles are hardly “weapons of war”. They are, however, effective weapons for home defense and an excellent choice for many shooters. Even novice shooters can quickly become proficient at shooting these rifles. Banning them, when they’re almost never used in crimes of any sort, will only get people killed.

News Self-defense

This week, 49 Americans were murdered by an Islamofascist terrorist. There have been two responses from politicians. President Obama and Hillary Clinton have called for sanctions against…

Other Americans.

Donald Trump has called for restricting access to the US by non-American Muslims.

You might not like The Donald, but right now, he’s the adult in the room. Calling for more gun control laws on law abiding Americans is not adult behavior.  It’s petty politics. Worse, it’s something that will just get people killed. (Do toy really think that American gun owners will peacefully and quietly surrender their property?)

Gun owners have a clear and uncomplicated choice this November. Only Trump has stated unequivocally that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual liberty. Hillary insists that the Supreme Court was wrong on that count.

News Politics

From America’s 1st Freedom:

by A1F Daily Staff – Friday, May 13, 2016

Obama Seeks To Ban Gun Ownership For Millions Of Social Security Recipients

Photo credit: Dimitri Otis and Jrroman

It’s now in black and white in the Federal Register: President Barack Obama wants to ban firearm ownership for millions of Americans who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments or Disability Insurance benefits under the Social Security Act.

In the biggest gun grab in American history, the Obama White House wants to retroactively nullify the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans who receive Social Security benefits, who get those payments through “representative payees.”

As the Los Angeles Times reported in July, this new proposed gun ban tracks with what the Obama administration has already done to disarm American veterans through the Veterans Administration: If you receive benefits, and if for whatever reason, you have been assigned a “fiduciary”—in other words, someone who helps you manage your financial affairs, whether it’s balancing your checkbook or depositing checks in your account—then your gun rights are gone.

Under the Social Security Administration’s proposed implementation of the same scheme, if such a beneficiary has a “representative payee,” then their right to keep and bear arms would be nullified, as well.Proposed rule could ban gun ownership by millions through executive fiat.

As the L.A. Times pointed out, this wholesale revocation of the right to keep and bear arms for an entire class of people casts an extraordinarily wide net. Yale psychiatrist Dr. Marc Rosen told the Times, “Someone can be incapable of managing their funds but not be dangerous, violent or unsafe. They are very different determinations.”

Under the proposed rule published May 5 in the Federal Register:

“… we would identify, on a prospective basis, individuals who receive Disability Insurance benefits … or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments … and also meet certain other criteria, including an award of benefits based on a finding that the individual’s mental impairment meets or medically equals the requirements of section 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments (Listings) and receipt of benefits through a representative payee.”

Once those individuals were identified, they would be reported to the National Instant Check System (NICS) “on not less than a quarterly basis” as prohibited persons barred from purchasing, owning or even using firearms, and:

 “We would also notify individuals, both orally and in writing, of their possible Federal prohibition on possessing or receiving firearms, the consequences of such inclusion, [and] the criminal penalties for violating the Gun Control Act …”

As the Times pointed out, 2.7 million Americans currently receive Social Security disability payments for so-called “mental impairment,” and 1.5 million have assistance with their financial affairs through “representative payees.” That’s at least 4.2 million Americans receiving Social Security benefits—and possibly more—who could lose their right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their families.

Ari Ne’eman, who sits on the federal National Council on Disability, said that group would oppose any federal rule change that used the existence of a representative payee as a reason to deny fundamental rights. “The rep payee is an extraordinarily broad brush,” Ne’eman told theLos Angeles Times.

Here’s the tricky part, at least right now. Unless you’re a Philadelphia lawyer or someone fluent in the language of Washington bureaucratese, it’s not easy to figure out in advance, who, exactly, will fall under such a ban.

Once you start wading into the wilderness of the Federal Register—as we did—to try to sort out exactly who will be banned from owning firearms, several things strike you:

First, the regulations are so voluminous and impossibly impenetrable (and changing all the time) that it’s hard to figure out where even to begin your search.

Second, even after you identify one of the groups whose rights will be nullified—for example, those whose “mental impairment meets or medically equals the requirements of section 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments”—when you finally find and read that section of the Federal Register, the definitions spiral off into an undefined infinity where (for example) having “odd beliefs” can qualify you as having a “personality disorder” … or where “sleep disturbance, fatigue or panic attacks” qualifies you as having an “anxiety disorder” … or having “poor conceptual, social and practical skills” qualifies you for having an “intellectual disability.” It goes on and on, with the terms getting vaguer and more subjective the deeper you wade.Another scheme to deny the right to arms to as many people, for as many reasons, as often and as permanently as possible.

Just as the psychiatrists’ bible of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) has grown under the pressure of disease mongering—so that everyone gets their own mental “disorder” and everyone gets a pill—you can bet the number of disqualifying characteristics for lawful gun ownership will grow as fast as anyone can justify them.

