Oregonians Fight Back As Obama Tries To Force Anti-Gun Agenda Down Throats Of Umpqua Victims’ Families

1,900 Sign Up To Protest Obama’s Visit To Roseburg, Oregon – Gateway Pundit

David Jacques, publisher of the Roseburg Beacon, told Bill O’Reilly on Monday that the people of Roseburg would not welcome Barack Obama if he came to town to politicize the funerals of the Umpqua College shooting victims.

Madman Chris Harper-Mercer murdered eight students and a teacher last week in a shooting spree on campus.


David Jacques and community leaders, including Douglas County commissioners, the police chief and local sheriff, do not want Obama to come grandstand in Roseburg for political purposes.

Now, there is a Facebook protest page set up to protest Obama in Roseburg.

They rolled out their “Unwelcome Mat.”


From the Defend Roseburg-Deny Barack Obama Facebook Protest page:

The anointed one his majesty king 0bama and the White House have announced a Friday arrival in Roseburg, Oregon in the wake of Oct 1st’s horrific tragedy at UCC.

Polarizing as usual, Mr 0bama has insisted on politicizing the event as a conduit for increased executive orders on gun control via means of his pen, and his phone.

This blatant disrespect of the victims families, the community and the town of Roseburg, Mr 0bama’s administration is flying not just the 747 that is airforce one to Oregon, but a three helicopter team of Sikorsky’s that make up HMX-1, known as Marine one to travel to Roseburg at the taxpayers expense.

We need a lot of people. Please come show your support for Roseburg, not the little man who has no respect for the constitution.

Local activist Casey Runyan is organizing the protest.

UPDATE: (7:30 PM ) 1,900 people have signed up to attend rally to protest Barack Obama.



*VIDEO* Ted Cruz Slams Sierra Club Weasel Over Fake Global Warming



*VIDEO* Ben Carson: Interview With Sean Hannity



*VIDEO* Mashup: Obama Politicizes Oregon Mass Shooting



Federal Judge Blocks President Asshat’s Fracking Regulations

Judge Blocks Obama Administration’s Fracking Regulations – Washington Free Beacon


A federal judge Wednesday blocked the Obama administration from implementing new regulations on hydraulic fracturing, saying that the administration does not appear to have the statutory authority to do so.

The rule, finalized in March by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM), is the federal government’s first major attempt to regulate the innovative oil and gas extraction technique commonly known as fracking.

Fracking is generally regulated at the state level. BLM sought to impose additional restrictions on the practice for oil and gas wells on federal land.

Judge Scott W. Skavdahl of the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming said that the agency appears to lack the statutory authority to do so and issued a preliminary injunction blocking BLM from implementing the rule.

“At this point, the Court does not believe Congress has granted or delegated to the BLM authority to regulate fracking,” Skavdahl wrote in his opinion.

In fact, BLM “previously disavowed authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing,” the judge noted.

The Environmental Protection Agency previously had the authority to regulate the fracking-related practices that the rule targets, but the 2005 Energy Policy Act stripped the agency of that authority.

“It is hard to analytically conclude or infer that, having expressly removed the regulatory authority from the EPA, Congress intended to vest it in the BLM, particularly where the BLM had not previously been regulating the practice,” Skavdahl wrote.

The ruling marks a major setback for Obama administration efforts to crack down on fracking, which has spurred unprecedented increases in U.S. oil and gas production since 2009.

The ruling does not scuttle the regulations, but rather prevents their implementation while a lawsuit brought by Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, Utah, and the Ute Indian tribe makes its way though the federal courts.

Two industry groups, the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Western Energy Alliance, have also sued to block the rule.

“Today’s decision essentially shows BLM’s efforts are not needed and that states are – and have for 60 years been – in the best position to safely regulate hydraulic fracturing,” said IPAA spokesman Jeff Eshelman on the ruling.



The ACLU is sort of like that junk your cat hacks up, but worse

Liberty? Not if the ACLU has their way

The ACLU jihad against Christianity extends into every corner of the country, including Benton, Louisiana:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana is threatening a local school district over alleged “proselytization” at Bossier Parish School System’s Airline High School.

