Rep. Issa: Voicemail Left By Former Top Obama Regime Official A Clear Violation Of Federal Law (Audio)

Listen To The Voicemail Left By Former Top Obama Administration Official That Darrell Issa Says Is A Clear Violation Of Federal Law – The Blaze

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is sounding the alarm regarding new alleged audio of former Labor Secretary Hilda Solis leaving a voicemail for someone “off the record” to ask the individual to contribute and help organize a fundraising event for President Barack Obama’s campaign. Issa says Solis violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits political activity on official time.

In his opening statement during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on Wednesday, Issa played the voicemail Solis reportedly left to pressure a Labor Department employee to donate to Obama’s re-election campaign.

.

.
Read a transcript of the controversial Solis voicemail:

“Hi – this is Hilda Solis calling, um, just calling you off-the-record here – Wanted to ask you if you could, um, help us get folks organized to come to a fundraiser that we’re doing for Organizing for America for Obama campaign on Friday at La Fonda at 6 p.m. Steven Smith, an attorney, and his staff are helping us [inaudible]. There are a lot of folks that we know that are coming but wanted to ask you if you might help contribute or get other folks to help out. I would encourage you to call this number, [inaudible] – that’s his assistant – at [phone number] and you can call [the attorney] yourself who’s a good friend, an attorney, good friend of mine, at [phone number]. And it’s for a Friday event at La Fonda [inaudible] we’re just trying to raise money to show that we have support here in [inaudible].”

.

.
Issa went on to slam the Obama administration for showing what he called an “indefensible” attempt to avoid oversight.

“It is deeply ironic that an administration claiming to be the most transparent ever, has resisted oversight of its political office and offered less corroboration than its predecessors,” he said.

Watch Issa’s full opening statement below:

.

.

.

Louisiana Governor Jindal Signs Two Expanded Gun Rights Bills Into Law

Bobby Jindal Signs Gun Rights Bills Into Law – Tea Party

Gov. Bobby Jindal signed two bills into law Friday (May 23) that will expand gun rights for Louisiana residents after they received overwhelming support from the state Legislature. The new statutes will go into effect Aug. 1.

.

.
The more sweeping of the two gun rights measures will allow people with concealed handgun permits to carry their weapons into restaurants that serve alcohol, but make most of their money from food sales.

Present law does not allow citizens to carry guns into establishments that serve alcohol. And while people with concealed handgun permits will be able to go into a restaurant serving alcohol soon, they still wouldn’t be able to drink alcohol while packing heat.

The soon-to-be law also gives current and retired law enforcement officers as well as district attorneys and judges even more flexibility than the general public when it comes to concealed weapons. Those in law enforcement would be allowed to carry guns into bars, though they also couldn’t drink while carrying a weapon.

In present law, law enforcement officers are only allowed to have their guns in a bar if they are acting in an official capacity. Even under the new law, local sheriffs will still be able to prohibit their own officers from carrying guns into bars if they didn’t think it was a good idea.

The second bill signed by Jindal will expand the “stand your ground” law in Louisiana. Under current law, a person who kills an intruder coming into his car or house is given the benefit of the doubt and can use self-defense as a lawful reason for the killing. But the same self-defense argument could not be legally applied to situations where a person hurt, but didn’t kill, the intruder.

Metairie Rep. Joe Lopinto, the sponsor of the legislation, said he wanted to close that loophole. People who end up harming – but not killing – an intruder or a carjacker should not be charged with murder if those who kill those people don’t face those consequences, he said.

“Stand your ground” laws are controversial, particularly after it was thought Florida resident George Zimmerman would use such a statute to defend his high-profile shooting of teenager Trayvon Martin.

There has also been a controversial “stand your ground” case in New Orleans, where a 33-year-old Marigny homeowner shot an unarmed 14-year-old. Lopinto said his legislation would not apply to this particular case because the shooting took place outdoors.

In an unusual move for Louisiana, the Legislature and Jindal have agreed to enact one new gun restriction. Domestic abusers under a legal protective order will be prevented from owning a gun for 10 years under a new law that will go into effect Aug. 1.

The National Rifle Association – which usually fights gun restrictions – remained neutral on the domestic abuser provision, which is probably one of the reasons the pro-gun Legislature and Jindal agreed to pass it.

When presenting the restriction, state Sen. J.P. Morrell said Louisiana has a particularly high rate of fatalities related to domestic abuse. ”We lead the nation in spouses murdering spouses with firearms,” he said.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Georgia Governor Nathan Deal Signs Bill Into Law Allowing Guns In Churches, Bars And School Zones

Georgia Gov. Signs Bill Allowing Guns In Churches, Bars, And School Zones – CNS

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal signed into law Wednesday a bill that expands gun rights in the state to allow weapons in government buildings, bars, places of worship, and school zones under certain circumstances.

