Get Ready For Unrest Baltimore

The first officer charged in the death of Freddie Gray is awaiting the verdict from a jury. His trial wrapped up this afternoon and the jury is now deliberating his fate.

If Officer William Porter is found not guilty the city will again become unhinged.

After Gray’s funeral Baltimore became a national news story as rioters vandalized the city and burned buildings and cars. The rampage cost millions of dollars and put many lives at risk. The rioters did not seem to care as they went about destroying things.

Mayor Rawlings-Blake told police officers to give them room to destroy and destroy they did. The National Guard was finally requested and sent in to restore order.

People have been protesting peacefully during the trial but the peace might soon be in jeopardy.

If the jury finds Porter not guilty the city will probably burn again. Or at least the rioters will try. The Mayor has opened the operations center and alerted surrounding law enforcement agencies in case help is needed. I bet though, the antagonists have been working on riot plans for weeks…

If Porter is found guilty there will likely not be riots because those who support him (and I think he is not guilty) will probably not burn the city down. The people who feel entitled and live off the government on the other hand have no problem destroying the property of others if they do not get their way.

Be on the lookout if you are in or near Baltimore. When they announce the verdict is in it would be best to get away from the place as quickly as possible before it is announced.

The last place anyone will want to be is in Baltimore if the words not guilty are uttered.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Obama And Selective Law Enforcement

Barack Obama is hell bent on bringing hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees to the United States. Republicans are not keen on the idea and Republican governors have stated they will not accept the refugees. Obama, in turn, claimed that these Republicans were afraid of women and children. He further stated that states do not have the legal authority to refuse refugees and those that do refuse will be subject to enforcement action.

I have seen the lines of refugees and most are NOT women and children. Most of them appear to be young men in good shape. They appear to be in good enough shape to stay home and fight the battle. In any event, as Obama told us about fearing women and children a woman suicide bomber blew herself up and the internet displayed pictures of children holding up severed heads. Then again, this is the same Obama who said ISIS was contained a few hours before it terrorized Paris.

Obama means (at least this is what I gather) enforcement action with regard to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). It seems that this office provides money to states that take in refugees. That should be no surprise since the federal government confiscates our money and then uses it to coerce states to do what big government wants it to do. Unfortunately too many states are eager to get the money so they play along.

Obama also made it clear that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race and national origin with regard to federal financial assistance (according to the linked article).

A few things here. Muslim and Islam are not races so that is a nonstarter. As far as national origin that might apply but these folks are not citizens and are not entitled to most federal programs. The ORR evidently has program money for these things and this is the money I think they are threatening to withhold.

I like the way ORR discusses the money as if it is theirs to give. It came from THE PEOPLE and it belongs to the people. Regardless, states are free to reject anyone they do not want and if that means the federal government cuts off money then so be it. The people already on those programs will suffer. Let’s face it, the everyday Joe citizen is not getting that money. The people getting it will stop getting it. Good. Perhaps it is time they earned money on their own and stopped getting it from the rest of us. Perhaps it is time for those states to refuse to collect money and send it to the feds. Just collect it and put it in escrow until the feds change the way things are done or better yet, spend it on the programs themselves and cut the feds out altogether.

Here is an idea. Every person who thinks the Syrian refugees should come here MUST take a family in and support them. They must provide all their support including health care, food, and education, all of it. If it is such a worthy cause they should step up and help. After all, that is what they want all of us to do with our tax dollars. So make them do it.

This is a little more sinister than it appears. Notice how Obama is telling these Governors that they have no legal right to refuse refugees. He is citing the law (or his interpretation of it) and he is putting his foot down. All well and good because we want an Executive that follows the law.

But, when was the last time you heard Obama call out Governors (or other leaders like mayors) who allow sanctuary cities? It is against the law to have them. Their existence is a violation of our immigration laws and those involved are aiding criminals who are here illegally. Did anyone ever hear Obama tell these politicians they could not have sanctuary cities and if they did they would lose federal funding?


The reason is that law is one Obama likes. He selectively follows the laws. The ones he ;likes he enforces and the ones he does not like he does not enforce. Remember, this guy has a pen and a phone and he will bypass Congress to get things his way. He exceeds his authority to get what he wants (and Congress does not have the testicular fortitude to stop him).