ACLU of Louisiana Executive Director Marjorie Esman recently penned an open letter to Bossier superintendent D.C. Machen over an alleged “pattern of religious proselytization by establishing ‘prayer boxes’ with Christian symbols throughout the school and by religious messages in newsletters posted to the school’s website,” The Shreveport Times reports.

Specifically, Esman cites a message posted to the Airline High School website by principal Jason Rowland that includes the phrase “May God Bless You All,” as well as “similar messages” from Rowland.

Bellows Esman menacingly:

“Please confirm to this office that the School Board will take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the law.”

You would think we were living in Soviet Russia.

At least the besieged school has a champion:

State Rep. Mike Johnson, a Republican from Bossier City, told the Times his law firm is willing to defend the district against the ACLU claims for free, because Johnson thinks they’re bogus.

“This is typical of the ACLU,” he said. “They’re on a seek-and-destroy mission for all things religious.”

H/T Moonbattery

Suicidal Leftists Forcing Last Gun Store In San Francisco To Close

Last Gun Store In San Francisco Closing In Response To Flood Of Gun Controls – Breitbart


In October, High Bridge Arms – the last gun store in San Francisco – will be closing its doors for good due to gun controls with which the store refuses to comply.

San Francisco has emerged as the gun control capital of California, with laws regulating everything from magazine capacity to allowable types of ammunition to limits on advertising to the manner in which guns must be stored–and beyond. For decades, High Bridge Arms has adapted to the passage of each new gun control, but it views the latest push as a step too far.

According to SFist, the newest control push “comes from Supervisor Mark Farrell (District 2), and proposes to require that all gun sales in San Francisco be videotaped.” It would also “further require that all gun and ammunition buyers’ names, birthdates, addresses and driver’s license numbers be supplied to the San Francisco Police Department. Sup. Farrell proposed the idea in July, and it may be voted on this month.”

Fox News reports that High Bridge Arms’ general manager, Steven Alcairo, said the store’s owners are tired of keeping up with the new regulations and equally tired of trying to guess what might come next. Alcairo said, “This time, it’s the idea of filming our customers taking delivery of items after they already completed waiting periods. We feel this is a tactic designed to discourage customers from coming to us.” He added, “This year, it’s this and next year will probably be something else. We don’t want to wait for it.”

Comments from Supervisor Farrell bolster Alcairo’s concern that further gun control is on the way. When Farrell began pushing for the videotaping of all gun sales, he said:

Easy access to guns and ammunition continue to contribute to senseless violent crime here in San Francisco and across the country. Even though San Francisco has some of the toughest gun control laws on the books in the country – there is more we can do to protect the public.

High Bridge Arms opened in the mid-1950s. It will soon be closed after dying the death of a thousand cuts.



*VIDEO* Mark Levin: 2015 Values Voter Summit



Washington State Fair Bans Guns – Workers Immediately Robbed At Gunpoint

Washington State Fair Workers Robbed At Gunpoint After Fair Bans Guns – Gateway Pundit


The Washington State Fair banned firearms this year.

Which sounded like a good idea.


What a surprise that the criminals didn’t obey the gun ban at Washington State Fair.

All of the law abiding citizens who were barred from arming themselves were defenseless.

And they got robbed at gun point.

Ammoland reported:

State Fair Bans Guns; State Fair Workers Robbed at Gun Point

Washington State Fair is one of the few locations in the State that bans the legal carry of firearms. That policy is directly stated in the rules for the fair. From thefair.com:

The following items will not be allowed at the Washington State Fair,

Weapons of any kind, including knives and all firearms

The effect of creating a weapons free zone was not lost on a group of criminals. They used the fact that fair workers were known to be disarmed to their advantage. Three different armed robberies of State Fair workers were committed in less than 20 minutes, on the 15th of September, Sunday night, shortly after the Fair closed. From komonews.com:

But Strom had just finished a 10-hour shift selling items at the fair and had been paid $100 in cash.