.

.
Under House Bill 60, also known as the Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014, school districts will get to decide whether to allow authorized personnel to carry weapons within school safety zones under certain circumstances.

In addition, church leaders will be able to decide whether to allow licensed gun owners to bring weapons into their place of worship. The law also removes fingerprinting requirements for renewal licenses.

The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action called the bill the “most comprehensive pro-gun bill in state history.”

Deal, who characterized himself as a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, said the measure “will protect the constitutional rights of Georgians who have gone through a background check to legally obtain a Georgia Weapons Carry License.”

“Roughly 500,000 Georgia citizens have a permit of this kind, which is approximately 5 percent of our population,” Deal said in a press release. “License holders have passed background checks and are in good standing with the law. This law gives added protections to those who have played by the rules – and who can protect themselves and others from those who don’t play by the rules.”

“Our nation’s founders put the right to bear arms on par with freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Georgians cherish their Second Amendment rights, and this law embodies those values,” he added.

Executive Director Pia Carusone of Americans for Responsible Solutions, which lobbied against the bill, called it “extremism in action.”

“It moves Georgia out of the mainstream,” Carusone said. “Since the Georgia House first passed this expansive legislation, thousands of Georgians and tens of thousands of Americans have said loud and clear that they are tired of the gun lobby advancing its extreme agenda at the expense of their families’ safety.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Obama Signs Into Law Ted Cruz Bill That Passed With Unanimous Consent Then Immediately Refuses To Enforce It

Obama Signs Cruz ‘Anti-Terrorist’ Bill Into Law, Says He WON’T Enforce It – TPNN

.

.
In 1979, there was a student takeover of the United States Embassy in Tehran. For 444 days, 52 Americans were held hostage. Then President Jimmy Carter was lambasted for his weak foreign policy which lead the Iranians to view him as an inconsequential leader. Therefore, they did not fear America. When Ronald Reagan became president in 1980, with the spinelessness of Jimmy Carter purged from the White House, the hostages were released on the very day of his inauguration.

But, the pain of those nearly 15 months in captivity would linger not just for those held hostage, but for America as the people remembered that horrible time in our history. The country would have to recover and again position itself as a world leader to be feared and respected.

We have seen our position of power in the world erode over the last 5 years, with the most recent indicator being the invasion of Ukraine by Russian President Vladimir Putin, a former KGB operative who is unafraid of Obama’s weak warnings.

As the world has watched this invasion, events that some believe are a signal to the beginning of another Cold War, the pain caused by the Iran hostage crisis some 35 years ago is being renewed.

Hamid Abutalebi has been selected by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani as their United States Ambassador. Abutalebi was one of the hostage takers of those 52 Americans. While he claims he only served as a translator and negotiator, the United States Congress voted unanimously to deny his entry into the United States, since the U.N. meetings are held in New York.

The bill passed by Congress was authored by Republican Senator Ted Cruz from Texas and Congressman Doug Lamborn from Colorado. After the bill passed unanimously with bi-partisan support, Cruz and Lamborn released the following statements in calling for Obama to sign the bill to prevent terrorists from obtaining visas to enter the U.S. as U.N. ambassadors.

Congress has voted unanimously in support of a bill to reject Iran’s deliberately insulting nomination of a known terrorist – one of the 1979 hostage-takers – to be their ambassador to the United Nations,” said Sen. Cruz. “I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for supporting it, and urge the President to act quickly. We, as a country, can send an unequivocal message to rogue nations like Iran that the United States will not tolerate this kind of provocative and hostile behavior.”

“I have been working hard with House Leadership to move this bill even before it passed the Senate,” said Congressman Lamborn. “I appreciate House Leadership’s rapid response to my request to quickly bring the Cruz/Lamborn bill to the House Floor for a vote. It will give the President the power to prevent an Iranian terrorist from entering our country with diplomatic immunity. This is a great example of leadership in action by both Houses of Congress. After Senator Cruz worked to ensure Senate passage earlier in the week, I felt that it was extremely important that the House respond in-kind by considering the Cruz/Lamborn bill in an expedited manner. It is great to see Congress send a strong, bipartisan message that Iranian evildoers will be treated like terrorists, not tourists. Terrorists, from Iran or elsewhere, should not be allowed to walk the streets of Manhattan with diplomatic immunity.”

Individuals with diplomatic immunity cannot be prosecuted or even charged with so much as a traffic ticket, let alone an act of terrorism.

Eight days later, President Obama has signed the bill into law, but, according to the Washington Examiner, he immediately released a statement saying that he would not enforce the law. While Obama recognized the concerns of Congress regarding allowing a terrorist to gain access to our country, he stated the following to explain his decision to ignore the law of the land.

“Acts of espionage and terrorism against the United States and our allies are unquestionably problems of the utmost gravity, and I share the Congress’s concern that individuals who have engaged in such activity may use the cover of diplomacy to gain access to our Nation.”

When Bush was president, then Senator Obama was extremely critical of him for signing such statements stating that, “Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it.” The statements that Bush signed did not grant a terrorist unfettered access to our country.

Now that Obama is president, he has demonstrated time and again his complete disregard for any laws that he does not like. Certain laws, like his signature legislation Obamacare, are deemed the law of the land that must be followed. However, he very often changes parts of that law unconstitutionally via executive order to fit his political needs. With others, such as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), he would, in his lawlessness, decide that he would not enforce the law.

His decision to sign the bill into law, but immediately state that he will not enforce it flies in the face of the rule of law upon which this country was built and endangers America.

Obama’s disregard for the law as passed by Congress and signed by him, thereby allowing a known terrorist who committed an act of terrorism against the American people unto American soil, comes days after the one year anniversary of the terrorist bombing at the Boston Marathon. Iran was insistent that the terrorist Abutalebi was their choice for ambassador. When the U.S. threatened denial, they requested an investigation by the U.N.

Thanks to Obama, no investigation is needed. The President of the United States is going to allow a known terrorist to violate the law with no repercussions and give him complete access to America and its citizens with diplomatic immunity.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

New Jersey CEO Warns State Assembly “We Will Not Comply” With Proposed Gun Control Law (Video)

New Jersey CEO Takes A Stand Over Proposed Gun Control Bill, Warns Lawmakers ‘We Will Not Comply’ Just Like Connecticut – The Blaze

.

.
A New Jersey man warned a State Assembly committee last week that he and other gun owners in the state “will not comply” with a proposed gun control bill to further limit magazine capacity.

During the March 13 hearing, Anthony P. Colandro told lawmakers that the proposed bill would turn law-abiding gun owners into criminals overnight. Colandro is the CEO of Gun for Hire, a firearm training center in New Jersey, and expressed concern regarding what the law could do to his business.

“I own, personally, approximately $30,000 of guns, contrary to what Cease Fire New Jersey Says, that they do not make 10-round magazines for,” he explained. “I also have in my possession at my range over $20,000 of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.”

He then asked the chairman of the committee who exactly would be compensating him if the items suddenly become illegal.

“Have you guys seen what is happening in Connecticut right now?” he continued. “One million gun owners in New Jersey are also gonna say, like our brothers and sisters in the north, that we will not comply. And I can tell you here and now, I will not comply.”

.

.
The bill currently under consideration, known as A2006, bans all magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The proposed law exempts firearms with .22 caliber tubular magazines.

After more than three hours of testimony last Thursday, the Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee voted 5-3 to advance the bill. The bill then cleared Democratic-controlled Assembly on Thursday with a 46-31 margin. A version of the proposed law has been introduced in the state Senate but has yet to come up in a committee for a vote.

As TheBlaze reported last week, Shyanne Roberts, a 9-year-old competitive shooter, also appeared before the New Jersey Law and Public Safety Committee last week speak against the proposed law.

“I have worked and trained very hard to get to the level I am at and if A2006 becomes law, I will be forced to choose between giving up on a very great and promising future in a sport that I love or asking my dad to move to another state,” she said. “I will not be giving up my sport.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals Strikes Down California Law Restricting Concealed Carry

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down CA Law Restricting Concealed Carry – Big Government

In a 2-1 decision issued on February 13th, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled “San Diego County violates the Constitution’s Second Amendment by requiring residents to show ‘good cause'” before being allowed “to obtain a concealed carry permit.”

.
…………

.
The court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is, in and of itself, a sufficient cause for bearing arms for self-defense. Moreover, it is a sufficient cause both inside and outside of one’s domicile.

According to SFGate, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain’s majority opinion emphasized “the right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable arm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense.”

He said the Second Amendment must be read as including "the right to carry weapons outside the home" because "the risk of armed confrontation" is in no way limited to one's home. He supported his points by citing the examples of "a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site."

O'Scannlain "disagreed with federal appeals courts that have upheld [similar] requirements" in states like New York and New Jersey, where citizens also have to show "good cause" to get a concealed permit.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

California’s Activist Supreme Court Rules Illegal Alien Can Practice Law In State

Illegal Immigrant Allowed To Practice Law, California Court Rules – Wall Street Journal

A Mexican immigrant who is living in the country illegally but had graduated from law school and passed the California bar was granted a law license Thursday by the state’s highest court.

.

.
In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court granted a motion filed by the state bar’s Committee of Examiners to admit 36-year-old Sergio C. Garcia. Mr. Garcia, who will open his own practice in Chico, Calif., after he is sworn in, can now legally be retained as an attorney in the state, though he cannot be employed by a firm, attorneys representing him said.

In an interview, Mr. Garcia said he was satisfied with the decision, as it was always his intention to practice privately, in the area of civil litigation. Attorneys who represented Mr. Garcia said he is the first attorney living openly in the U.S. as an illegal immigrant granted the right to practice law. Similar cases are before courts in New York and Florida.

“Right now, I am super excited, I am super happy; this has been a long, drawn-out struggle,” Mr. Garcia said. “This case in California serves as a beacon for the rest of the country to follow suit. There really is no national interest for keeping somebody like me from practicing, and paying taxes to their full potential.”

The decision to grant Mr. Garcia a law license came after California Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, signed into state law legislation that specifically allows undocumented immigrants to be admitted as attorneys. That law went into effect Wednesday.

Thursday’s decision by the state Supreme Court, which grants licenses to attorneys in the state, clears the way for admission to the bar of at least one other current applicant in California who is in the country illegally.

At issue in Mr. Garcia’s case was a federal law that prohibits people in the country illegally from obtaining professional licenses. That law had a subsection that allowed states to grant licenses if a state law was passed.

It isn’t clear what impact Mr. Garcia’s case might have beyond California. While the precedent set by the high court in the country’s most populous state is noteworthy, the decision came only after the state legislature acted.

Mr. Garcia was born in Mexico but was brought to the U.S. when he was about 18 months old. He returned to Mexico at the age of nine, and then came back to the U.S. at the age of 17, according to the summary of his case that was part of the court’s opinion. Mr. Garcia’s father filed an immigration visa petition on his son’s behalf in 1994. That application has been pending since 1995, given the visa backlog for individuals from Mexico.

Mr. Garcia graduated from high school, attended college and received his law degree in 2009 from Cal Northern School of Law, passing the bar that same year. After he listed his immigration status as “pending” in his application to the state bar, the bar conducted an investigation into Mr. Garcia and determined the immigrant possessed the “good moral character” to qualify.

Jerome Fishkin, an attorney in Walnut Creek, Calif., who originally took Mr. Garcia’s case pro bono with his wife, Lindsay Slatter, said that it was immediately clear that Mr. Garcia’s immigration status was the main issue, and that Mr. Garcia met all other requirements to be a good attorney.

Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit group that wants to reduce the flow of immigrants to the U.S., said the decision was a mockery of the rule of law.

“It conveys or demonstrates once again, how we are not serious about our laws,” Mr. Camarota said.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

In today’s edition of Wrong House Asshole………….

Via Bearing Arms

Bearing Arms reader reported this defensive gun use that happened just five blocks away from him:

Police say Antione Garret, 34, and his girlfriend awoke to the sound of someone breaking into their home on Leybourn Avenue. When Garret heard the front window shatter, he ran downstairs and saw Randy Estrada, 21, climbing inside. Garret fired his handgun several times, until Estrada climbed back out the window and ran away.

A short time later, Estrada called 911 to report that he had been shot and was taken to a Toledo hospital for treatment. He is expected to survive his injuries.

“If someone’s breaking into your house and you fear for your safety, you have the right to defend yourself and your family. And in this case, that’s what we believe Mr. Garret has done,” said Sgt. Joe Heffernan with the Toledo Police Department.

Bob Owens, who runs Bearing Arms makes a great point in this post. the man defending his home will never be charged because he fired to stop the threat. Once the intruder fled, that threat was neutralized. 

 

And here come the Leftists attacking Stand Your Ground again

Bearing Arms has the story, and yes it is tragic, and sad, but the last thing to blame should be common sense self-defense laws, or the armed home owner

It had to be a terrifying experience for Joe Hendrix and his fiancee. They’d just moved into a new home two weeks before, and at 4:00 AM Wednesday morning, someone knocked on the front door, then tried to open it. Hendrix’s fiancee called 911, and he armed himself with a .40 S&W pistol.

After ten minutes law enforcement officers had still not arrived. Hendrix opened the back door and went outside. Why he made this decision isn’t clearly explained in any of the accounts presented so far.

What we do know is that when Hendrix entered the back yard he encountered a figure in the darkness and raised his gun. He issued commands including a command to stop, but the figure kept coming closer, with something in his hands, without saying a word. Hendrix fired four shots. One of them struck the figure in the chest. The figure—a man—crumpled to the ground, and there he lay until the coroner took his body away mid-morning.

The figure that had knocked on the door, tried to turn the door handle, and who kept coming in the darkness, was Ronald Westbrook.

Westbrook was a 72-year-old Air Force veteran who was suffering from advanced Alzheimer’s disease. Hendrix could not have known at the time.

Westbrook had been wandering for hours in 20-degree temperatures, and was three miles from home. Authorities speculate that Westbrook was drawn to the front porch light of Hendrix’s home on an otherwise darkened street. His dementia had left him slow to speak (some say mute), and he was probably both very confused and exhausted.

The local sheriff went to church with Mr. Westbrook and knows his family. He acknowledges that Mr. Hendrix had every right to be in his yard, and every right to fire his gun at a figure in the dark that kept coming towards him without saying a word. One of his own deputies might have even dropped the proverbial ball, having stopped Westbrook at 2:30 AM, but let him continue wandering.

It’s hard to argue that Westbrook was a threat, but just as hard to claim that Hendrix shouldn’t have felt threatened when a darkened figure refused to listen to the warning that Hendrix was armed and that he should stop coming closer.

The media is already lining up to blame Georgia’s version of the stand-your ground law, a law journalists don’t understand any more than they understand anything else about firearms.

The media doesn’t ask why a man with advanced dementia was left in a situation where he could wander around for hours without being missed. They don’t ask how the situation might have been resolved if the deputy who encountered Westbrook at 2:30 AM had been more curious about an old man doddering along alone in the dark on a frigid night.  The media doesn’t bother to ask if the situation would have ended any differently at all if the responding deputies encountered Westbrook lurching toward them in the dark. They don’t ask if he was already well along the way towards dying from exposure after being in 20 degree temperatures for four hours in his delicate state.

No, there is a law to scapegoat! For the media, that is all that really matters in a profession that is far more interested in promoting political propaganda that it is reporting inconvenient details surrounding an unfortunate event.

As I said, this is a tragic story. But no more tragic than if the poor man suffering from Alzheimer’s would have died of exposure. More details will emerge. and evidence will come forward, so jumping to any solid conclusions would be ill-advised. But that will not stop the media or the gun grabbers will it? I cannot see how anyone could blame the homeowner, again, assuming his account is accurate. But, I am sure he will be raked over the coals because he dared to go outside. But, he has every right to do so. And to do so armed, and yes, to fire at a figure approaching him in the dark. 

Texas Election Turnout Nearly Doubles Under New ID Law, Dispelling Leftist Voter Suppression Myth

Voter Turnout In Texas Nearly Doubles Under New ID Law – Daily Caller

.

The first Texas elections under a contentious new photo ID law drew interesting conclusions for an off-year election that normally draws a low amount of voters.

There were nine proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution, and the number of votes tallied was nearly double what it was in 2011. Democrats and civil rights groups have long argued that voter ID requirements suppress turnout, particularly in poor and minority communities.

All nine measures were approved during this election, and dealt primarily with taxes and state budgets, according to Ballot Pedia.

Taxes and state budgets were also the most popular ballot measures for 2011, but the voter ID law had not been passed during that election.

Statewide, an average of about 672,874 Texans voted on those 10 constitutional amendments in 2011. In 2013, the number of votes cast in Texas reached 1,099,670.

In Hidalgo County, which is 90 percent Hispanic, just over 4,000 voted in the constitutional amendment election in 2011. In 2013, an average of over 16,000 voted according to the Texas secretary of state’s office.

Greg Abbott, the Republican attorney general and likely governor nominee, stated that critics of the voter ID law had “run out of claims” about those struggling to vote without an ID.

That hasn’t stopped opponents of the voter ID law from continuing their mission to get the law thrown out. The Houston Chronicle reports that the Justice Department, civil rights groups and U.S. Rep. Marc Veasey have filed a federal lawsuit to get the law overturned.

Abbott has asked for the case to be thrown out, calling the whole situation “overhyped.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Lead Florida Obamacare Navigator Falsely Claims Applicants Must Provide Credit Scores To Get Insurance

Lead Florida Obamacare Navigator Does Not Understand Law – Washington Free Beacon

.

.
Lead Florida Obamacare Navigator Anne Packham has retracted earlier claims that Floridians must provide their credit score to apply for health insurance, WKMG reports:

A day after telling Local 6 that anyone signing up for the Affordable Care Act had to provide their credit score, the lead navigator in Florida said she was wrong.

Anne Packham, one of many people licensed by the state to help people navigate the government’s website, said on Tuesday that the credit check was put in place so providers can make an educated decision about who to insure.

After receiving numerous emails about the story, Local 6 contacted Packham on Wednesday, and she said her statement was incorrect, adding that users do not need their credit scores to apply for the Affordable Care Act.

Local 6 is investigating how the person in charge of providing information about the Affordable Care Act could make such an error.

The embarrassing flap raises further serious questions about the capability of Obamacare navigators to provide accurate and trustworthy information about healthcare reform.

The “navigators” have access to sensitive personal data such as social security numbers and income.

On Tuesday, Packham incorrectly told WKMG that applicants must provide their credit score to apply for Obamacare:

Many people signing up for health care in Florida through the Affordable Care Act have been shocked when they have to give proof of their credit score before they finish the process.

Anne Packham, one of many people licensed by the state to help people navigate the government’s website, said on Tuesday that the credit check occurs so providers can make an educated decision about who to insure.

Participants with low credit scores could end up paying higher premiums, according to Packham, who said that ultimately the insurance company makes the call.

It is unclear if any individuals have unnecessarily provided their credit score to Ms. Packham or other navigators in Florida.

Insurance agents nationwide have expressed consternation about the qualifications of the newly hired part-time Obamacare workers:

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

A prediction about the wave of Black on White beat downs

Stacy McCain and Matt at Conservative Hideout note how the media fails to report on the all-too-common incidents of violent attacks on Whites by Blacks. We know why the media either ignores the racial elements that drive these attacks, or ignores the attacks altogether. These crimes do not fit the narrative. But, I can guarantee what WILL get the media hopping mad, and it is bound to happen soon. One of these thugs will choose someone with a concealed carry permit. The thug will be shot, and killed. THEN watch the media come flying in to spin that particular incident into a case of racial profiling. Heck we might even see the dead thug given the St. Trayvon treatment while the person who defended their life will be vilified. Then we will have Piers Morgan crying on CNN every night demanding that being shot be made illegal. Then we will see Stand Your Ground Laws attacked. then we will see concealed carry laws attacked. Then it will be racism morning noon and night! Because THEN the media will care because NARRATIVE!

 

God Bless Mississippi!

Two words I love to say are now the law in the Magnolia State. Open carry!

While everyone was watching news in Colorado during the final weeks of the recalls, Mississippi was instituting a new law to allow the open carry of firearms without a concealed carry permit. 

House Bill 2 was passed in Mississippi’s last legislative session and signed into law by Governor Phil Bryant (R), but put on hold in July when Circuit Judge Winston Kidd issued an injunction to have the legislature “clarify it.” 

On August 29 the Mississippi Supreme Court “unanimously upheld the… open carry law,” setting the stage for it to take effect.

Fox News carried the Mississippi Supreme Court’s ruling:

This court now finds that the circuit judge erred as a matter of law when he found House Bill 2 vague, and therefore, unconstitutional. He also erred when he stated that ‘a reasonable person reading the bill could not discern what the allows and what it prohibits.’

State representative Andy Gipson (R-Braxton) sponsored House Bill 2. He says the ability of law-abiding citizens to openly carry firearms for self-defense “confirms, in a very real sense, the right to keep and bear arms.”

Adding to this, Governor Bryant said House Bill 2 reaffirms the right to keep and bear arms not only as set forth in the Bill of Rights, but also in Mississippi’s constitution. 

Ah, yes, the Constitution!

 

This is what the Left calls “progress”

Totally erasing any distinction between the genders is one of the goals of the Left Follow along here with me. A woman, who wants to be a man, has a baby, but refuses to be called the “mother” because in his her its mind she is a he, so he is a father. WTF!

The father had insisted on a home birth to avoid being listed as the mother on hospital documents – a Germanlegal requirement.

Although the father has been taking hormone replacement therapies for years he elected to retain the reproductive organs of a woman.

Because he physically gave birth to the child the unidentified man is seen as the mother, however by law he is recognised as a man.

In 2001 German law dropped the previous requirement for gender reassignment surgery in order to be lawfully recognised in a person’s perceived gender.

Perceived gender? Again I ask WTF??

It was only in August of this year that Germany decided to include a ‘third gender’ option on birth certificates, where children born of indeterminate gender no longer have to be listed as either ‘male’ or ‘female’. Germany has been the first country in Europe to adopt this change.

The man’s request to appear as the father on the birth certificate has been granted, but his demand that the child’s gender not be released has been denied, according to the Daily Mail.

Good Freaking Grief! Excedrin needs a new formula called Moonbat Relief!

funny-headache-puppy-dog-dude-enough-paws-ears-cute-pics

 

 

Chicago Police Superintendent: Cops Will Shoot Gun Carrying Citizens Because of His Training

garry-mcarthy

What an asshole

Chicago police superintendent Garry McCarthy is not happy about the new concealed carry laws in Illinois.  And now he is predicting that police will shoot citizens who are lawfully carrying firearms. During an interview with WVON radio McCarthy made some very bold statements that show his disdain for the 2nd amendment. “You put more guns on the street expect more shootings,” McCarthy said. “I don’t care if they’re licensed legal firearms, people who are not highly trained… putting guns in their hands is a recipe for disaster. So I’ll train our officers that there is a concealed carry law, but when somebody turns with a firearm in their hand the officer does not have an obligation to wait to get shot to return fire and we’re going to have tragedies as a result of that. I’m telling you right up front.”

Good Freaking Grief, how have cops in almost every state managed to coexist with CC laws? Is this buffoon serious? If he thinks those with permits are going to approach cops with weapons drawn he knows absolutely NOTHING! Too bad he does not have that attitude towards gang members huh? Some people have no business being involved in police work, this ass hat is one of them!

Your Clueless Entertainer of the Day is John Legend

The singer, compares a North Carolina law requiring photo ID to vote to Jim Crow Laws.

Legend, an unabashed supporter of President Barack Obama, reacted angrily to a new North Carolina law which demands voters simply show the same sort of identification they use to enter a movie theater, buy alcohol or fly on an airplane.

Fuck this North Carolina voting law. Fuck the new Jim Crow.

“Jim Crow,” according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, refers to “any of the laws that enforced racial segregation in the South between the end of the formal Reconstruction period in 1877 and the beginning of a strong civil rights movement in the 1950s.

 

I would point out that Legend is a buffoon, who emotes rather than thinks, but that is obvious. Chances are he has NEVER read the law, and is simply saying these things because he thinks he is supposed to. He has to stay “relevant” you know. That is a big deal to a lot of entertainers. They prefer being stupid and relevant to being informed. And if they can play victim at the same time? BULLSEYE! I should also note that Legend apparently never studied Jim Crow Laws. If he had he would not be minimalizing the hurt such idiotic laws caused by comparing the North Carolina law to Jim Crow. But, Legend is only emulating the race pimps like Sharpton and Jackson isn’t he?

Obama Regime Caught Violating The Law… Again

Appeals Court: Obama Violating Law On Nuke Site – Times Dispatch

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been violating federal law by delaying a decision on a proposed nuclear waste dump in Nevada, a court ruled Tuesday.

.

By a 2-1 vote, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ordered the commission to complete the licensing process and approve or reject the Energy Department’s application for a waste site at Yucca Mountain.

In a sharply worded opinion, the court said the NRC was “simply flouting the law” when it allowed the Obama administration to continue plans to close the proposed waste site 90 miles from Las Vegas.

The action violates a law designating Yucca Mountain as the nation’s nuclear waste repository.

“The president may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections,” Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion, which was joined by Judge A. Raymond Randolph. Chief Judge Merrick B. Garland dissented.

“It is no overstatement to say that our constitutional system of separation of powers would be significantly altered if we were to allow executive and independent agencies to disregard federal law in the manner asserted in this case by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” Kavanaugh wrote.

An NRC spokesman said Tuesday that the agency was reviewing the decision.

The decision was hailed by supporters of the Yucca site, which has been the focus of a dispute that stretches more than three decades. The government has spent $15 billion on the site but has never completed it. No waste is stored there.

South Carolina and Washington state filed a lawsuit seeking to force the NRC to rule on the Yucca Mountain application. The states have large nuclear waste sites that would use the Yucca repository.

Under pressure from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., the administration abandoned the project early in the president’s first term.

Reid called the court decision “fairly meaningless.” Congress has cut funding for Yucca and is unlikely to restore it, Reid said. The site has drawn nearly unanimous opposition from Nevada elected officials.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

New Election Law In North Carolina Requires Voter ID, Bans Same-Day Registration

NC Gov. Signs Voter ID Law – Daily Caller

North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory signed a far-reaching election reform bill into law Monday.

The new law will require voters to present a valid photo ID at the polls, shorten early voting to 10 days, and eliminate pre-registration for 16 and 17 year olds. It also does away with straight ticket voting and same-day registration.

.

“Common practices like boarding an airplane and purchasing Sudafed require photo ID and we should expect nothing less for the protection of our right to vote,” McCrory said in a statement, arguing that requiring a photo-ID is “a common sense idea.”

WRAL noted that there was no signing ceremony for the legislation.

The photo ID requirement will take effect in 2016, and while left leaning groups and politicians have argued against such laws, polls have shown that North Carolinians favor them by relatively large margins.

In July, Attorney General Roy Cooper – by letter and petition – urged McCrory to veto the legislation, calling it “regressive” and arguing that it would end in a legal battle, specifically from the Department of Justice.

“With a veto, you can encourage more people to be involved in the political process, stop this bad public policy, and prevent the confusion and cost of a legal battle,” Cooper wrote in a letter to McCrory.

In an op-ed published at Raleigh’s News & Observer Monday, McCrory argued that the reforms he signed into law “will protect the integrity of one of the most precious rights guaranteed in our state constitution, the right to vote.”

“These and other reforms will strengthen the integrity of North Carolina’s election process,” he continued. “Protecting the sanctity of every vote cast is among the most important duties I have as governor and is why I signed these protections into law.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Gay couple seeks to force churches into hosting gay weddings

So sad, another quest for “tolerance” “acceptance” “equality” is hijacked by the Left and used as a tool to force their views onto others. Protein Wisdom has the story

Wealthy gay dad, Barrie Drewitt-Barlow, says he and his civil partner Tony will go to court to force churches to host gay weddings. He told the Essex Chronicle that he will take legal action because “I am still not getting what I want”. A Government Bill legalising gay marriage passed Parliament recently but it included measures to protect churches from being forced to perform same-sex weddings. Mr Drewitt-Barlow said: “The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the church. “It is a shame that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognise us.” He added: “It upsets me because I want it so much – a big lavish ceremony, the whole works, I just don’t think it is going to happen straight away. “As much as people are saying this is a good thing I am still not getting what I want. 

That last line says it all. He is not getting his way, so he will throw a tantrum. Where in the world does this whiner think he gets a right to be “recognized”? This is the reservation I have with Gay marriage. I do not give a flip about who someone sleeps with, or wants to be with, that is their choice. But, it is not about that for the activists is it? Instead it is about forcing everyone to do what they want them to, or else. This guy is a bully, as are most activists. A bully obsessed with his personal crusade against some imagined oppression. And he will end that oppression no matter who he has to oppress. Get the irony? 

By the way, if you think this cannot happen in America, think again. Ask the bakeries who refused to make cakes for Gay weddings. Ask this florist in Washington.  How about wedding photographers who will not do Gay weddings?That is the Left though isn’t it? Rights, are secondary to feelings. Hurt someone’s feelings, lose your rights to do business with whom you choose. That is what this is all about. Liberal activism is about one thing, using the shield of mantle of “equality” to destroy anyone who dares disagrees with them. It is not equality these activists seek, it is dominance.

Allow me to give these activists an example of how freedom works. A church in North Carolina is refusing to do heterosexual weddings.

The Green Street United Methodist Church in Winston-Salem, N.C., is taking a stand for marriage equality by refusing to conduct marriages for heterosexual couples until United Methodist polices are changed to allow pastors to officiate at marriages for same-sex couples as well.

According to the Winston-Salem Journal, the church’s 18-member leadership council is instead “asking pastors to conduct relationship blessings rather than marriage ceremonies in the sanctuary.”

“On the matter of gay marriage, the church sees injustice in the legal position of state government and the theological position of our denomination,” the church’s spokespeople said in a statement. “North Carolina prohibits same-sex marriage and all the rights and privileges marriage brings. The leadership council has asked that their ministers join others who refuse to sign any state marriage licenses until this right is granted to same-sex couples.”

Guess what? That is their right! Again, rights trump feelings, at least they do in a sane society, and any couple that sought to force this church to do straight weddings would be wrong. Any straight couple that was refused a wedding cake, or flowers for the wedding would be wrong to sue those businesses. Businesses have EVER RIGHT to refuse NOT to sell or provide a service to someone. And, AGAIN if that hurts someone little feelings, guess what, rights trump feelings!

Daniel Greenfield has some good thoughts

This comes from the UK, but sooner or later the same European madness will end up here as well. Obama already demonstrated total contempt for freedom of religion with the mandate. And there is no doubt that worse is coming.

Exactly, the Left’s thirst for complete power is unquenchable. Nothing but complete control of everything people can say, do, and think is ever going to sate the Left Wing Statists.

 

Trayvon Martins mother lies about stand your ground laws

Here we go, the Left AGAIN, lying to achieve a political goal. In this case the goal being to outlaw self-defense. I know, I know, I must not attack this woman, or even question her. She lost her son, and that gives her Moral Authority that cannot be challenged right? WRONG! This woman is LYING, and she knows damn well she is lying. And she is lying to curtail my rights to protect myself and those precious to me! Sorry, but her absolute moral authority card expired when she started pissing on my human rights! Video via Gateway Pundit