It is bad that our petulant leader disobeys laws and selectively enforces them. It is equally as bad that he cares not about our safety and is trying to force states to take in potentially dangerous people.

If these people come here it will only be a matter of time before they plan and conduct a coordinated attack.

They are not all bad Big Dog. Estimates say only 10% of them are radicalized. OK, how about I put 10 M&Ms in a bowl. Nine of them are regular candy and one is a poison that will kill you instantly. Will you select one to eat? Only 10% is dangerous…

If it happens after Obama leaves office his successor will get the blame. Unless of course his successor is a Democrat in which case the left will blame George W. Bush.

When (not if, but when) the attacks occur Obama should be held accountable as should anyone who worked to bring the terror here.

When that happens all hell will break loose and all the money the ORR has will not stop the administration of justice…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Obama Marching Toward WWIII

Barack Obama is about as bright as a 2 watt bulb and if that is not bad enough he is blinded by his ego and deluded into thinking he is the smartest person in the world and that he knows it all. The reality is he is always the least intelligent of any room he enters and he is absolutely not a leader.

Obama has been meddling in international affairs and he has mucked everything up. I imagine it all started with him trying to help out his Muslim buddies and appease his evil voice, Valerie Jarrett, but it has all gone to hell in a hand basket.

Obama is responsible for ISIS and he is responsible for the terrible things they have done. He dismissed them as the JV team (now he is blaming that assessment on his military advisers, schmuck) and he has continually refused to call out radical Islam for its terrorist acts. He makes excuses and downplays all the bad things these radical Muslims are doing. He has refused to see the danger, ignored the slaughter of Christians by ISIS, and he is trying to import a bunch of these terrorists into our country disguised as refugees.

All the while Obama has poked fun at Republicans who resist his plans or point out his lack of leadership. Russia recently after it lost a helicopter and pilot that was shot down by rebels using weapons provided by Barack Obama. Obama poked Russia after Turkey shot down a Russian jet (Turkey Shoot?) and Putin called it [the downing of the aircraft] a stab in the back. Now the Russians have deployed a missile cruiser off the coast of Syria and has given them the orders to shoot down ANYTHING that poses a threat. What poses a threat will be up to the people on that cruiser.

I see American aircraft being targeted and I see a whole lot of bad things happening in the future. ISIS will coordinate strikes all over the world thanks to half brained leaders who are importing terrorists while Russia defends itself against anything it deems as a threat no matter who it is.

I used to believe Obama was doing all of this on purpose because no one could be this stupid but he has shown time and again that he is this stupid and more. After listening to his supporters and those who voted for him I can absolutely believe that people are this stupid.

World War III is about to break out and Obama’s incompetence is fueling it. His desire to be remembered as some kind of great leader who brought nations together and who was the smartest man around is driving his insane actions that will result in a lot of dead people.

When those attacks happen, and it is a when not an if, he needs to be held responsible for his lack of leadership and his moronic policies.

Rebels down Russian Helicopter
Russian Marine killed
Turkey Shoot
Everyone knows it will be WWIII
Obama pokes Russians

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


O’Malley Gun Control Plan Dismantled

As governor of Maryland Martin O’Malley pushed through gun control measures that violate the US and Maryland Constitutions and he assured the morons who follow him that this would make life better and safer. The only thing O’Malley accomplished was to make it tougher for the law abiding. Criminals in Maryland still get firearms and they still shoot people. Led by Democrats the criminals in Baltimore riot and destroy with impunity.

Martin does not dislike firearms. He was perfectly happy with all the armed State Police officers who protected him and his family. He is just not too keen on everyone else having firearms. He is a typical liberal who thinks that he is better than everyone else and that he knows how to run other people’s lives. He is wrong but in his little brain he thinks he is not only correct but that people love him and think he is brilliant.

O’Malley (or O’Moron as I like to refer to him) will unveil his anti-gun platform as he tries to out liberal the other morons running for his party’s nomination. Let us take a look at his platform and dismantle it. Each item of his plan is presented and then I will comment.