“But then he pulled out a gun and he asked me for it all, and so I gave him $100 and just walked away before he asked me for my phone or anything,” Strom said.

Strom said the robber was only 5’8″ tall. Strom stand 6’6″ tall. Strom said the man’s gun made up for the size difference.

“I guess you feel pretty big when you have a gun,” he said.

Just 8 minutes later and a mile away on the complete other side of the fair grounds, two more pairs of State Fair workers were robbed at gunpoint. Police believe they were targeted by the same group of robbers.



*VIDEO* Greg Gutfeld: Why The Right Is Right

H/T Right Scoop



Feds Forcing Certain States To Require Passports At Airports For Domestic Flights

If You Live In These States You’ll Soon Need A Passport For Domestic Flights – Zero Hedge


To comply with the 2005 Real ID Act, which the U.S. government has been slowly implementing for the past decade, citizens in a number of different U.S. states will now be forced to obtain a passport if they want to board an airplane – even for domestic flights.

The Department of Homeland Security and representatives with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection have declined to comment on why certain states have been singled out, but starting in 2016, residents of New York, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and American Samoa will need a passport to fly domestically. All other states will still be able to use their state-issued driver’s licenses and IDs – for now, at least.

According to the Department of Homeland Security’s guidelines on enforcement of the Real ID Act,

“The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced on December 20, 2013 a phased enforcement plan for the REAL ID Act (the Act), as passed by Congress, that will implement the Act in a measured, fair, and responsible way.

Secure driver’s licenses and identification documents are a vital component of our national security framework. The REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, enacted the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation that the Federal Government ‘set standards for the issuance of sources of identification, such as driver’s licenses.’ The Act established minimum security standards for license issuance and production and prohibits Federal agencies from accepting for certain purposes driver’s licenses and identification cards from states not meeting the Act’s minimum standards. The purposes covered by the Act are: accessing Federal facilities, entering nuclear power plants, and, no sooner than 2016, boarding federally regulated commercial aircraft.

States and other jurisdictions have made significant progress in enhancing the security of their licenses over the last number of years. As a result, approximately 70-80% of all U.S. drivers hold licenses from jurisdictions: (1) determined to meet the Act’s standards; or (2) that have received extensions. Individuals holding driver’s licenses or identification cards from these jurisdiction may continue to use them as before.

Individuals holding licenses from noncompliant jurisdictions will need to follow alternative access control procedures for purposes covered by the Act. As described below, enforcement for boarding aircraft will occur no sooner than 2016.”

According to the fine print, not all 50 states have driver’s licences that meet the Real ID requirements, which could possibly explain why the aforementioned regions will not qualify in 2016. However, there is no specific mention of what the requirements actually are.

The Real ID act has been controversial since its initial proposal over ten years ago and is seen by many as a massive violation of privacy. One of the primary reasons it has taken the government so long to roll this program out is that the program is wildly unpopular and creates heavy backlash every time it appears in the news.

The tightening of the Real ID restrictions are seemingly intended to push people towards attaining the newly issued “enhanced ID,” which adds more unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy to the already tedious process involved in identification applications.



The Donald Releases New Policy Paper On Second Amendment Rights

Protecting Our Second Amendment Rights Will Make America Great Again – Donald J. Trump


The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.

The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

It’s been said that the Second Amendment is America’s first freedom. That’s because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protects all our other rights. We are the only country in the world that has a Second Amendment. Protecting that freedom is imperative. Here’s how we will do that:

Enforce The Laws On The Books

We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals. The Obama administration’s record on that is abysmal. Violent crime in cities like Baltimore, Chicago and many others is out of control. Drug dealers and gang members are given a slap on the wrist and turned loose on the street. This needs to stop.

Several years ago there was a tremendous program in Richmond, Virginia called Project Exile. It said that if a violent felon uses a gun to commit a crime, you will be prosecuted in federal court and go to prison for five years – no parole or early release. Obama’s former Attorney General, Eric Holder, called that a “cookie cutter” program. That’s ridiculous. I call that program a success. Murders committed with guns in Richmond decreased by over 60% when Project Exile was in place – in the first two years of the program alone, 350 armed felons were taken off the street.

