Google sent out an email to Google Adwords customers saying that they are going to pull all Google Shopping results for guns, ammunition, gun optics and gun accessories (Shopping results, not general search results).
More @ The Firearm Blog
Google sent out an email to Google Adwords customers saying that they are going to pull all Google Shopping results for guns, ammunition, gun optics and gun accessories (Shopping results, not general search results).
More @ The Firearm Blog
I hate to disagree with Rick Oliver, but I think he is too optimistic about John Roberts. What Roberts' decision today tells us is that he is unlikely to ever cast a decisive vote against the consensus of the Washington elite. This means that the Roberts court will never overturn Roe v. Wade, because such a decision would create even more controversy than overturning Obamacare would have. And it also means that Roberts is unlikely to resist the strong political pressure that exists in elite circles to create a constitutional right to gay marriage.
It is understandable why President Obama has no interest in framing this election as a referendum on Obamacare. His party already suffered perhaps its worst defeat since the 19th century thanks to his centerpiece legislation. With the Supreme Court’s ruling now behind him, he will have even less incentive to remind voters about Obamacare going forward. As far as he’s concerned, the less the American people think about it, the better.
More @ The Weekly Standard
As National Review's Ed Whelan, the Volokh Conspiracy's David Bernstein, and others are pointing out, the dissent refers to another opinion as "the dissent" and uses the pronoun "we," as if speaking for the Court, as majority opinions typically do. In addition, the dissent focuses on the government's arguments, rather than tackling the majority head-on. That suggests that a switch--most likely by the Chief Justice himself--may have come very late in the game, too late to offer more than the most cursory revisions of the opinions in the case.
The fact that the Chief Justice's reasoning is so flimsy is yet another piece of evidence that he may have made a late switch--and under pressure. Congress did not intend the individual mandate to be a tax--neither in the text of the legislation, nor in its public deliberations inside and outside the Capitol. (If it had chosen to go that route, the left might have put forward a far stronger argument for universal government-run health care.) It is correct that Chief Justice Roberts has tended to defer to Congress, as conservatives do--but while this opinion has the form of deference, in substance it is the opposite of deferential, rewriting Obamacare by judicial fiat.One final point is worth noting:
Vote on or before July 17:
Light turnout will increase the weight of your vote!
The Grass Roots North Carolina Political Victory Fund (GRNC-PVF) is GRNC’s weapon in the battle to elect legislators who support the right to keep and bear arms. Using mailings, radio spots, email and other means, GRNC-PVF makes recommendations for effective voting for gun rights supporters.
Redistricting created a record number of open seats and multiple candidate races, opening up opportunities for gun voters as many races went into runoff elections. Anticipated light turnout means your vote will count more than ever.
Remember: Unaffiliated voters may vote in either Republican or Democrat primaries, so make sure you bring friends and relatives to the polls and vote on or before July 17!
GRNC-PVF CANDIDATE RECOMMENDATIONS
US House District 8 Republican primary: GRNC-PVF recommends you vote for SCOTT KEADLE for Congress. Keadle earned GRNC’s highest 4-star evaluation and will be a leader in defending your rights. Keadle has a long history of bucking the “establishment” GOP and will represent you, not the status quo.
US House District 9 Republican primary: GRNC-PVF recommends you vote for ROBERT PITTENGER for Congress. Pittenger built a 100% pro-gun voting record in the NC Senate, earning GRNC’s highest 4-star evaluation (****). Opponent Jim Pendergraph (GRNC 0-star) claims to be a Second Amendment supporter. But during his tenure as Mecklenburg County Sheriff, he obstructed pistol permits and refused to sign Form 4s for Title II firearms.
US House District 11 Republican primary: GRNC-PVF recommends you vote for MARK MEADOWS for Congress. With a perfect 100% on GRNC’s gun rights candidate survey, Meadows earned GRNC’s highest 4-star evaluation (****) and has made defense of the Second Amendment a pillar of his campaign.
