Starvin Larry

h/t Wirecutter

They’re not just Russian anymore.

Kalashnikov USA announced on Tuesday that it is now selling AK-47 assault rifles and shotguns that have been manufactured at a U.S. factory.

The Kalashnikov USA web site provides a menu of two rifles and two shotguns, all semiautomatics. One of the rifles features a curved, banana-style high-capacity magazine with 30 rounds.

Thomas McCrossin, CEO of Kalashnikov USA, told CNNMoney in January, at the SHOT Show in Las Vegas, that his company was going to manufacture the guns in America as soon as a factory was established. The company has not told CNNMoney where that factory is located.

The Kalashnikov USA brand is owned by RWC in Pennsylvania. The company’s slogan is, “Russian heritage, American innovation.”

The company was established by the original, Moscow-based Kalashnikov Concern to export its guns into the U.S. But that plan was stymied by President Obama’s anti-Russian sanctions, to punish Russian businesses for President Putin’s war in Ukraine.

The firearms made Kalashnikovs a hot commodity in the U.S., since there was a finite supply. McCrossin told CNNMoney that his company would fix that problem by making the guns in the U.S.

The AK-47 was invented by Mikhail Kalashnikov in the former Soviet Union in 1947. Its durability and reliability in combat has made it the most popular assault rifle in the world, rivaling even the AR-15.

AK-style rifles are manufactured all over the world, including in the U.S. But this is the first time official Kalashnikov-brand guns have been produced in the U.S. They will be available at a number of retails outlets.

Source  http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/30/news/companies/kalashnikov-usa/index.html

Have you had the experience of going to your doctor for a particular problem, let’s say headaches, and been surprised by the doctor asking you about a completely unrelated subject—whether you have a gun in your home?

It’s no accident that doctors’ or health plans’ questions about guns in your home have become routine. In the 1980s and 1990s medical professional organizations declared a culture war on gun ownership in America. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) developed an official policy (2012 version here) urging pediatricians to probe their young patients’ parents about guns in their homes.

Claiming only to be concerned about “gun safety”, the latest code term for gun control, the AAP pushed its member doctors to advise families to get rid of their guns. One of the authors of the original AAP anti-gun policy, Dr. Katherine Christoffel, was quoted in an AMA journal as saying “Guns are a virus that must be eradicated.”

The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American College of Physicians (ACP) have also mounted aggressive and highly publicized campaigns against gun ownership and advised their member physicians to pressure their patients to get rid of their guns. Other physician specialty groups have done the same.

Many people are rightly outraged by this unprofessional behavior of some physicians. Several states, most notably Florida, have passed laws to stop doctors and other health care professionals from misusing their patients’ trust to push a political agenda of gun control. Such abuse of authority and trust by a physician is called an ethical boundary violation.

You may encounter the question in your health plan’s standard health appraisal questionnaire. Even though it may not be of your doctor’s making, it’s still part of your permanent medical record. Or your doctor may have a personal prejudice against gun ownership, shaped by her training in medical school or residency. Either way, it is important for people to know some very important facts:

• Doctors receive absolutely no training about firearm safety, mechanics, or tactics in medical school or residency. They are completely unqualified by their training to advise anyone about guns.

• Gun ownership is a civil right. A doctor’s abuse of his position of trust to pressure you to give up that civil right is professionally and morally wrong. In some states it is illegal. You DO NOT have to tolerate it.

• You as a consumer have great power in the doctor-patient relationship. Do not be afraid to use it.

Let’s be clear. We’re not talking about a doctor who casually talks with you about guns out of a common interest you both may have. If you and your doc get to comparing notes about your favorite hunting rifles or latest trip to the gun range, that is a world apart from a calculated effort to prejudice you against gun ownership.

So what can you do when your doctor or your health plan starts asking you about guns in your home? Your doctor may very likely just be going along with the guidelines of his or her gun-hating medical organization, such as the AAP or ACP. One survey showed that although many doctors agree that guns are a public health problem, only a minority feel it’s right to ask their patients about guns in their homes. Many doctors sense that it’s wrong and don’t allow themselves to be recruited as gun control activists by their medical organizations.

A range of options is available to you, some sending a more powerful message than others. These are updated from DRGO’s original recommendations, since the medical profession has changed so much in the last two decades.