Why does that matter to law-abiding gun owners? Because they’re the ones who anti-gun politicians and the media blame when criminals misuse guns. We need to bring back and expand programs like Project Exile and get gang members and drug dealers off the street. When we do, crime will go down and our cities and communities will be safer places to live.

Here’s another important way to fight crime – empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves. Law enforcement is great, they do a tremendous job, but they can’t be everywhere all of the time. Our personal protection is ultimately up to us. That’s why I’m a gun owner, that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well. It’s just common sense. To make America great again, we’re going to go after criminals and put the law back on the side of the law-abiding.

Fix Our Broken Mental Health System

Let’s be clear about this. Our mental health system is broken. It needs to be fixed. Too many politicians have ignored this problem for too long.

All of the tragic mass murders that occurred in the past several years have something in common – there were red flags that were ignored. We can’t allow that to continue. We need to expand treatment programs, because most people with mental health problems aren’t violent, they just need help. But for those who are violent, a danger to themselves or others, we need to get them off the street before they can terrorize our communities. This is just common sense.

And why does this matter to law-abiding gun owners? Once again, because they get blamed by anti-gun politicians, gun control groups and the media for the acts of deranged madmen. When one of these tragedies occurs, we can count on two things: one, that opponents of gun rights will immediately exploit it to push their political agenda; and two, that none of their so-called “solutions” would have prevented the tragedy in the first place. They’ve even admitted it.

We need real solutions to address real problems. Not grandstanding or political agendas.

Defend The Rights of Law-Abiding Gun Owners

GUN AND MAGAZINE BANS. Gun and magazine bans are a total failure. That’s been proven every time it’s been tried. Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like “assault weapons”, “military-style weapons” and “high capacity magazines” to confuse people. What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans. Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.

BACKGROUND CHECKS. There has been a national background check system in place since 1998. Every time a person buys a gun from a federally licensed gun dealer – which is the overwhelming majority of all gun purchases – they go through a federal background check. Study after study has shown that very few criminals are stupid enough to try and pass a background check – they get their guns from friends/family members or by stealing them. So the overwhelming majority of people who go through background checks are law-abiding gun owners. When the system was created, gun owners were promised that it would be instant, accurate and fair. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case today. Too many states are failing to put criminal and mental health records into the system – and it should go without saying that a system’s only going to be as effective as the records that are put into it. What we need to do is fix the system we have and make it work as intended. What we don’t need to do is expand a broken system.

NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY. The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.

MILITARY BASES AND RECRUITING CENTERS. Banning our military from carrying firearms on bases and at recruiting centers is ridiculous. We train our military how to safely and responsibly use firearms, but our current policies leave them defenseless. To make America great again, we need a strong military. To have a strong military, we need to allow them to defend themselves.



Union-Owned RINO Douchebags Attempting To Kill Right-To-Work Legislation In Missouri

These Are The Union-Backed MO Republicans Blocking Right-To-Work – Daily Caller


With Missouri Republicans gearing up to vote on a veto override Wednesday to ban mandatory union dues, six of their union-backed colleagues are all who stand in their way.

House Bill 116 was vetoed by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon back in June. The measure would have outlawed mandatory union dues or fees in the state. With seven Republicans opposed to the bill, it is unlikely supporters will be able to override the veto. All but one of the Republicans opposed are heavily endorsed by organized labor.

“All but one received significant support from unions and all representative districts have a union presence,” the Center for Worker Freedom (CWF) noted in an article. “These representatives need to put their own interests to the side and vote to give their citizens’ the freedom they deserve.”The contributors listed include the Teamsters Local 688, the Missouri State Teachers Association (MSTA), Missouri AFL-CIO, Boilermakers Local 27 and the local chapter of the United Brotherhood Of Carpenters among others.

