Hitlery Calls Law Protecting Lives Of Viable Infants “Extreme And Unacceptable”

Hillary Clinton Calls Law Protecting Lives Of Viable Infants ‘Extreme And Unacceptable’ – Weekly Standard

.
…………

.
This week, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker signed a law protecting the lives of infants after the fifth month of pregnancy (or 20 weeks after conception), a point in human development when babies can feel pain and survive long-term if born prematurely.

The law includes an exeption for cases in which a physical health issue endangers the life of the mother, but Hillary Clinton still denounced the late-term abortion ban as an “extreme and unacceptable” measure:

————————————————————————————————————————–
Hillary Clinton
@HillaryClinton

Gov. Walker signed dangerous abortion restrictions into law in WI – without exceptions for rape or incest. Extreme and unacceptable. -H

8:43 PM – 20 Jul 2015
————————————————————————————————————————–

Clinton especially objects to the fact that Wisconsin’s law doesn’t include an exception to allow the killing of infants late in pregnancies that resulted from rape. But laws in the blue states of Pennsylvania and New York (which take effect, respectively, at 22 weeks and 24 weeks after conception) also prohibit late-term abortions in that circumstance. Does Clinton think liberal New York’s aboriton law is also “extreme and unacceptable”?

Scott Walker responded to Clinton with the following tweet:

————————————————————————————————————————–
Scott Walker
@ScottWalker

@HillaryClinton attacks me for protecting life after 5 months, but won’t condemn disgusting Planned Parenthood videos. -SW

5:44 PM – 21 Jul 2015
————————————————————————————————————————–

Republicans in Congress have not only tolerated the legality of abortion in pregnancies that result from rape, they have voted since 1993 for laws allowing federal Medicaid funding of abortions in these extreme cases in order to prohibit funding in more than 99 percent of other cases. But even if one accepts this exception for principled or prudential reasons, it does not follow that this exception must exist in the ninth month of pregnancy.

So does Clinton support any limits on abortion? She has given conflicting answers over the years, and her campaign still hasn’t answered several questions about her position on late-term abortion and taxpayer-funded abortion:

In 2005, Hillary Clinton said that “government should have no role” in limiting the right to abortion – a remark very similar to the one made by Wasserman Schultz this week. “This decision, which is one of the most fundamental, difficult, and soul-searching decisions a woman and a family can make, is also one in which the government should have no role,” Clinton said at the time.

But at other times, Clinton has claimed that she’d be willing to support a ban on late-term abortion. “I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected,” Clinton said in a 2000 New York senatorial debate. Clinton did not define “health,” and supporters of a right to abortion have typically defined health exceptions so broadly–to include “mental and emotional” health–that any restriction on late-term abortion would be rendered meaningless. (In 2008, Barack Obama endorsed late-term abortion bans without a mental health exception, but quickly backtracked.)

So would Secretary Clinton support any federal law restricting late-term abortion? If so, how many weeks old must an unborn child be for the law to protect her? Must any restriction on late-term abortion include a “mental and emotional” health exception? And does Clinton still support taxpayer-funded elective abortions for Medicaid recipients?

.

.

Another Win For Walker – Wisconsin Voter ID Law Stands As USSC Rejects Appeal

Wisconsin Voter-ID Law Stands As Supreme Court Rejects Appeal – Bloomberg

.

.
The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Wisconsin to implement a voter-identification law that opponents say is one of the strictest in the nation.

Rejecting without comment an appeal by civil rights groups, the justices Monday gave a victory to Republicans, including Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who have championed voter-ID laws around the country. Wisconsin is one of 30 states with ID laws and one of 17 that enacted measures since the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana statute in 2008.

Civil rights groups say ID requirements disproportionately affect minority and low-income voters while doing little if anything to protect against fraud. The organizations pressing the Wisconsin appeal said 300,000 registered voters in that state lack a qualifying ID.

“The right to vote is the foundational element of American democracy,” the groups argued. “Increasingly restrictive voter ID laws like Wisconsin’s Act 23 unjustifiably burden the voting rights of millions of registered voters, particularly African-Americans and Latinos.”

Wisconsin officials led by Walker, a potential presidential candidate, defended the law. They argued that it will impose a minimal burden on voters while providing more assurance of a fraud-free election.