1) Politely refuse to answer the doctor’s question or the health plan’s questionnaire item about guns. You can either explain your discomfort with the question or decline to give a reason.

2) If the gun question(s) appears on your health plan’s routine health assessment questionnaire, file a formal written complaint with the health plan. Every health plan has a member complaint process, often prescribed by law. Your complaint will be registered and the health plan will respond.

3) If the health plan responds with the excuse that their questions about your guns are standard medical practice that they must follow, you can take the complaint to the next step—file a written complaint with your state agency that regulates health plans. For example, in California you would follow the complaint procedure on the Department of Managed Health Care web site. It’s your right as a patient under California law.

4) If your doctor persists in asking intrusive questions about guns in your home, you can also file a complaint specifically against him or her with your health plan. Such complaints are taken seriously, and the doctor will be called to account for it. Having one or more complaints about ethical boundary violations on her record will make her think twice about doing it again.

5) Internet consumer rating sites have created another way doctors can be publicly rated on the basis of service, attitude, and behavior. Some commonly used rating sites are Yelp.com, Healthgrades.com, Vitals.com, and RateMDs.

6) Increasingly, doctors’ pay from Medicare and insurance companies is tied to how they score on patient satisfaction surveys. These are often sent randomly to patients, but you can request one to fill out. You can have a powerful impact on a doctor’s conduct by reporting the doctor’s unethical questioning about your guns.

7) If the doctor’s conduct is especially offensive, as was the case with this Florida pediatrician, you have the right to submit a complaint to the doctor’s licensing board. This is an agency in your state government that holds the ultimate power of licensure over your doctor. A quick internet search for “medical board” in your state should take you to the official form for filing a complaint. This is a step that should not be taken lightly.

Remember when writing your complaint to be polite. Explain why you find the doctor’s or health plan’s behavior unacceptable. Include the powerful points we’ve discussed:

• Your doctor is professionally unqualified to give expert advice on firearms

• Your right to own firearms is a civil right that is none of your doctor’s business

• A doctor misusing his or her authority and trust to push a political agenda of gun control is an ethical boundary violation. Such unprofessional conduct is not acceptable.

Your right to own a firearm is enshrined in the Constitution. Don’t let any doctor or health plan intimidate you into giving up your civil rights.

Download the DRGO Resource Document “What to Do When Your Doctor Asks About Your Guns” here 

Source http://www.drgo.us/?p=1621

***Another document you should download and copy,just in case your Dr starts asking you about guns***

Here>>>>>>>> gundocform

The Secret Police in Orwell’s dystopian society were employed by the Ministry of Love. In that ironic designation we find the genuine meaning of the insistent refrain that “love” triumphed when the US Supreme Court consummated the long campaign to bring the most intimate human institution fully under the state’s control.

Those presently celebrating the state’s “affirmation” of same-sex relationships are intoxicated by the knowledge that they are the “who” rather than the “whom” in Lenin’s famous formula (which defines the essential political question as “who does what to whom”). Like countless others they have been beguiled into believing that “liberation” is achieved by identifying with the exercise of state power, rather than being protected against it.

The Stonewall Riot occurred because a minority rebelled against the routine abuses committed by police who used the leverage provided by liquor licenses to justify harassment of people who privately engaged consensual behavior. The movement that coalesced after Stonewall loudly proclaimed the desire to be left alone, even as it was co-opted by the institutionalized “civil rights” movement, which seeks to abolish freedom of association.

That movement is now pursuing that objective with unprecedented vigor.

As the New York Times reports, “gay rights leaders have turned their sights to what they see as the next big battle: obtaining federal, state and local legal protections in employment, housing, commerce and other arenas” – a crusade that will mean constricting the exercise of religious liberty and other elements of property rights.

In 1993, the ACLU supported the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which the group recently invoked in a successful defense of the religious liberties of a Sikh serviceman. That case was decided shortly before the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26 ruling on same-sex marriage, which made it clear that the who/whom polarity had shifted. The ACLU is now demanding modification of the RFRA to allow the federal government to punish businessmen, clergymen, and other people whose exercise of religious freedom is deemed “discriminatory” by the state-licensed custodians of correct sentiments, at least some of whom aren’t content with the piecemeal approach.

Within hours of the Obergefell ruling, New York Times contributor Mark Oppenheimer used a Time magazine op-ed column to demand enactment of a measure that would “abolish, or greatly diminish” the tax-exempt status “for organizations that dissent from settled public policy on matters of race or sexuality.” Invoking the standard collectivist fallacy that the State subsidizes anyone it doesn’t dispossess outright, Oppenheimer groused that conservative churches are among the “rich organizations [that] horde plentiful assets in the midst of poverty.”

Only those organizations offering “an indispensable, and noncontroversial, public good” should be exempt, decrees Commissar Oppenheimer, who like his comrades is serenely confident that the present who/whom alignment can be made permanent.

To him and those of his persuasion, the services of an abortion clinic would likely be regarded as “indispensable and noncontroversial,” and thus worthy of an exemption. Those provided by a crisis pregnancy center offering material aid and moral encouragement to women choosing to give birth would be neither, and thus subject to being pillaged by the IRS — and, most likely, regulated out of existence. Similar outcomes would be imposed on contending activist groups deployed on opposing sides of every culture war fault line.

The power to tax is the power to destroy, and withdrawing the exemption would effectively extinguish religious liberty by replacing it with a revocable state-issued license. The ultimate objective is not co-existence with conservative or traditionalist religious believers, but their subjugation – in the name of “love,” naturally. “Hate” is already being defined as disagreement with “settled public policy,” and it would have no legitimate place in public discourse – or refuge in private life, once privacy had been effectively abolished.

Read the rest @ http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2015/06/love-of-power-wins-now-yezhovschina-can.html

Bob Livingston

Excerpts…

“Politicians know this ruse well: If they want to put something illegal or immoral upon the people, they simply create names that convey something good and/or operate in secret to cover their chicanery.”

“So here we have Congress legislating away American sovereignty through stealth and deception, aided and abetted by the distractive clamor over a Confederate battle flag flying in South Carolina.

And over there we have new calls for gun control under the guise of “bipartisanship” from Sens. Pat Toomey and Joe Manchin following the shooting of nine Christians worshiping in a church. Never mind that the shooter, a deranged, bigoted, drug-addled psychopath broke no fewer than 10 laws in the process of committing his heinous crime. The elites tell us another gun law would have certainly stopped him in his tracks, and removing the flag aforetime would have certainly ended his bigoted notions.”

Read the whole thing @  http://personalliberty.com/from-freedom-to-fascism-in-a-few-easy-steps/

Fugitive prisoner David Sweat is ​in ​police custody after getting shot during a confrontation with searchers, sources told The Post on Sunday afternoon.

Sweat, 35, “is down” and medical workers are “working on him,” one source said.

Sweat’s capture in upstate New York follows the fatal shooting of fellow killer Richard Matt, 49, by a fed on Friday.

Both inmates disappeared from the state prison in Dannemora on June 6.

Source    http://nypost.com/2015/06/28/cops-capture-escaped-killer-david-sweat/

So….. over 1,000 stormtroopers have been stumbling through the brush looking for Sweat since June 6th-it’s now June 28th.

Cost is well over a million a day-27 million dollars to shoot and kill Sweat’s cell mate last week,and shoot and wound Sweat today.

Plus Sweat’s medical bills,plus thousands of hours of overtime for the stormtroopers,more OT for the stupidvisors and assistant stupidvisors, thousands of gallons of gasoline, and then…

Just imagine the doughnut bill !

.gov inc. is not so good at finding escaped convicts,or guys who shot state police-(Frein).

All the technology does the gestapo no good in densely wooded areas,upstate NY and the Pa mountains are similar terrain-there’s a lot of rural areas around the country-mountains are not a requirement.

It appears to be fairly easy to evade the .gov inc. stormtroopers in such areas,this guy had nothing when he left the prison he escaped from,a guy who had a pack and a minimal amount of gear with him could evade the searchers for quite a while,and maybe avoid getting caught altogether.

It takes thousands of stormtroopers,millions of dollars and an absurd  number of vehicles,gear and aircraft for the gestapo to get their man.

Wonder what would happen if .gov inc. was trying to find multiple guys in multiple areas within a state,and/or multiple states?

Seems to me they would run out of stormtroopers,vehicles,gear and aircraft rather quickly…

*Update #1 police shot Sweat twice-in the back-he’s in surgery was the last I heard.

Read.

Learn.

Train.

Do more PT !