Using procurement contracts to advance gun safety by requiring manufacturers that seek federal contracts to make design changes. O’Malley says the changes will “advance gun safety and improve law enforcement’s ability to trace firearms. These include hidden serial numbers that cannot be defaced, micro-stamping, magazine disconnect mechanisms and other next-generation safety improvements.

The last thing first. Being able to track firearms is only effective for tracking those legally owned. If firearms are stolen or obtained via other illegal means they might be able to track back to an individual but not necessarily the person who used the firearm illegally. As for forcing firearms manufacturers to make design changes in order to secure government contracts, what happens if none of them do so? Suppose the gun makers decide not to make changes and not to bid on contracts for government purchases? What happens when government can’t get firearms because of this insanity? I think fewer government agents having guns is a great idea and would applaud any manufacturer who told O’Malley to pound sand. Imagine a President O’Moron {{{shudder}}} who has Secret Service without firearms because no one would buckle to governmental pressure. The government should not be using OUR money to force compliance. Imagine how O’Moron would react if a contract required a company bidding on a government contract to NOT provide abortion services in its employee health care?

Ending the federal defense of gun dealer immunity by stopping enforcement of a 2005 law that O’Malley says protects irresponsible gun dealers and manufacturers from lawsuits by victims and families of victims of gun violence

Irresponsible by whose definition? There are already laws that define how gun dealers must act and how they must conduct business. If they are doing things incorrectly then they should be fined or lose their license. But a blanket statement such as this opens the door for lawsuits based on some arbitrary idea of irresponsibility. Someone could be shot with a legally purchased firearm that was later stolen and an idiot like O’Moron would claim the dealer should have known it would get stolen so he is irresponsible and therefore subject to litigation.

But hey, let’s take this idea a little farther. The government at all levels allows the sale of tobacco and alcohol. The government should not have immunity from lawsuits by those affected by its irresponsible permission for the sale of tobacco and alcohol. The government KNOWS people will be harmed by these products and that is why there are warnings on the labels of tobacco and alcohol products. So the government is being irresponsible in allowing these items to be sold. Based on what O’Moron thinks about firearms dealers the government should not have immunity from lawsuits by those harmed by these products.

Strictly enforcing existing bans on gun ownership for domestic abusers and stalkers, to “disarm those convicted for committing domestic violence

This is a tricky one. The first thing that needs to happen is that we ensure people who did not actually commit domestic violence or stalking are not convicted or charged or discriminated against. A single incident that involves two people might be domestic violence or it might not. By all means, if a person is involved in domestic violence then that person (he or she) should not be allowed to own a firearm. But before we take away this right we need to make absolutely certain and there should be a method to regain that right if circumstances warrant it.

The reality though is we already have laws that prohibit these folks from owning firearms. If these people decide they want a firearm they will get one. No law preventing the ownership of a firearm will prevent a person who wants to get one from doing so. Protective orders and orders banning a person from owning firearms are only pieces of paper that will not prevent a person from getting and using firearms. These work no better than gun control laws because those inclined to break the law will do so. This is more of a method for government to define what a person did as domestic violence and then remove guns that way. How will government strictly enforce this as O’Moron wants? It can’t enforce the gun control laws liberals have already enacted. If they could Baltimore and Chicago would be safe places instead of shooting galleries. The best thing to do would be to ensure the victims of such violence can get and carry a firearm for protection. But O’Moron opposes this. Once again, you are not as important as he and his family.

Banning so-called “cop killer” ammunition by working to close loopholes that O’Malley’s campaign says “have made hundreds of kinds of dangerous cartridges available for sale.” The campaign says he will act in his executive capacity as president to tighten current regulations

This is one of those slippery slope deals in that he can ban “cop killer” ammunition and then define all ammo as cop killer. There are bans on the manufacture of certain types of ammo and those laws should be good enough. If manufacturers are making this ammo then they need to be dealt with. But let me be clear, if government agents are allowed to have this ammo then so should the general population. Once again O’Moron talks about tightening current legislation as if that will stop people from breaking the law. It is illegal to buy, sell, possess or use Heroin but people do so every day and no law has ever stopped that. People can buy ammo from other countries and get it in here. If we can’t stop millions of illegals from walking in we sure as hell won’t stop illegal guns and ammo from getting in (though with Obama and Holder it went out of the country instead).