‘Overwhelming Majority’

“In Wisconsin, as elsewhere, the overwhelming majority of voters already have qualifying ID,” Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel argued. “For those who lack ID, obtaining one and bringing it to the polling place is generally no more of a burden than the process of voting itself.”

In a statement Monday, Schimel said the voter-ID law won’t take effect for an April 7 election for judicial offices because absentee ballots already have been sent to voters.

“The voter-ID law will be in place for future elections,” he said.

In October the Supreme Court blocked the Wisconsin law from applying to the Nov. 4 election. A lower court had revived the law weeks earlier, and civil rights groups told the high court at the time that hasty implementation would mean widespread confusion.

Lower courts have largely backed voter-ID laws. In a notable exception, a federal trial judge said Texas’s statute was the product of intentional discrimination. That case is now before a federal appeals court and could make its way to the Supreme Court before the 2016 election.

2014 Election

Unlike with Wisconsin, the Supreme Court let the Texas law take effect for the 2014 election.

In the latest Wisconsin appeal, groups led by the League of United Latin American Citizens argued that the 2011 state law violated the U.S. constitutional guarantee of equal protection and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Wisconsin’s law lets voters use any of eight forms of identification, including in-state driver’s licenses, state-issued photo IDs for non-drivers and military IDs. The state also accepts some student identification cards, though not those from the University of Wisconsin campuses.

A federal trial judge invalidated the measure, saying it would deter many residents from voting. The judge also said the state hadn’t pointed to any recent instances of voter impersonation in Wisconsin.

A three-judge federal appeals panel in Chicago reversed that decision, pointing to new rules the state issued to help people obtain the documentation they need to get IDs. Officials took that step after the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a separate case, said people must be able to get IDs without having to pay a fee for documents.

‘Fig Leaf’

The panel’s ruling drew a rebuke from Judge Richard Posner, who argued unsuccessfully for reconsideration by a larger group of judges. Posner said voter-impersonation fraud was “a mere fig leaf for efforts to disenfranchise voters.”

The Supreme Court in 2008 upheld Indiana’s voter-ID law on a 6-3 vote. Writing the court’s lead opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said voter fraud was a real risk that “could affect the outcome of a close election.”

Stevens said the record in the Indiana case “does not provide any concrete evidence of the burden imposed on voters who currently lack photo identification.”

The Wisconsin civil rights groups say the trial in their case produced that type of evidence. State officials say the two laws are indistinguishable after the changes required by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The case is Frank v. Walker, 14-803.

.

.

*VIDEOS* House Committees: Hearings On Executive Amnesty And Immigration Law Enforcement


HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON PRESIDENT OBAMA’S EXECUTIVE AMNESTY

.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY GOWDY’S OPENING STATEMENT

.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY GOWDY QUESTIONS LEFTIST PROFESSOR STEPHEN LEGOMSKY

.
FULL HEARING

……………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related videos:

.

HOUSE OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE HEARING ON IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT

.
TESTIMONY OF JAMIEL SHAW, FATHER OF TEENAGER MURDERED BY ILLEGAL ALIEN

.
FULL HEARING

.

*VIDEO* Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore Sets CNN’s Chris Cuomo Straight On Where Our Rights Come From


.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related audio:

.

.

.

Supreme Court Upholds Texas Voter ID Law

Supreme Court Allows Texas Use Of New Voter ID Law – Wall Street Journal

.

.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Saturday allowed Texas to enforce its voter identification law for the Nov. 4 midterm elections, denying emergency requests from the Obama administration and other challengers who said the law harmed minority voting rights.

The high court’s move, announced in an early morning order, is a setback for civil-rights advocates and marks the court’s fourth recent action on a state’s election procedures just ahead of Election Day.

A federal judge in Texas last week struck down the state law after holding a trial on the issue and concluding lawmakers acted with discriminatory intent when they enacted the law in 2011.

Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos said the Texas law was the strictest in the country for several reasons, including because it allowed the fewest forms of acceptable photo identification and didn’t make certain accommodations for the poor and the elderly.

The judge said more than half a million registered voters, many of them black or Hispanic, were expected to lack the ID necessary to vote in person at the polls.