NC Senate District 41 Republican primary: GRNC-PVF recommends you vote for JEFF TARTE for NC Senate. Through his actions as mayor of the town of Cornelius and his GRNC candidate survey, Tarte earned GRNC’s highest 4-star evaluation and has vowed to sponsor pro-gun legislation once elected. He has also promised to buck Senate leadership if necessary to advance the cause of gun rights – something which has proven painfully necessary in the recent session of the legislature.
EARLY VOTING SCHEDULE
June 28: One-stop absentee voting begins for the Second Primary Election, if needed modified full-time county board offices shall remain open five days each week.
July 10: Last day to request absentee ballots in writing (exceptions due to sickness or disability).
July 16: 5pm - Absentee ballots must be received in CBE office by 5:00 p.m. If mailed, returned absentee ballots will still be timely if postmarked on or before Election Day, and received no later than 5:00 pm on July 20, 2012.
July 14: One-stop voting ends.
July 17: 2nd Primary Election - polls are open 6:30am - 7:30pm
HOW TO FIND EARLY VOTING SITES:
HELP GRNC-PVF ELECT PRO GUN LEGISLATORS
GRNC is restricted by law from using organizational money to advocate the election or defeat of candidates, meaning GRNC-PVF must raise money separately from membership resources. GRNC-PVF depends on your contributions to run radio spots and do mailings. Again, because our effort is all-volunteer, we are able to put your money to more efficient, effective use than any other organization.
Please contribute to GRNC-PVF by going to:
Better yet, you can buy GRNC-PVF raffle tickets and even win a Glock 27 or a Kahr Arms CW9 at:
This alert, supporting Scott Keadle, Robert Pittenger and Mark Meadows for Congress and Jeff Tarte for North Carolina Senate was authorized and paid for solely by the Grass Roots North Carolina Political Victory Fund.
Fights between Congress and the executive branch over access to information are a staple of American politics. Every president will prefer less disclosure about the messy internal processes of his administration. Congressional investigators suspecting scandal prefer more. In the end, some accommodation short of a constitutional crisis is usually achieved.
The government’s “gun-walking” program would be considered a scandal in any administration, involving 2,000 loose firearms and a dead Border Patrol agent. But an accommodation with congressional investigators has not been reached. The balance of powers has become a showdown. And the main reason is Attorney General Eric Holder.
In a February 2011 letter to Congress, the Justice Department denied any knowledge of “Operation Fast and Furious.” During May congressional testimony, Holder claimed that he had only recently learned of the matter. Both letter and testimony turned out to be false. Holder’s top aides had reviewed wiretapping applications containing specific details. Holder had received memos referencing the operation. Congress had been left under a false impression for nine months.The Justice Department’s response to this disclosure was to fight further disclosures —
Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.
It will be a short-lived celebration.
Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.
Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.
Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.
More @ White House 2012
So all you state attorneys general who challenged Obamacare, now that the Supreme Court has gone against you what is your next move? Do you just roll over and take it, or do you put your money (actions) where your mouth is and seek to nullify this abomination in your state? The ball is in your court.
Fox News reports,
The vote was preceded by a heated floor debate.
“It’s important to remember how we got here,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said during a speech ahead of the vote. “The Justice Department has not provided the facts and information we requested. … It’s our constitutional duty to find out.”
The GOP-led House took the step over the alleged failure to provide additional information about the failed gun-running operation known as Fast and Furious which was run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — a division of the Justice Department led by Holder.
Democrats walked out of the chamber ahead of the vote.
Nancy Pelosi declared, “What is happening is shameful!” I’d say it was no more shameful than the former Communist Speaker of the House wanting people to pass a health care bill to find out what is in it. At least in this issue there was clear evidence of contempt and you didn’t have to vote in order to see the contempt of Eric Holder.
The vote was bi-partisan as 17 Democrats voted with Republicans in favor of contempt for Holder.
Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee tried to eliminate a vote on the floor of the House earlier, but Holder was uncooperative. Over one thousand more documents have been requested which Holder fails to provide.
The House proceeded with the vote after Holder continued to show that he would be unmoved.
Lawmakers also voted against a proposal to return the matter to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee put forth by Rep. John dingell (D-MI).
The most disturbing thing about today’s decision is not that we lost on the mandate. The majority opinion on the Commerce Clause (the Chief Justice plus the conservative dissenters) was quite good, and vindicated those who mounted an argument as to “inactivity” to the derision of the law professoriate.
What is most disturbing is the judicial activism which took the Chief Justice from the Commerce Clause to the taxing power in order to save the legislation.
It required, as Justice Scalia noted in the dissent, a rewriting of the legislation, and the enactment of a tax via judicial fiat where the legislature knowingly and deliberately had refused to do so.
For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Act of 765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives. See Art. I, §7, cl. 1. That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off. The Federalist No. 58 “defend[ed] the decision to give the origination power to the House on the ground that the Chamber that is more accountable to the people should have the primary role in raising revenue.” United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U. S. 385, 395 (1990). We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty. See Affordable Health Care for America Act, H. R. 3962, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §501 (2009); America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009, S. 1796, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §1301. Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry. (pp. 24-25, emphasis added)
Rather than defer to the political process, the Court save the proponents of the legislation from their political decisions, and rewarded a corrupted political process whereby legislation was passed only because it was not sold to the public as a tax, yet saved at the Supreme Court because it was a tax.
Yet the Chief Justice clothed such activism in terms of restraint. Restraint would have been to allow the legislature to bear the natural consequences of its political decisions, not to rewrite either history or the legislation.
In light of the above examples and the Court's generally odious history, and if one must engage in fruitless speculation, I suppose one might adopt this rule of thumb: with the subject and questions of the particular case in mind, what is the worst way the Supreme Court can f--- you? Answer that, and you should at least be in the right ballpark.In this case, the worst way the Supreme Court can f--- each and every one of us is to find the individual mandate constitutional -- which is precisely what the Court did.
Rather than try to get amnesty for millions upon millions of illegal aliens through the legislature, Obama has found it more convenient to simply ram amnesty through piecemeal with executive orders and policy dictates. His high-handed moonbattery will also prove convenient for the high percentage of illegal aliens who collect welfare benefits:
Federal officials have 60 days to prepare for an onslaught of young illegal immigrants eager to apply for “deferred” deportation and work permits under the recently announced Obama administration directive that could affect up to 800,000 people living in the U.S. …
State officials, too, are preparing for a shift because those working under temporary work permits can receive Colorado unemployment insurance if they lose their job through no fault of their own.
That is, illegal aliens now officially qualify to get paid for not having a job. They can make much more money sponging off others in the USA than they could working their tails off back in their own country.
The red carpet our quisling rulers have rolled out couldn’t get much plusher. For the sake of energy conservation, the last one out of Mexico is requested to please turn off the lights.
More @ Moonbattery
It was started in the Senate. Taxes have to start in the house. Just a faint glimmer.
I had forgotten about this and have seen no mention of such for quite awhile.
Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points.
First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.
Second, in writing his case, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can’t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.
More @ Red State
Led by feckless chief Justice John Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court today upheld the ObamaCare law by a 5-to-4 decision, with Roberts voting with liberals Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan.
While the decision means many harmful things for the American public, the Second Amendment community remains greatly affected,as the law requires Americans’ medical information to be culled and entered into a national database.
Centralizing these medical records will allow the FBI to troll a list of Americans for ailments such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) to deny them their gun rights, in the same way that the Veterans Administration has already denied more than 150,000 veterans their right to bear arms.
Ironically, the Boston Globe last week reported how snarky liberals have been shocked to learn that hundreds of pages of their most intimate psychiatric notes have been posted into the database -- available for reading by hundreds (perhaps thousands) of strangers who work for their provider.
Now, their most embarrassing recollections are semi-public knowledge, and this was done knowingly and unapologetically by the people to whom they were spilling their confidences. Their privacy is gone, and there is nothing they can do about it.