A new “electronic alert system” to inform local law enforcement officials when those who are prohibited from purchasing firearms attempt to do so. The campaign says the system will be “modeled on the FBI alert system used when fugitives purchase guns” and will help law enforcement officials identify which attempted sales to prosecute

This is Mickey Mouse stuff. What happens if a person is unaware that something in his past prevents him from owning a firearm and he attempts to buy one? Would not it be more prudent for the dealer to inform the person and tell him who to contact in government to see if this can be rectified? Then a notation can be made that the person was so informed and if that person attempts to buy firearms later then the police could be notified? In fact, it might be better for the dealer to inform the police of the first attempt and that the person was notified and then for the dealer to notify law enforcement of any subsequent attempts. If the system were properly annotated and working correctly this would be quite easy. O’Moron is looking for a bigger government boondoggle to further gum up the works.

Requiring the safe storage of firearms in homes by issuing and enforcing federal rules that make clear safety standards for gun locks and safes

Here is the short story. What I do in MY house with MY property is none of the government’s business and I will not be regulated by them. The reality is there are two ways to determine if you did not secure your firearms the way people like O’Malley want you to. The first is for there to be a problem with the firearm (like a child getting it and shooting someone). The second is government coming to check. Government will NOT be checking in my house to see what I do with MY property. Responsible people do not leave firearms in an unsafe manner. Yes, we hear some stories about some kid getting a gun from under a bed and shooting himself or someone else but the story usually involves a firearm that was not legally owned by a person who should not have it. Regardless, if you want to leave a loaded shotgun in the corner of a room, that is YOUR business.

Strengthening enforcement and audits of licensed dealers to ensure that they are in compliance with the law. The campaign says this action includes “conducting background checks of gun dealer employees; ensuring that dealers who have their licenses revoked do not become unlicensed sellers without first liquidating their inventories; and using audit inspections to check dealer inventories for stolen guns

This is harassment of licensed gun dealers. They already have to comply with a mountain of laws and paperwork. They get inspected and they have to renew their licenses regularly. I am fairly sure most, if not all, of this is in place. I would also imagine that a dealer runs a serial number before purchasing a firearm so it would be unlikely that he would have a stolen one in his possession.

Martin O’Moron is an elitist who thinks that responsible people should not have firearms and should have their lives run by people like him, you know, their betters. He is a low life cretin who infringes upon the rights of law abiding citizens for political gain and so that he can control them. He is not bothered by the firearms that protect him but he does not want others to have that protection.

Given the rumors of O’Malley’s extramarital affair(s) perhaps he should spend more time taking care of his own life and less time getting in our business.

I do not like this troll and I sincerely hope he is never elected to another office. It is time for him to get a real job and earn money that did not come from the sweat of OUR brows.

To paraphrase George W Bush, you are either with the Constitution or you are against it. If you are against it then you are a domestic enemy. My oath says I have to protect against people like you, Marty….

MOLON LABE Marty, you little twit.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


The UN Climate Tribunal

Don’t be confused tribunal is a fancy word for court. The climate NAZIs want to impose restrictions on wealthy countries in order to redistribute their wealth to poorer nations.

China and India are very happy about the prospect because they will be deemed poor nations even though China holds a TRILLION dollars of US debt and produces 17% more carbon than the US (as if carbon output is really a bad thing).

There is no doubt Barack Obama and John Kerry are trying to do an end run around Congress and put this tribunal in place so they can finally claim a victory in the foreign policy arena.

Though I would not call this a victory they certainly would and after their series of foreign policy disasters they need something to point to and claim a victory.

The idea is for the UN to be able to decide climate change issues and who has to pay.

The UN will force wealthy nations (as if any country with $20 TRILLION in debt and $100 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities can be called wealthy) to pay poorer nations. The UN will decide and we will pay.

According to the proposed draft text of the climate treaty, the tribunal would take up issues such as “climate justice,” “climate finance,” “technology transfers,” and “climate debt.” WND

Keep in mind the taxpayer will fork over money for this.

The UN is a terrible organization and we should kick it out of our country and leave it so we do not have to put up with its terror.

And we should prosecute those in our government who push this on us.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog