That’s the POINT

Stolen from stevec’s better half.

WTF’in F?

From the NWITimes.com:

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry.

Well, I don’t know about the Bizarro world you live in Skippy, but:

1) I think you are confusing the word “cannot” with the term “may not,” because I know one or two things I can and will do if an agent of the government illegally tries to enter my home by force.  We settled that one with a war 235 years ago.

2) If you people keep abusing the “authority” of your office and persist in acting as though all the protections enumerated in the constitution don’t exist…then through a self-fulfilling prophesy, someday they won’t exist – and you are the very people that will be the most sorry about that.

3) I once swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same.  I don’t recall being released from that oath.

4) One of these days the talking will be over and the citizenry of the United States will decide whether or not to remain free.

5) ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ you Puke.

You’re not surprised are you?

Obama Looking For Ways Around Congress On Gun Policy

WASHINGTON — Faced with a Congress hostile to even slight restrictions of Second Amendment rights, the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials say.

There’s a word for that.  It’s “Ukase.”  If the legally elected representatives of the people don’t pass the laws you want, just issue them by fiat.

Re-read that sentence and replace the word “second” with “first” or “fifth.”  Why is the reaction any different when it’s about the second? 

The Department of Justice held the first in what is expected to be a series of meetings on Tuesday afternoon with a group of stakeholders in the ongoing gun-policy debates. Before the meeting, officials said part of the discussion was expected to center around the White House’s options for shaping policy on its own or through its adjoining agencies and departments — on issues ranging from beefing up background checks to encouraging better data-sharing.

To be declared, defined and enforced by one or more of the the 20-some extra-constitutional, unaccountable “Czars” he has appointed, no doubt (see “Ukase” above).  Also note, none of the “stakeholders” present was anyone from the gun rights/second amendment side of the debate. 

Administration officials said talk of executive orders or agency action are among a host of options that President Barack Obama and his advisers are considering. “The purpose of these discussions is to be a productive exchange of good ideas from folks across the spectrum,” one official said. “We think that’s a good place to start.”

That’s a good place to start.  Because you sure as hell know he ain’t gonna stop there. This is part of the iWon’s Modus Operandi.  Do whatever he wants, make extra-constitutional laws and edicts, and then dare anyone to call him on it.

Earlier in the day, House Democrats joined New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to offer another possible starting point, announcing legislation that would make fundamental changes to the nation’s gun background check system. Sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), a longtime gun control advocate, the bill mirrors one introduced late last month by another New York Democrat, Sen. Chuck Schumer.

Yeah, that’s a true representation of all the “stakeholders” in this matter.  Shit, if he could have dug up Howard Metzenbaum and propped him in a chair, he would’ve been sitting there too.

“Too often, any serious discussion about guns devolves into ideological arguments that have nothing to do with the real problem,” Bloomberg, a co-founder of the coalition Mayors Against Illegal Guns, told reporters at a press event outside the Capitol. “Our coalition strongly believes in the Second Amendment. We also know from experience that we can keep guns away from dangerous people without imposing burdens on law-abiding gun owners."

Really?  You know from experience?!  Because New York and Chicago are so safe?  Please, point to one – JUST ONE – instance in the entire history of human existence that gun weapons control has (a) made the populace at large “safe,” and (b) has kept weapons out of the hands of “dangerous people.”  Oh, and then throw in the whole “without imposing burdens on law-abiding gun owners” part.

Go ahead…We’ll wait.

That’s what I thought.

For gun control advocates, however, executive action remains a more promising — albeit more limited — vehicle for reform than Congress. On Monday, The Huffington Post first reported that the Justice Department was convening meetings with groups from across the ideological spectrum in an effort to chart potential policy changes to Second Amendment law.

That must be the spectrum that goes from “Progressive” all the way to “Communism” – do not pass “Constitutionalism.”  Because every single person quoted in this article has a “D” after their name.  Every single one has fought their entire career for more gun control (and behavior control).

Gaah.  Go read the whole thing as long as you haven’t had your lunch yet…

 

TOTUS…

Shamelessly stolen from Wirecutter

Quote of The Day

“Interestingly enough in the last several years there have been four big SCOTUS cases which IMHO, really define our freedoms and personal liberty Kelo property rights; Citizens United free speech; Heller 2nd amendment and now McDonald.

I hear a lot from liberals about how the right wants to curtail freedoms, we’re fascists yet when I look at where the liberal Justices ruled or dissented in those aforementioned cases I think it’s pretty clear who are the real curtailers of freedom and liberty.

After all when the State can take your property, restrict your political speech and disarm the populace, you really don’t have much left in the way of freedom.”

Seen at Kevin’s

 

Why do they keep asking the question…

When they know what answer they will (always and consistently) get?

So the Supreme Court hands down the opinion today that the right to KEEP and BEAR arms as enumerated by the second amendment does not arbitrarily end because of a line on some map, and the news people ask the same tired old question:

The results so far?

Can they quit asking now?

Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner!!!

From Fox News: The federally-protected right to keep and bear arms expanded to all 50 states under Supreme Court ruling, striking down Chicago handgun ban.

High Court Extends Gun Rights to All States

In its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, the Supreme Court Monday extended the federally protected right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states. The decision will be hailed by gun rights advocates and comes over the opposition of gun control groups, the city of Chicago and four justices.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five justice majority saying "the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner.”

BAM!

Imagine that!  The Constitution means what it says.  The anti-gunners have been infringing more and more on this right every year since 1934.

Well, they got the final, non-appealable answer today.  How ya like them apples?

 

What’s all the fuss?

Remember when The iWon and his minions in Congress told us we needed to hurry and pass healthcare reform before anyone even had a chance to read the bill?

Remember when Barry Hussein Soetoro Obama PROMISED!!! you could keep your health plan and your doctor?

Here’s a couple reminders:

Yeah – turns out – not so much…

From Investors Business Daily:

Keep Your Health Plan Under Overhaul? Probably Not, Gov’t Analysis Concludes

Internal administration documents reveal that up to 51% of employers may have to relinquish their current health care coverage because of ObamaCare.

Small firms will be even likelier to lose existing plans.

The “midrange estimate is that 66% of small employer plans and 45% of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfathered status by the end of 2013,” according to the document.

In the worst-case scenario, 69% of employers — 80% of smaller firms — would lose that status, exposing them to far more provisions under the new health law.

Remember when all the liberals kept saying “You conservatives are paranoid – this isn’t social engineering, dear leader just wants everyone to have access to health care!”

Except really not:

Executive Order– Establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council

Which starts out, interestingly enough:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 4001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), it is hereby ordered as follows:

Funny, I can’t find that anywhere in the U.S. Constitution…However, I CAN find Amendment #10 – which specifically PROSCRIBES him from this liberty power grab.

As a matter of fact, listen to the contempt in Pelosi’s voice when she is asked that question…

Here are some excerpts from that Executive Order:

Section 1. Establishment. There is established within the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council (Council).

Sec. 2. Membership.

(a) The Surgeon General shall serve as the Chair of the Council, which shall be composed of:

(1) the Secretary of Agriculture;
(2) the Secretary of Labor;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation;
(5) the Secretary of Education;
(6) the Secretary of Homeland Security;
(7) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;
(8) the Chair of the Federal Trade Commission;
(9) the Director of National Drug Control Policy;
(10) the Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council;
(11) the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs;
(12) the Chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service; and
(13) the head of any other executive department or agency that the Chair may, from time to time, determine is appropriate.

Really?  The diets and exercise regimens of Americans are EPA and Homeland Security issues?

Sec. 3. Purposes and Duties.

Ahhh, here comes the good stuff!

(a) provide coordination and leadership at the Federal level, and among all executive departments and agencies, with respect to prevention, wellness, and health promotion practices, the public health system, and integrative health care in the United States;

(b) develop, after obtaining input from relevant stakeholders, a national prevention, health promotion, public health, and integrative health-care strategy that incorporates the most effective and achievable means of improving the health status of Americans and reducing the incidence of preventable illness and disability in the United States, as further described in section 5 of this order;

(c) provide recommendations to the President and the Congress concerning the most pressing health issues confronting the United States and changes in Federal policy to achieve national wellness, health promotion, and public health goals, including the reduction of tobacco use, sedentary behavior, and poor nutrition;

(d) consider and propose evidence-based models, policies, and innovative approaches for the promotion of transformative models of prevention, integrative health, and public health on individual and community levels across the United States;

(e) establish processes for continual public input, including input from State, regional, and local leadership communities and other relevant stakeholders, including Indian tribes and tribal organizations;

(f) submit the reports required by section 6 of this order; and

(g) carry out such other activities as are determined appropriate by the President.

Does anyone really believe, once you are forced onto an ObamaCare health plan and are at the mercy of the Government to receive health care, that this will not lead to mandated nutrition and exercise standards, including monitoring of caloric, alcohol and nicotine ingestion?

I hope you like all the CHANGE!!! you’re getting.  Dumbasses.

 

Can ya believe this Shit, Gus?

That is not a joke.

The Fox news article is here.

And the other Quote of The Day from the source:

On a related note, I actually think the Constitution should come with this disclaimer:

“This is the US Constitution and it’s not a historical document but rather the supreme law of the land. It says what it says, and if you don’t like it you should advocate for its amendment. If you can’t get it amended you should live with it. Or move to Canada.”

Word.