“Missouri unions are working against job creators and those who would spur the state’s economy by fighting right to work as part of a far left, liberal agenda that supports groups like Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club,” Jeff Bechdel, of Missouri Rising, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in a statement. “On both counts, these unions are working against what’s best for Missourians.”

Missouri Rising, a nonprofit affiliate of the Republican super PAC, American Rising, also released a video. The video criticized Missouri union bosses for attempting to block the measure.

CWF found each Republican opposed has received several thousand dollars in union contributions. Some much higher. According to National Institute on Money in State Politics, Ruth has received $10,328 from various public sector unions, Black has accepted over $20,000 from general trade unions alone and Sommer has received over $11,000.

“Our endorsements are based on their views of educational issues,” Mike Wood, director of governmental relations for MSTA, told TheDCNF. “We don’t have a dog in the fight.”

Wood also noted MSTA isn’t technically a union. As an association they engage in union activities like collective bargaining but have a wider scope of responsibilities. MSTA has, he argued, contributed to those lawmakers that share a similar view on education. Meaning policies like right-to-work aren’t a factor.

The Boilermakers also noted it’s about which lawmakers they already share common ground with. A representative for the union told TheDCNF it doesn’t donate to influence lawmakers.

Nixon has also been under suspicion for union contributions as well. A week after the veto, the governor received a $50,000 campaign contribution from the United Automobile Workers (UAW). Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder has since urged Nixon to return the money. Nixon has defended his decision to veto the measure, arguing the policy is bad for workers.

“This extreme measure would take our state backward, squeeze the middle-class, lower wages for Missouri families, and subject businesses to criminal and unlimited civil liability,” Nixon declared in a statement from June. “Right-to-Work is wrong for Missouri, it’s wrong for the middle-class – and it must never become the law of the Show-Me State.”

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), however, has stated in a recent report the policy will benefit state residents. The report, titled, “Why Right to Work is Right for Missouri” estimated potential income loss associated with the state not having the policy between 1977 and 2012.

“In states where people have choice over whether to join a labor union or not, economic growth and personal income are demonstrably higher,” Trey Kovacs, a policy analyst for CEI, noted in a statement. “Missourians deserve the right to decide for themselves whether labor unions are meeting their needs.”

The seven Republicans opposed to the measure did not respond to a request for comment from TheDCNF.

The policy, also known as right-to-work, is usually opposed by unions. The union funded Republican opposition includes Kathie Conway, Kevin Corlew, Bart Korman, Becky Ruth, Linda Black and Chrissy Sommer. Rep. Bill Kidd is the only Republican expected to vote against the override that does not receive support from labor unions.



Psychopathic Leftists Investigating High School Football Coach Because He Likes To Pray After Games

Bremerton Football Coach Investigated For Post-Game Prayers – KING


The Bremerton School District is investigating a football coach for praying after high school football games. District policy states “school staff shall neither encourage nor discourage” students from praying.

Bremerton High School assistant football coach Joe Kennedy, who is still coaching, said he always prays after games on the 50-yard line. He said sometimes he’s alone, sometimes players join him.

“I never asked anyone,” Kennedy said. “They just all showed up one day and the next thing I know, the other team was showing up with us.”

KING 5 spoke to Kennedy at Monday’s JV football game, He’s the assistant head coach for Bremerton High’s varsity team and the head coach for the JV squad. After Monday’s game, Kennedy still prayed on the field, and a large crowd made up of players and parents from both Bremerton and its opponent took part.

“I spent 20 years in the Marine Corps, and it’s been about protecting the freedom of other people,” he said. “It’s about the freedom, and people can believe whatever they want. I’m just exercising my right. The game is over, and I just thank god for every one of these young men that are out here.”

It’s not yet clear what promoted the district investigation, but many in the stands at Monday’s game assumed it came as the result of a complaint or concern about the separation of church and state.

“It’s freedom of religion, not freedom from religion,” said Bill Bailey, who was actually cheering for Bremerton’s opponent to win the game, but says he supports Kennedy’s post-game prayers completely. “If they don’t like it, they don’t have to participate.”

