Feds admit: Gun laws won’t slow crime
[WND.com] EXCLUSIVE
February 19, 2013
By Garth Kant
Department of Justice report undermines bans
A study by the Department of Justice’s research wing, the National Institute of Justice, has the feds admitting that so-called “assault weapons” are not a major contributor to gun crime.
“The existing stock of assault weapons is large, undercutting the effectiveness of bans with exemptions,” it said. “Therefore a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.” The report finds no significant link between “assault weapons” and murders.
Obama, Why Don’t You Just Resign?
Center for Western Journalism
[WesternJournalism.com]
Barack Hussein Obama has decided that in order to punish Arizona for having dared enforce American immigration laws, he has ordered his federal agencies to basically stop working with Arizona’s law enforcement agencies concerning illegal immigrants. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr has also made it known as the nations chief law enforcement officer that he too is only going to selectively enforce immigration laws that he personally likes. More to the point, Holder will only enforce what is beneficial to his boss’s re-election campaign. If I’m not mistaken, this attitude by both men is blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL and falls under the heading of “high crimes and misdemeanors’, an IMPEACHABLE offense!
Mr. Obama, how in the world can you look at the people of Arizona and tell them that YOU are not willing to give them EQUAL PROTECTION under the laws of the United States? Brian Terry, an American Border Patrol Agent, was shot in the back 18 miles INSIDE the border of the United States! Jaime Zapata, an ICE agent, was also killed because of an illegally run and botched program known as Fast & Furious. Being an accomplice to murder, Mr. Obama, is a crime punishable by prison time. Maybe you and Mr Holder could share a cell? Anyway, I digress…..again!
My feelings are, Mr. Obama, that you should be impeached before any more American and Mexican bodies pile up because of your insanity. Mr. Holder should be found guilty of contempt of Congress and charged with negligent homicide in the cases of the two dead federal agents. You and Holder should also have to face justice in the death of the Arizona rancher and others who were killed by your illegal compadres coming across our borders and onto American’s rightfully-owned land. I have an idea for a reverse gun walking program that I would like to run called “Slow & Deliberate”! It’s a program whereby I legally get to use federal funds to LEGALLY buy guns from LEGAL gun shop owners and arm American citizens to help guard the American border from the intrusion of illegals from everywhere. No problems, no paperwork, no questions! All neat, tidy, and LEGAL!
Fawning NBC Hypes Obama’s Immigration Pander: ‘Young People’ ‘Cheered’
[Newsbusters.org]
By Scott Whitlock | June 18, 2012 | 13:15
NBC’s Nightly News on Friday offered a one-sided segment touting Barack Obama’s decision to lift the threat of deportation to young people who came to America illegally. The Pete Williams report featured six clips of individuals or groups thrilled by the reaction, only two against and one nuanced response by Mitt Romney. The other networks followed a similar pattern.
Williams began by touting, “Young people covered by the new policy cheered the announcement outside the White House.” An unidentified woman enthused, “I can’t describe it. It’s so amazing. I’m so happy.” A crowd in front of the White House chanted, “Yes, we did! Yes, we did! Yes, we did! Yes, we did!”
The NBC correspondent’s segment was heavily weighted with people who applauded the decision:
JANET NAPOLITANO (Homeland Security Secretary): They’ve grown up here, they speak the language here, they’ve stayed out of trouble here. They’re getting their education here. They have wonderful talents to contribute to our country.
‘Not Amnesty,’ Napolitano Says: ‘It Is An Exercise of Discretion’ [Oh, Really?]
[CNSNews.com]
The program, announced Friday, would grant as many as 800,000 younger illegal immigrants immunity from deportation and allow them to qualify for federal work permits.
Berwick Resigns as Medicare Chief Ahead of End to Recess Appointment
[FoxNews.com]
Associated Press
Published November 23, 2011
AP – April 12, 2011: Medicare and Medicaid Administrator Donald Berwick gestures during an interview with The Associated Press in Washington.
WASHINGTON – Medicare chief Don Berwick, the point man for carrying out President Obama’s health care law, announced Wednesday that he will step down on Dec. 2 in anticipation of not getting confirmation in the Senate to extend his term beyond a recess appointment.
Medicare chief Don Berwick, a Harvard professor widely respected for his ideas on how to improve the health care system, became the most prominent casualty of the political wars over a health care overhaul law whose constitutionality will be now decided by the Supreme Court.
Berwick’s Dec. 2 resignation was confirmed by a senior congressional official, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of an announcement by the administration. He will be replaced by his principal deputy, Marilyn Tavenner, formerly Virginia’s top health care official.
Obama admin attempting another Congressional end-around on ObamaCare defect
[HotAir.com]
posted at 1:55 pm on November 16, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
Under ObamaCare, the IRS becomes the arbiter of health-insurance acceptability. Now Barack Obama needs the IRS to rescue ObamaCare entirely, thanks to a massive legislative defect that the President has no hope of rectifying in the new Congress. Thanks to sloppy legislative work, the PPACA’s subsidies to taxpayers won’t apply in states that refuse to create exchanges — which means that the states have a clear mechanism to block ObamaCare’s implementation.
That is, unless the IRS just bypasses Congress and corrects the law:
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act offers “premium assistance”—tax credits and subsidies—to households purchasing coverage through new health-insurance exchanges. This assistance was designed to hide a portion of the law’s cost to individuals by reducing the premium hikes that individuals will face after ObamaCare goes into effect in 2014. (If consumers face the law’s full cost, support for repeal will grow.)
The law encourages states to create health-insurance exchanges, but it permits Washington to create them if states decline. So far, only 17 states have passed legislation to create an exchange.
White House Faces Political Dilemma on Health Law Challenge
FoxNews.com
By Jim Angle
Published August 19, 2011
AP2011 – President Obama wipes his brow as he speaks during a town hall meeting at Lower Hannah’s Bend Park in Cannon Falls, Minn., Monday, Aug. 15, 2011.
The Obama administration now faces a key legal and political dilemma — what to do about the recent decision from a federal appeals court that said the new law’s mandate that every uninsured American must buy health insurance is unconstitutional.
Many political analysts think the White House will try to delay Supreme Court consideration as long as possible.
“They definitely don’t want to see it go to the Supreme Court until after the elections,” said Kirsten Powers, a former Democratic operative and a Fox News analyst. “So my expectation is they would do whatever they can to slow walk this so that this does not get to the Supreme Court where possibly the individual mandate could be struck down which would be very damaging for the administration.”
Obama Appointees to Hear Healthcare Challenge
Newsmax.com
By Andra Varin
The third member of the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court Appeals panel hearing arguments Tuesday in Richmond, Va., was appointed by President Bill Clinton.The hearing marks the first time an appeals court considers the constitutionality of the new law, which critics call Obamacare, USA Today reported.The paper said the judges were chosen by random by a computer program. They are Andre Davis and James Wynn, both appointed by Obama, and Diana Gribbon Motz, appointed by Clinton.
At issue is the provision in the law that says people must have health care insurance by 2014 or face a tax penalty. Virginia challenged that portion of the law, saying that Congress was exceeding its power to regulate commerce.
USA Today said one federal judge has upheld the provision but another declared it unconstitutional. The matter is expected to eventually end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
What’s Next For the Health Care Lawsuit?
FoxNews.com
by Lee Ross | December 13, 2010
It is only a matter of time that either Monday’s case from Virginia, one of the other 20 or so lawsuits, or a combination of cases will end up before the Supreme Court. It is quite possible that a high court ruling could come in June 2012 right in the thick of the next presidential campaign.
Monday’s ruling from Judge Henry Hudson puts this case ahead of another closely watched suit in Florida joined by 20 states and the National Federation of Independent Businesses. That case will be heard Thursday with a ruling, even if expedited, not likely to come until early next year.
A Justice Department spokeswoman essentially confirmed that the government would appeal Monday’s ruling. “We are disappointed in today’s ruling but continue to believe – as other federal courts in Virginia and Michigan have found – that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional,” Tracy Schmaler said in a statement to Fox News. “There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail.”
Cuccinelli Says ‘Liberty’ on the Line as Judge Weighs Virginia Health Care Suit
FoxNews.com | AP
Published October 18, 2010
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli speaks at the Virginia Tea Party Patriots Convention in Richmond, Va., Oct. 9. (AP Photo)
Virginia’s top-ranking attorney warned Monday that the federal government will be able to order Americans to “buy anything” if the state’s lawsuit against the health care overhaul goes down, after a federal judge in Richmond heard arguments in the landmark case.
U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson said he will rule by the end of the year on the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s health care law. The case is proceeding separately from one in Florida, where a federal judge last week allowed a multistate challenge to go forward.
The Virginia challenge is led by state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who claims Congress lacks the constitutional authority to require Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. He described the so-called individual mandate as “unprecedented” and warned Monday that personal “liberty” is on the line as the judge considers the case.
“If Virginia loses this fight and the federal government is allowed to cross this line, Congress will be granted virtually an unlimited power to order you to buy anything,” he said. “That’s not rhetoric. That’s reality of the circumstances of this case.”
Invoking Revolutionary War-era struggles, Cuccinelli suggested that not even the British would have attempted to force Americans to buy a product. His argument is that the federal government is attempting to “stretch” the definition of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause in order to “regulate inactivity.” In other words, the government wants to force Americans to buy a product and then fine those who don’t buy that product — a scenario Cuccinelli described as “non-commerce.”
The insurance mandate, which takes effect in 2014, is the most contentious element of the new law and the chief issue in the state’s lawsuit.
Islam is not a religion, it is foreign law
RenewAmerica.com
September 1, 2010
By JR Dieckmann
The time has come to question if Islam is protected under our First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. Yes, everyone in America has the right to freedom of religion, but Islam is not a religion. Religious faith is only a part of Islam. The rest is a socially engineered society with its own laws and customs that seriously conflict with American law.
Is Great Britain a religion because they have the Church of England? Of course not. Britain has an established charter, civil and criminal laws, and a society that respects those laws. Islam has the Qur’an that provides the governing charter, complete with laws, punishment, and social behavior for its people in addition to its religious teachings. If Islam is a religion, then Britain is also.
We must recognize that religion is only one aspect of Islam’s Qur’an. The rest of this charter advances ideas, social behavior, and laws that are in direct conflict with American and western laws and values. Teddy Roosevelt once said that to live in America, immigrants must have undivided loyalty to America and to no one else. How is that possible for Muslims who swear loyalty to Islam where their governing laws are found in the Qur’an?
CWNews Posted Comments