This week the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, acting on an emergency appeal by state officials, decided Texas could use the voter ID law for this election. The appeals court said the state already had been training poll workers to apply the voter ID law and said it was too late to change the rules so close to the date when voters were due to begin casting ballots. Early voting in Texas begins Monday.

The appeals court said it was guided in part by recent Supreme Court emergency actions on election rules in Ohio, North Carolina and Wisconsin. The results in those cases pointed in different directions, but in each case the justices blocked late changes to state election procedures, seemingly out of concern for voter confusion. The high court didn’t offer an explanation for its course of action in those cases.

The same held true Saturday when a majority of the court issued a brief written order that allowed Texas to use its voter ID law. But three justices – Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – dissented, saying the court should have intervened.

“The greatest threat to public confidence in elections in this case is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters,” Justice Ginsburg wrote for the dissenters.

The Justice Department and civil rights groups had filed emergency appeals with the Supreme Court, saying there was no justification for allowing Texas to use the voter ID law after a judge found it to be discriminatory.

Texas said in court papers that its law wasn’t discriminatory and was approved to deter and detect voter fraud. The state also disputed the trial judge’s finding that large numbers of voters could be disenfranchised, saying it had taken extensive steps to mitigate “the already minor inconveniences associated with securing photo identification.”

The Supreme Court action Saturday wasn’t a ruling on the legality of the Texas law. The court was considering only whether the law could be applied while Texas appealed the trial judge’s ruling.

With the high court’s action in favor of Texas, three of the court’s four recent emergency actions in election matters have favored the states. The court also allowed Ohio to cut back on early voting and let North Carolina prohibit same-day voter registration and out-of-precinct voting. In a win for civil rights advocates, the court blocked Wisconsin from enforcing its voter ID law for the midterms.

.

.

Missouri Legislature Overrules Leftist Governor’s Veto Of Law Allowing Teachers To Be Armed In School

Missouri Legislature Overrules Dem Governor’s Veto, Provides Huge Gun Rights Victory – TPNN

.

.
Our system of government was designed with a redundancy of checks and balances. In recent years, Democrats have charged Republicans with supposed obstruction and have maintained that their unwillingness to rubber-stamp the president’s agenda is, somehow, an anti-American concept when, in reality, blocking bad ideas from becoming law is a tremendously American idea upon which our system of government relies.

Similarly, across the country, there have been battles in state legislatures as one party battles another. Recently, Missouri passed legislation that would allow schools to train teachers in the use of firearms and allow such teachers to defend students from a would-be attacker.

The legislation, SB 656, was vetoed by Democrat Governor Jay Nixon. With regards to his veto, Nixon stated, “Arming teachers will not make our schools safer. I have supported and will continue to support the use of duly authorized law enforcement officers employed as school resource officers, but I cannot condone putting firearms in the hands of educators who should be focused on teaching our kids.”

What’s amazing is that every time a “bad guy with a gun” seeks to create carnage, the defenseless are forced to run, hide and cower and pray that a trained “good guy with a gun” makes it to the scene in time to save their life. What this legislation accomplishes is exactly that plus offering the added benefit of a deterrent effect.

I ask: how many would-be shooters would be willing to wage an assault on a school knowing that there are trained, armed teachers everywhere? This legislation will save lives.

However, our representative democracy prevailed as this week, Missouri’s House and Senate voted to override the governor’s veto and the legislation is set to become law.

The House voted to overrule the governor 117 to 39 and the Senate voted to overrule Nixon 23 to 8.

SB 656 doesn’t just arm teachers, but makes adjustments to current laws concerning concealed carrying of firearms. It disallows public housing authorities to infringe upon “a lessee or a member of the lessee’s immediate household or guest [to] personally [possess] firearms.”

It further augments the places in which open and concealed carry is lawful and even lowers the concealed permit requirements from 21 years of age to 19. It also prohibits healthcare professionals from inquiring about a patient’s firearm ownership.

This is a tremendous step in the right direction and an affirmation of our American values. More guns in the hands of responsible citizens has been the only tried-and-true method of lowering violent crime and the right to carry and use firearms in defense of oneself or another is a right that must be recognized and supported.

The anti-Second Amendment crowd is sure to hate this development, but for those who love freedom and have a clear understanding of our rights as Americans should rejoice at the news of this victory that is relatively undiscussed within the leftstream media.

.

.

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