And just because you’re not on the “Listings” today doesn’t mean you won’t have your rights denied tomorrow. As Dr. Allen J. Frances notes in aPsychology Today article headlined “Psychiatric Fads and Overdiagnosis”:

“The NIMH estimates that, in any given year, 25 percent of the population has a diagnosable mental disorder. A prospective study found that, by age 32, 50 percent of the general population had qualified for an anxiety disorder, 40 percent for a depression, and 30 percent for alcohol abuse or dependence. Imagine what the rates will be like by the time these people hit 50, or 65, or 80. In this brave new world of psychiatric overdiagnosis, will anyone get through life without a mental disorder?”

Disarming dangerous, mentally ill people is one thing. This is something an order larger.

If someone is mentally ill and presents a danger to him- or herself or others, no one wants to see that person have access to firearms. That goes without saying. No one benefits from the tragedies that can result except the anti-gun lobby, which often exploits them. The rest of us suffer, not just with our safety and loss but also, thanks to Obama’s SSI and VA schemes, with our ability to protect ourselves from those very dangerous people. That’s wrong.

But this isn’t about keeping guns away from the mentally ill. It’s about denying the right to keep and bear arms to as many people, for as many reasons, in as many places, in as many ways, as often and as permanently as they possibly can.

It’s part of a bigger trend, where politicians seek to take away the gun rights of ever more people—not just through the diagnosis of a medical professional, but also with little more than hearsay, as they’re pushing to do in California now.

And it’s just one of the ways Obama is going around the law to make new law—just as the NRA warned he would do in his last months in office.

But Obama’s scheme isn’t just the biggest gun grab by an American president in history.

For President Obama, who said his failure to win gun control is the “biggest frustration” of his presidency, to turn around now and bend the law into knots to disarm countless Americans who pose no threat—just so he can leave behind a blob of regulations for decades of lawyers to try to disentangle, despite the legislative process and regardless of how many good people are needlessly left defenseless—is more than arrogant. It’s a downright embarrassment.

In the end, your best way to fight back may be to contact your U.S. senators and representative. Urge them to oppose Obama’s Social Security gun grab. Americans who pose no threat to anyone should not have their most fundamental right—the right that gives us the ability to survive criminal attack—denied by hearsay, financial incompetence or a president’s arrogance.

Most importantly, get registered to vote, and on Nov. 3, cast your vote. If Hillary Clinton wins the White House, you can bet she’ll push through schemes like this that make Obama look like an amateur.

Use Your Power!

Right now, Obama’s proposed rule is open for public comment until July 5, 2016. You can submit your comments by
clicking here.

News Privacy Self-defense


Grassroots Alert: Vol. 23, No. 17 4/29/2016

Hillary Clinton to Attack Gun Owners Her “Very First Day” in Office

Hillary Clinton to Attack Gun Owners Her “Very First Day” in Office
In what has become as reliable as clockwork, with the passing of another week comes another Hillary Clinton attack on gun owners. This time, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination explained to supporters her intent to make an assault on gun rights and NRA one of her top priorities. A video of her comments has been distributed by Breitbart.com and can be viewed by clicking here.

View Related Articles
NRA Statement on President Obama's Latest Gun Control

NRA Statement on President Obama’s Latest Gun Control
Fairfax, Va.— The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) issued the following statements on President Obama’s latest gun control push.

Social Security Administration Releases Proposed Rulemaking on Disability-Related Gun Ban

Social Security Administration Releases Proposed Rulemaking on Disability-Related Gun Ban
On Friday, the Social Security Administration (SSA) released a draft of a proposed rulemaking that would supposedly bring the agency into compliance with what it claims is its responsibility to report prohibited persons to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The proposal focuses on five factors to determine if certain SSA recipients receiving Disability Insurance or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) have been “adjudicated as a mental defective” and are therefore federally prohibited from possessing or receiving firearms. It would also create an administrative procedure for affected individuals to petition for restoration of their rights. The proposed rule will remain open for public comment for 60 days.

Aging Rocker to College Students: You’re Too Drunk, Violent, and Stupid for Your Rights

Aging Rocker to College Students: You’re Too Drunk, Violent, and Stupid for Your Rights
Throughout its history, rock-n-roll music has provided youth who are fed up with being lectured and condescended to by out-of-touch or hypocritical elders a voice to respond and to advocate for their own generation. Athens, GA, rocker Micheal Stipe and his band R.E.M. helped fulfill that role for those who came of age in the 1980s and ‘90s with a string of memorable hits.  On Monday, however, Stipe said too much, and not enough, with a preachy, barely coherent editorial railing against the Second Amendment rights of today’s college students.

Hollywood Ramps up Anti-gun Campaign

Hollywood Ramps up Anti-gun Campaign
Gun control advocates and Hollywood have long been allied in an effort propagandize the public against firearm ownership. However, as detailed in an April 27 piece in entertainment industry trade publication Variety, anti-gun groups and television and film producers are increasingly collaborating on projects and escalating their campaign to indoctrinate viewers. As we noted back in March, gun control groups and Hollywood have often worked hand in hand to condition the public. Since 2000, the Entertainment Industries Council, whose purported goal is “Encouraging the entertainment industry to more effectively address and accurately depict major health and social issues,” has urged content producers to explore anti-gun scenarios and talking points in their television programs and films.

Say What? Gun Control Advocates Try to Change the Language of Crime

Say What? Gun Control Advocates Try to Change the Language of Crime
As a cabinet level official in the Obama administration, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton both reflected and informed the regime’s values and tactics, some of which she has carried forward into her own campaign for the White House. This includes careful and selective use of language to fulfill the Obama imperative to “punish our enemies” and “reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us”. And just as Obama pledged to fundamentally transform the United States of America, he and Clinton are fundamentally transforming the English language to reorient the public on “issues that are important” to their shared agenda of gun control.

Poll: Voters Not Swayed by Clinton’s Anti-Gun Duplicity

Poll: Voters Not Swayed by Clinton’s Anti-Gun Duplicity
We’ve been reporting on Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton and her anti-gun mentality for months. She has been especially focused on the alleged immunity gun manufacturers have under federal law, the Protection in Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).  She has often claimed, incorrectly, that gun manufacturers “are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability.” Despite the fact that her accusations have been completely debunked as false on Politifact and elsewhere, Ms. Clinton continues to trot out these deceptive talking points, promising she’ll repeal “the gun industry’s unique immunity protection” if elected.

Get Your Tickets to the 2016 NRA-ILA Leadership Forum!

Get Your Tickets to the 2016 NRA-ILA Leadership Forum!
Make sure you get your tickets to this year’s NRA-ILA Leadership Forum on Friday, May 20, 2016 at the NRA Annual Meetings in Louisville, Kentucky! Featuring our nation’s top Second Amendment leaders, this forum is a must-stop for candidates seeking the highest levels of elected office— governor, congressman, senator or president of the United States. With some of America’s biggest names and best political minds on tap, it’s no wonder this has become a can’t-miss favorite for NRA members. Tickets to this event sell out fast, so you’ll want to ensure that you secure your seat for an unforgettable series of motivational and inspirational speeches.

You're Invited to the Second Annual Youth Leadership Conference

You’re Invited to the Second Annual Youth Leadership Conference
NRA-ILA invites you to attend the Second Annual Youth Leadership Conference on Saturday, May 21st at 3:00 p.m. This special event is being held in conjunction with this year’s NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits in Louisville! At this FREE event, NRA-ILA Grassroots Staff will provide in depth training for student leaders that will focus on current issues we are facing, how to effectively combat anti-gun myths, and opportunities to get involved with the NRA. The event itself, and all associated materials and food, are FREE!

Attend Firearms Law Seminar in Louisville

Attend Firearms Law Seminar in Louisville
The Annual National Firearms Law Seminar will be held on Friday, May 20, 2016 as part of the NRA Annual Meetings. The gold standard in firearms law classes, this day-long seminar provides legal instruction for attorneys and all others interested in Second Amendment law. CLE credit for all states is available.  


Help Prevent Merrick Garland’s Confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court!
Help Prevent Merrick Garland’s Confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court!
In this News Minute from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, Jennifer Zahrn reports that President Obama has a carefully planned strategy to advance Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Please call the congressional switchboard at 202-224-3121 and tell your U.S. Senators that Merrick Garland must not be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Write your lawmakers and learn more at https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160426/merrick-garland-must-not-be-confirmed-to-the-us-supreme-court. 


Alabama Alabama
Alabama: Pro-Gun Reform Needs Your Immediate Action
Arizona Arizona
Arizona: Pro-Gun Bills Could Soon be Scheduled for Third Read
California California
California: Anti-Gun Bills Still Alive After Policy Committee Deadline
Connecticut Connecticut
Connecticut: Gun Surrender Bill Moving through the General Assembly
Hawaii Hawaii
Hawaii: Two Anti-Gun Bills Enrolled to Governor- Your Urgent Action Needed!
Michigan Michigan
Michigan: Important Firearm Preemption Legislation Will Likely Receive Committee Vote Next Week
Minnesota Minnesota
Minnesota: Anti-Gun Amendments Defeated on the Floor!
Ohio Ohio
Ohio: Military Carry Permit Reform Bill Goes to House Floor for Consideration
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania: Sunday Hunting Legislation Will be Heard in Senate Committee
South Carolina South Carolina
South Carolina: Pro-Gun Bill Vote Postponed

News Politics