The district would not comment on the ongoing investigation, except to say that Coach Kennedy has not been fired or placed on administrative leave. News of the investigation spread online over the weekend, sparking protest on a Facebook page called “Support Joe Kennedy.”

Kennedy told KING 5 he’s not worried about losing his job. Instead, his team remains his top priority.

“I don’t really worry about all that nonsense,” he said. “The only thing I worry about is the kids. It’s not about what my beliefs are, it’s about believing in each other. It’s about the sport that we love.”

Parents in the stands on Monday told KING 5 they’ve watched Kennedy pray after every game for years. Some didn’t seem to understand why it’s all of a sudden become an issue.

“Maybe there are some people who don’t go to church and don’t want their kid exposed to it, but you can’t stop it for everyone,” said Wanda Stone. “He doesn’t tell the kids that if they don’t come out and pray they’re not going to play. The kids are voluntarily going out there.”

A rally in support of Coach Kennedy is planned for Friday – the day Bremerton High School’s varsity team takes the field.

The prayer Kennedy prayed after Monday’s game lasted only about 13 seconds.

“Lord, I just want to lift up all these warriors that came out here to compete today,” he prayed. “I don’t care what their beliefs are. We do believe in this sport. We believe in football, we believe in a team and competition. It’s all about the game. In your name, Amen.”

Many who bowed their heads with him also said “Amen” and cheered when he finished praying.

District policy states that staff members can’t encourage or discrouage a student from engaging in non-disruptive oral or silent prayer. So there’s nothing wrong with students or student athletes praying, it’s just a question of what role the teacher or coach is playing in that prayer. It appears that is what the district investigation will try to determine.

It’s not yet clear when that investigation will be complete.



*VIDEOS* Highlights Of The Tea Party Patriots’ Stop The Iran Deal Rally









Federal Judge Rules Speaker Boehner Can Sue President Asshat Over Obamacare

Judge Says Boehner Can Sue President Over Obamacare – Washington Examiner


A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that House Speaker John Boehner’s lawsuit over the implementation of Obamacare can move forward, setting the stage for another high-stakes legal battle over President Obama’s signature legislative accomplishment.

Though the judge ruled that House leaders do have legal standing and thus can sue Obama, it wasn’t a complete victory for Republicans. Some legal experts questioned whether the ruling puts the court in the middle of a “political food fight.”

The lawsuit focused on whether President Obama improperly and unilaterally delayed implementation of the law’s employer mandate, and funneled payments to insurers for lowering co-pays for low-income people with insurance .

Federal Judge Rosemary Collyer decided that the House can sue over the cost-sharing payments but not the mandate delay.

The administration argued earlier this year that the House couldn’t sue over existing federal law.

But Collyer said that the ruling will “open no floodgates.” She wrote that the ruling is inherently limited to just this case.

Boehner cheered the ruling, saying that Obama made “unilateral” changes to Obamacare that overstepped the bounds of the presidency.

“The House will continue our effort to ensure the separation of powers to create or change the law,” he said in a statement.

The next step in the lawsuit is in flux right now. Technically the next step would be a hearing on the merits of the lawsuit, but the administration could appeal Collyer’s decision, said Timothy Jost, health law professor for Washington & Lee University and a leading academic proponent of Obama’s healthcare law.

Jost believed that the ruling was wrong as there is “ample precedence” that at least members of Congress can’t sue the president.

Nick Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor, said it’s not an “earth shattering surprise” that the court is allowing part of the lawsuit to go forward.

But the judge also opened a pathway to the part of the lawsuit that could be most damaging to the law, he said.

“Holding that the administration lacks the authority to cover the cost of those reductions would create a real mess on the ground,” Bagley said.

“It inserts the court into the middle of a political food fight,” he said.

Other experts believed it was the right call.

“Only Congress can appropriate funds for federal programs and so Congress faces a unique institutional injury when the executive branch decides to take that particular prerogative upon itself,” according to a blog post from Ilya Shapiro, a legal scholar for the libertarian think tank Cato Institute and an outspoken Obamacare critic.