This is the danger that gun owners face -- the sharing of medical information (like PTSD) that can be used in the future to deny them their right to purchase a firearm.
As for the ObamaCare decision itself, the Supreme Court ruled today that the Individual Mandate (requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance) is constitutional under Congress’ taxing power.
Thus, the government can force us to buy broccoli -- or anything else -- by simply imposing an enormous “tax penalty” for failing to do what the government orders us to do. There is NOTHING the government can’t now do as part of its taxing power.
Incidentally, ObamaCare was passed amid vigorous denunciations that Congress was imposing an enormous tax on the American people -- and on the middle and lower classes. Thus, by allowing the Obama administration to now argue that it “fooled us,” the Court becomes a co-conspirator in Obama’s fraud.
The culprits? Well, certainly the tepid, political-wind-monitoring Roberts, who has sold himself to receive favorable media coverage by the liberal left and to get invited to the swanky parties in our nation’s capital. Ironically, the Senate almost did away with the Senate filibuster in order to secure Robert’s confirmation to the Court.
If there is a silver lining to this decision, it is that the Court ruled that the Individual Mandate CANNOT be justified under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This is good news for gun owners, as this text has been illegitimately expanded over the years to justify all kinds of unconstitutional laws -- including gun control.
Americans now know what we need to do: We need to repeal the Individual Mandate through a legislative rider (or amendment) to the must-pass Continuing Resolution, which Congress will take up around September 30. And perhaps, the ultimate way to get rid of ObamaCare is to get rid of Obama.
In the process, we will need to put a constitutional majority in control of the Senate and consolidate and even expand the anti-ObamaCare majority in the House.
But the first line of defense is to force a vote on must-pass legislation to repeal or “defund” the mandate. You can expect Gun Owners of America to be at the epicenter of this battle. So please stay tuned for updates!
By a plurality the court ruled the Stolen UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
I am currently going through the decision and the dissent(s) and will post relevant portions from them as the day progresses.
The Stolen Valor Act was ruled unconstitutional by a plurality decision of the Supreme Court today. As I go through the ruling I will have more information that I will post here.
OK, so the way it broke down I felt was somewhat surprising. Thomas, Scalia and Alito were with us, as expected. But Roberts shifted over, which I had not expected. And so, our hope of a 5-4 win turned into a 6-3 loss when Kennedy joined Roberts on the other side as well. But, all is not lost, there is significant hope to be found even within a ruling that went against us.
Before I leap into parts of it, I wanted to show you what the Scotusblog had to say about the case. ScotusBlog is written by lawyers and constitutional scholars, and lays it out better than I can:
More @ This Ain't Hell
Stolen Valor Act of 2011 – Amends the federal criminal code to subject an individual who, with intent to obtain anything of value, knowingly makes a misrepresentiation regarding his or her military service to: (1) a fine, one year’s imprisonment, or both if the misrepresentation is that such individual served in a combat zone or in a special operations force or was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor; and (2) a fine, six months’ imprisonment, or both, in any other case. Provides that: (1) this Act shall not apply to a misrepresentation that an individual did not serve in the Armed Forces, and (2) it is a defense to prosecution that the thing of value is de minimis.
Putting together the Court's two most notable recent decisions, the Arizona immigration decision and the Obamacare decision, leads to this unsettling conclusion: there is virtually nothing the states can do on their own, and there is virtually nothing the federal government cannot do. If that is what the Founders intended, I'm a unicorn.
We also now have further confirmation of another unsettling pattern: Republican presidents will offset the nomination of any reliable conservative to the Supreme Court with someone who is not a reliable conservative. Thus we had Reagan appoint Antonin Scalia, but also Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy. (In fairness to Reagan, I should note that the initial appointment for Kennedy's seat was Robert Bork, whose rejection by the Senate was one of the most consequential acts undertaken by the Senate in my lifetime). Bush Senior appointed Clarence Thomas, but also David S0uter. And Bush Junior appointed Samuel Alito, but also John Roberts. And it should be noted that if Bush Junior had gotten his way, his record would be even worse, since his first choice for Alito's seat was Harriet Miers. By contrast, no Democratic president has appointed someone who was not a reliable liberal to the Supreme Court since John F. Kennedy nominated Byron White.
Thank God for Republican presidents who appoint strict constructionists to the U.S. Supreme Court. Otherwise, the Court today might have upheld ObamaCare.
Warning: The first bullet point below (so you may skip it) contains an offense of a graphic nature not suitable for all readers.
Why are so many parents today angry with school officials? And just who is in charge of how our children are being raised? Consider:
|These stories reflect what happens as more and more schools believe they get to decide how best to treat and manage children. When common sense doesn’t prevail, it’s because parents don’t have enough real influence. When schools become more parent sensitive, these stories will go away. |
Instead, parents are feeling pushed out of their role as decision makers for their child.
So who is right?
As each of these stories illustrates, the schools have more and more power to make these decisions for your child, with or without your consent. The law really is on their side.
In 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Fields v Palmdale that “the right to [family] privacy…does not entitle [parents] to prohibit public schools from providing students with information that the schools deem to be educationally appropriate,” (emphasis added) – a decision the Supreme Court has declined to reconsider.
How can we return the sanity of parental input to and protection of our schools? How can we stop the erosion of your role as the parent in the life of your child?
The proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution will halt the growing intrusion of government over-reach into your parenting decisions. The Amendment clearly states, “The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right,” and includes 3 more qualifying sections. An overwhelming majority of Americans “of every stripe” agree with this right (source: Zogby poll). Now it is time to enshrine it in the Constitution before it erodes even further.
To read the whole amendment and learn how you can join the movement to preserve your parental rights, visit parentalrights.org. Please act to preserve your rights – sign the petition today!
The Flying W Ranch in Colorado Springs wasn’t just a tourist attraction. It was part of the Pikes Peak region’s history.
And on Tuesday, it burned to the ground in a brewing wildfire that went wild.
“It’s a sad day for the Flying W Ranch. With much sadness we have to report that the Flying W Ranch as well as several homes in the Mountain Shadows area has in fact been burned to the ground,” the ranch management said on its website. “We ask that in this sad time that you remember the Flying W and the Wolfe family who has owned and operated the Flying W Ranch since 1953.
“If you have made an online reservation or a deposit your money will be refunded at a later date when we have had a chance to gather our thoughts. We ask that you pray for all the families within the area and assure you we will rebuild.”
Russ Wolfe, now 87, and his late wife, Marian, moved to the Pikes Peak region from Kansas in 1948, Russ Wolfe told The Gazette in an interview several years ago. They took over a working cattle and horse ranch on what is now the northwest side of Colorado Springs. The ranch’s brand featured a “w” with two lines sticking out from underneath it, and they called it the Flying W, he said at the time.
The ranch, according to The Gazette’s story, stretched west from what is now Centennial Boulevard, and from Garden of the Gods Road north to the Air Force Academy.
The Wolfes sold about 800 acres of the ranch in the early 1980s to developers of the Mountain Shadows neighborhood. Marian Wolfe’s sister had another 1,200 acres, called the Reed Ranch, mostly east of Centennial. It was sold to make way for the Pinon Valley neighborhood and much of the high-tech corridor north of Garden of the Gods Road.
In 1949 or 1950, the Wolfes began offering horseback rides. As a way to “make the horses work another two hours,” Wolfe said years ago, they started offering evening horse rides, and Marian would meet a group of riders with dinner. A few dozen people would sit around a campfire and sing before riding back to the ranch in the dark.
Then, visitors began coming just for dinner.
“After a while, we still had 20 horses, but 400 people for dinner,” Russ said. “Then we had 20 horses and 800 people for dinner, and then 20 horses and 1,000 people,” Wolfe said.
Eventually, Wolfe said, “we finally just got rid of the horses.”
More @ Gazette