“Obamacare implementation has been a seat-of-the-pants executive frolic from the get-go,” he added.

While it could have a lasting impact on the law, the lawsuit won’t gut Obamacare entirely.

Obamacare required insurers to reduce the cost of insurance for low income Americans in exchange for compensation from the federal government.

However, the lawsuit charged that Congress never appropriated the funding for the repayment program.

If the court eliminates cost sharing repayments then it could mean insurers raise premiums dramatically, Jost said.

Another option is the cost-sharing reduction funding gets rolled in to the annual appropriations spending bills to get funded by Congress.



*LIVE STREAMING* Tea Party Patriots’ Stop The Iran Deal Rally (09/09/15 – 1PM ET)

Tea Party Patriots’ Stop The Iran Deal Rally: U.S. Capitol Building, Washington D.C. (West Lawn) – September 9, 2015 – 1PM ET


…………….Click on image above for live stream.

Stream 2

Stream 3

Speakers include:





Brought to you by:

Coalition Partners:


*VIDEO* Ted Cruz Rocks The House In Kingwood, Texas



*VIDEO* Ben Carson Speech And Q&A At Steamboat Institute Freedom Conference (08/28/15)



*VIDEO* Ted Cruz Stands With Kentucky Clerk Who Refused To Issue Gay Marriage Licenses


Related article:

Kentucky Clerk Is One Of Three In State Refusing To Issue Marriage Licenses – The Guardian

Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis made international headlines this week for her continued refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, despite a US supreme court order mandating otherwise.

But she’s not the only defecting clerk in Kentucky. Two other clerks, Casey Davis of Casey County and Kay Schwartz of Whitley County, are also still refusing to perform same-sex marriages.

Davis began a 440-mile trip across the state on bicycle last Thursday, with the intention of riding from Pikeville, located in eastern Kentucky, to the city of Paducah.

“I’m actually [biking] across the state to show support to [Kim Davis] and to raise awareness of what’s going on with this woman,” Casey Davis, who has no relation to Kim Davis, said in a phone interview.

As a hearing on Thursday approaches to consider whether Kim Davis should be held in contempt of court, Casey Davis dismissed the prospect of possible jail time for the clerk, saying “she’s not done anything wrong; she’s upheld her oath”.

“She’s standing for God like she think she should and I think she should,” Casey, 43, told the Guardian. “I don’t think a person should be threatened to be fined or threatened to go to jail because they’re Christian.”

The vocal persistence of the clerks on Tuesday attracted the attention of Kentucky governor Steve Beshear, who again declined to call a special session to address the conflict – a prickly issue for Davis’s supporters.

“Regardless of whatever their personal feelings might be, 117 of our 120 county clerks are following the law and carrying out their duty to issue marriage licenses regardless of gender,” Beshear, a Democrat, said in a statement.

He added: “The General Assembly will convene in four months and can make any statutory changes it deems necessary at that time. I see no need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money calling a special session… when 117 of 120 clerks are doing their jobs.”

Casey said he doesn’t see the need to wait for the legislative change, which he called a “simple idea”. The proposed bill would allow clerks to not play a role in officiating a marriage; it would only require they keep the records on hold. And he said a bipartisan coalition of legislators is ready to back him up.

At Davis’s office on Wednesday, a familiar scene played out: her supporters coalesced on one side of the entrance, occasionally praying and singing as someone held a tall American flag. Across the entrance, her vocal, noticeably younger, critics held signs that said: “You are being used by a hate group, Liberty Counsel”, a jab at the clerk’s attorneys from the Christian non-profit.

It was a noticeable divide that reflects Kentucky’s sharp split on gay marriage: ever since the state’s marriage ban was struck down this summer, a July poll showed 50% of registered voters oppose same-sex marriage, with 37% in support – however, the opposition has slowly whittled away throughout the year.

Around 10.30am on Wednesday, a couple from Ohio joined hands and walked into the courthouse to obtain a marriage license.

The pair woke up early and gathered their birth certificates, social security cards and passports before making the roughly three-hour commute. After a 25-minute altercation, Davis turned them away.

“I saw something that was reminiscent of a KKK rally,” said Robbie Blankenship, 45, who has been together with Jesse Cruz, 42, for 20 years.

Davis and the two other clerks haven’t issued marriage licenses since the supreme court’s 26 June decision to legalize same-sex marriage. Schwartz, who didn’t return requests for comment by the Guardian, said her opponents have transformed into bullies ever since.

“There’s a law against bullying and that’s what this has turned into,” she told the State Journal of Frankfort, Kentucky. “I’ve had a couple calls and when I’ve looked those people up, they didn’t even live in my county.”

In July, the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky and the Louisville-based Fairness Campaign, a civil rights group, “cast a net” in counties across the state that denied licenses, said Chris Hartman, director of the campaign. “But the only counties where plaintiffs responded to the request were in Rowan County,” Hartman said.

“Any of these county clerks could have become Kim Davis,” he said. “It just so happened Kim Davis became Kim Davis.”

Casey offered a similar explanation: “Well, Kim’s been sued; Kay nor I have been.”

Their supporters echoed the clerk’s call for change outside Davis’s office on Wednesday.

“The way to settle it is to not have the county clerk sign the form,” said Don Bair, a Davis supporter who turned out in support of the embattled clerk.

David Hamm, also a Morehead resident, chimed in: “All I got to say is it’s the governor’s fault.”

The saga of Davis – a longtime bureaucrat and native of Morehead, attracted increasing attention last month, when a federal judge ordered her to abide by the supreme court’s June decision. Governor Beshear has also ordered county clerks across the state to fall in line with the ruling.

Tension heightened last week after Davis continued to refuse licenses to couples; on Friday, she filed a request to the supreme court to stay the lower court’s decision. Late Monday, the high court denied her request in a one-sentence ruling. A hearing is scheduled for Thursday at 11am in US district judge David Bunning’s courtroom on a contempt motion in one of several cases involving Davis, which asks the court to impose a financial penalty – not incarceration. Davis and her staff were ordered by Bunning to appear in court to explain why the clerk wouldn’t be jailed for contempt.

But attorneys for Davis filed an emergency motion on Wednesday afternoon, in what appears to be a last-ditch effort to obtain the right to reject same-sex marriage licenses. Bunning last month declined to hear the motion.

The request for an injunction asks Bunning to block Beshear’s order. It’s unclear what, if any, impact it could have on the contempt hearing; attorneys for Davis didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Davis could face a charge of official misconduct, a misdemeanor that could bring up to a year in jail. A request for a special prosecutor to review the allegations is pending before Kentucky attorney general Jack Conway, a Democrat. Conway’s office declined additional comment on Tuesday.

Republican presidential candidates also jumped into the fray on Wednesday. Rand Paul appeared to side with Bevin, the Republican nominee for the Kentucky gubernatorial race, and said in a radio interview that Davis’s protest is “part of the American way”.

“There never should have been any limitations on people of the same sex having contracts, but I do object to the state putting its imprimatur to the specialness of marriage on something that’s different from what most people have defined as marriage for most of history,” Paul told Boston Herald radio.

“So one way is just getting the state out completely and I think that’s what we’re headed towards, actually.”

Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas and TV personality, said he spoke with Davis on Wednesday and praised her actions.

“She is showing more courage and humility than just about any federal office holder in Washington,” Huckabee said in a statement to the Associated Press.

By not calling a special session, several of Davis’s supporters said those are characteristics Governor Beshear clearly doesn’t embody.

“If the governor would simply do his job, then [same-sex couples] could go to Rowan county and they could get their license,” said clerk Casey. “And [Davis] wouldn’t have to be violated while she was getting them.”

But Blankenship, who fought back tears moments after being turned away by Davis’s office on Wednesday, said he wants Kentucky – a state he has a long history with and where several family members live – to simply accept everyone.

“I want Kentucky to recognize our love,” he said. “Whoever is refusing our love needs to stop.”


Related videos: