The federal government will not issue permits for Bobby Jindal’s latest plan to stop the oil
In a stark contrast to the Obama regime, Bobby Jindal is trying to lead and come up with ideas to stop the oil from washing ashore in Louisiana. While the Obama regime is content with claiming that it is BP’s responsibility to stop the oil from washing up on shore, while at the same time refusing to do anything to help the embattled region, Bobby Jindal is desperate and willing to try anything to protect both the environment and the future of the people who make their living in the Gulf of Mexico.
Bobby Jindal wanted to build berms to stop the oil from washing ashore, but he waited for weeks for approval to come from the EPA; once it became evident that the approval simply wasn’t going to come, he took matters into his own hands. He went ahead with his plan to build the berms, but he was ordered to stop by the federal government, who cited environmental concerns with the berms. apparently they forgot about the environment damage being done by thousands of gallons of oil that are coming ashore from Texas to Florida.
So Bobby Jindal has come up with another plan; he wants to build islands off the shore using rocks to stop the oil from washing up on shore. I have to admit that this seems like a pretty farfetched idea, but something has to be done and Bobby Jindal is getting desperate.
The federal government has refused to authorize this latest attempt– they will not give him the proper permits to allow the construction of the islands to begin, once again claiming that this plan could hurt the environment. Again– thousands of gallons of oil are washing ashore, isn’t this an environmental concern that requires some unconventional ideas?
Bobby Jindal is willing to do something– anything– to protect his shorelines but he has been met with nothing but resistance from the federal government. While this latest idea may be more of a fantasy than anything else, it does provide us with a contrast between a man who is trying to lead and a man who is willing to sit back and do nothing for fear of failure.
Barack Obama’s only plan is to sit back and watch BP flounder. While the president is right and this is BP’s responsibility, doesn’t the federal government have some responsibility in regards to minimizing the damage? It has become more than evident that BP either cannot stop, or is unwilling to do what it takes to stop, the oil from flowing into the Gulf. At some point the federal government has to step in and do something.
The only action that Barack Obama has taken on this issue was to extort $20 billion out of BP for future lawsuits; sooner or later the federal government is going to have to step up to the plate and become active in stopping the leak. BP is responsible for the damages and should pay for them. If the federal government steps in and rectifies the situation, BP should be responsible for picking up the tab for the clean up and for all actions taken by the federal government, I am not letting them off the hook. But this administration is not only not doing anything about the spill, they are hindering Bobby Jindal’s efforts to do something about the spill. And this is unforgivable.
NASA’s new mission, Muslim outreach?
During an interview with Al Jazeera, NASA head Charles Bolden claimed that Barack Obama has given him three priorities.
When I became the NASA administrator — or before I became the NASA administrator — he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering
Barack Obama has charged the head of NASA with making Muslims “feel good” about their contributions to science. This is part of Barack Obama’s Muslim outreach program, but I have to wonder why this is something that NASA should even be involved in.
Is it the position of this regime to have all of our government agencies involved in this Muslim outreach program, whether or not they should be involved in it? It seems to me that Barack Obama is going way overboard in trying to prove to the Muslim world that we are friendly and want to mend our fences. To Barack Obama there is one reason and one reason only that the radical Muslims want to destroy our country– and that reason is because he believes that America is to blame for much of the world’s suffering.
Barack Obama does not see the good that America has done, only what he considers to be the bad that America has done. Because of this he has charged agencies– such as NASA– to go out of their way to try to appease the Muslim nations.
There was a time not all that long ago when presidents tried to make Americans feel proud to be Americans. I cannot recall a time when we have had a president who has tried to make us feel ashamed to be Americans. There has never been a president who has admonished the country that he volunteered to govern and I have to say that I am getting damn sick and tired of listening to this man apologize to the world for all of our perceived sins, while bowing to world leaders and neglecting to mention all of the people who are free today because of men and women who have fought over the generations. Barack Obama wants to make Muslim nations “feel good” about themselves by making Americans feel bad about ourselves. He wants to build up other nations by tearing this one down.
NASA has no business being involved in this type of outreach program, they have a specific purpose to serve– and in my opinion we already spend too much money on this organization– and international relations and Muslim outreach is not one of their purposes.
If Barack Obama wants to reach out to the Muslim world that is all well and good, but there is no way that NASA should be involved in this. NASA has already faced serious cuts– the space shuttle program is coming to an end and there will be no more trips to the moon, in my opinion this is one more program that can be cut from NASA’s budget.
It doesn’t bother me in the least that NASA has faced these cuts, but if these legitimate NASA programs were cut to provide NASA with funds to improve international relations and Muslim Outreach programs, that is when I do have a problem.
Today the Obama regime made it official– they have filed a lawsuit challenging Arizona’s new controversial immigration law. The Obama regime is specifically challenging who has constitutional jurisdiction over the enforcement of immigration law– the states or the federal government. The Obama regime is going to argue that the constitution delegates this authority to the federal government. And technically they are right– the Supreme Court has ruled that the because the constitution grants congress the power to regulate the naturalization process in Article 1 Section 8, that this naturally extends to the federal government the authority to create and enforce immigration law. If congress can regulate the process for naturalization, it also must be able to regulate how people get here in the first place.
I fully expect the Obama regime to win this challenge, but I welcome this lawsuit because it is my belief that the federal government has been irresponsible and negligent in the enforcement of illegal immigration under the laws that are currently on the books. This case could give us the chance to indict the federal government for dereliction of duty– and I am not just talking about the Obama regime here, this has gone on way too long. When I say that we have the chance to indict the federal government for dereliction of duty I am not talking about a legally binding or punishable offense, I am merely stating that this trial could be used to show the vast majority of the American people that the federal government is unwilling to enforce immigration law. This is a chance to display to the nation that the federal government has been negligent in their immigration enforcement duties.
It will be up to Arizona to put the federal government on the defensive– to turn the tables on the Obama regime. After all, if the federal government was willing to do the job that they are now claiming is their responsibility under the constitution, Arizona never would have been forced to act on their own in the first place.
If the Obama regime wants to enforce current immigration law– and if the Obama regime is willing to enforce current immigration law– I am more than willing to let the courts rule that it is their responsibility. The problem is they are not ready to– and they are not willing to– enforce current immigration law. They do not want to stop illegal immigration– that is not the point of this lawsuit. The federal government wants to stop Arizona from stopping illegal immigration and that is a totally different position from the one they will be arguing in court.
The problem is that the federal government does not agree with the current immigration laws and they do not want them enforced, PERIOD! As I have stated, this is not the same as suing Arizona over jurisdiction, this is an attempt to ensure that nobody enforces immigration laws until Barack Obama has the chance to grant all of the illegal aliens and their families amnesty. That is the ultimate goal of this lawsuit.
Happy Fourth of July
“And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”
Those were more than just words, when the founders affixed their names under those words they did exactly what those words said. They pledged their lives, fortunes, and honor towards the founding of a new nation and a cause that they believed so firmly in that they were willing to die for it.
Independence was declared on that day with the words: “We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levey war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do,” but it was not won– not yet.
There would be many years of conflict to follow, there would be more defeats than victories before the war ended– but in the end victory was achieved and a new nation was born.
The war had been raging on for over a year when the Declaration was signed, but up until July 4th 1776, America was in a war that was being fought to re-establish her natural born rights as Englishmen, it was not a war for independence. This document changed that and henceforth this was a war of separation.
While people such as Samuel Adams were clamoring for independence– and while George Washington secretly hoped that America would declare its independence– it was a pamphlet called “Common Sense” which was written by Thomas Paine that finally convinced the founders and the citizens of America that independence was not only justifiable, but was proper.
Thomas Paine was the first person to actually set down in words the reasoning for American independence, and why it was a noble and worthy cause; and he is credited as the first person to actually brand this nation the “United States of America.”
When the founders signed this document they became traitors to the Crown and if captured they would have been hanged as such– losing all three pledges they had sworn to each other. They all understood this and were willing to pay the price as Benjamin Franklin famously quipped, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
While they never had to pay the ultimate price for the freedom they have given us– an estimated 25,000 men did, fighting for the cause they believed in– many of them did end up bankrupt or near bankrupt and it debt. So when they pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor there was no turning back. Many of them may have lost their fortunes, but they never lost their honor.
Now it was up to the Continental Army to deliver us the freedom that the Declaration rightfully claimed belonged to Americans. The battle went on for many years and it wasn’t until October 19th in 1781 at Yorktown that General Lord Cornwallis surrendered his army to General Washington– sending his second in command to surrender his sword instead of doing it himself as was considered proper in the day, a slight that George Washington was offended by and never forgave– that hostilities ended, but it was still another year before the Treaty of Paris was signed and independence was guaranteed.
The young nation suffered for the next eight years as a loose confederation of states until 1789, when the constitution was ratified and we were given the Republic that we enjoy to this very day. Through the years there have been both good times and bad, but the American spirit will never be broken, because there is an American spirit, a spirit that was born on this day in 1776, and a spirit which will live on in the hearts and minds of Americans.
But none of those events would have happened if it wasn’t for the Declaration that was signed on this day in 1776 and so today we celebrate the birth of the greatest nation in the history of the world. “It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.”
I hope that everyone enjoys their Fourth of July. Let the fireworks and the grilling begin! Please take a little time during this Fourth of July weekend to think about the men and women who are serving this country today– as well as all of those in the past– who have dedicated their lives to ensure that the vision of our founders remains intact and that a “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Below are three scenes from the HBO miniseries “John Adams,” if you haven’t seen this miniseries and you are a history buff, you owe it to yourself to check it out.
Obamacare: Longer lines in the emergency room
One angle that Barack Obama tried to sell when the debate for healthcare reform was still raging on was his claim that many uninsured Americans are forced to use the emergency room because they have no other choice. The bill for the emergency room visit would be passed on to the taxpayer, therefor we were already paying for the uninsured. His claim was that if healthcare reform was passed, people would gain coverage thereby avoiding the emergency room and the American taxpayer would save money; a bonus would be that the emergency rooms wouldn’t be as crowded so when someone came in with a real emergency they would have a much shorter waiting period.
According to this article, that might not end up being what happens now that Obamacare is law. There are a couple of problems at issue here that may lead to even longer lines in the emergency room.
The first problem with Barack Obama’s argument is the fact that there are only a limited number of doctors to go around and Barack Obama’s plan will add somewhere around 30 million people to the system. There will not be enough doctors to go around, so where will these people go? One researcher puts it this way:
More people will have coverage and will be less afraid to go to the emergency department if they’re sick or hurt and have nowhere else to go…. We just don’t have other places in the system for these folks to go
And one needs to look no further than the Massachusetts model that the national healthcare reform bill was modeled after. Since Massachusetts forced all of her residents to buy healthcare insurance visits to the emergency room have increased somewhere between 4% and 7%.
An emergency room doctor in Boston put it thusly:
Just because we’ve insured people doesn’t mean they now have access
They’re coming to the emergency department because they don’t have access to alternatives
Massachusetts requires her residents to have healthcare insurance, yet emergency room visits have increased, because as the doctor said, “just because we’ve insured people doesn’t mean they now have access.” I would like to know what Massachusetts has accomplished other than forcing the residents to buy something that provides them with no benefits. What good is coverage if the people have no access to take advantage of the coverage?
This is what we can expect under Obamacare; Massachusetts provided the Obama regime with the model for healthcare reform, we can expect the same pitfalls.
But the news doesn’t get any better when you read the article that I linked to and you find out that the uninsured were not the biggest visitors to the emergency room. By far the people who uses the emergency room the most are Medicaid recipients.
The biggest users of emergency rooms by far are Medicaid recipients
And that is problem number two; Obamacare is expanding the Medicaid system to include another 16 million people. The group of people that already use the emergency room the most is going to grow exponentially, naturally this means that we can count on more people using the emergency room.
As American College of Emergency Physicians president Dr. Angela Gardner said:
We’re starting out with crowded conditions and anticipating things will only get worse
Obamacare means longer lines in the emergency room despite his claims that this bill would cut down on the number of people who use the emergency room because they have no other option. Under Obamacare these people will still have no other option. Barack Obama was either lying when he made his claims or he was ignorant of the consequences. I don’t know which is worse.
This is change we can believe in?
Obamacare: healthcare rationing and high premiums
It is time to touch on a subject that I haven’t written about in awhile– healthcare reform. There are two topics I would like to write about today: rationing and high premiums.
First, rationing:
In order to save money because there simply is not enough to go around– the Obama regime is admitting that they may have to turn sick people away from a program that was designed to help high risk patients. There are other options also, including reducing benefits to these high risk patients.
Officials said the administration could also consider reducing benefits under the program, or redistributing funds between state pools. But they acknowledged turning some people away was also a possibility.
This particular program was designed to help those with pre-existing conditions who will not be eligible for healthcare coverage until 2014 when insurance companies will be forced to insure them. But there is not enough money to fund the program and so a choice must be made between covering fewer people or covering fewer procedures.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t this a form of rationing? When Sarah Palin spoke out about death panels, this is exactly what she was talking about– the fact that the government may have to start turning people away to save money, in effect deciding who received the healthcare they needed to survive and who didn’t– not actual death panels. It looks as if Sarah Palin was right after all. People with pre-existing serious illnesses do not seem to be any better off under this program than they were before the signing of the healthcare reform legislation.
Second, high premiums:
It appears as if this government run healthcare program isn’t as affordable as the government claimed it would be. Many people with pre-existing conditions who currently cannot afford healthcare, may also not be able to afford this program either.
There are going to be meaningful premiums that are going to be required to stay in this plan — premiums in the hundreds of dollars every month,” Popper said. “There are a significant number of people out there with pre-existing conditions who are uninsured, but a significant number of those people … also have limited income. And some of them, while they may need this plan, the premiums may not be something they can afford
The president claimed that this plan would provide affordable healthcare to millions of uninsured Americans, and while there are many American who will possibly benefit from this plan if they are not turned away for lack of funds, there are still going to be millions of Americans who cannot afford the government run healthcare options. How does this help them?
People with the most serious, life threatening illnesses are going to find out the hard way that they may not be able to afford coverage, and even if they can afford the coverage, the government may not be able to afford to take care of them.
Welcome to Obamacare: healthcare rationing and high premiums. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Barack Obama says sealing the border won’t work
Today Barack Obama gave a speech on comprehensive immigration reform and reaffirmed his belief that– much like George W Bush– amnesty for illegals must be included in the reform. He went on to tell those of us who believe that the border should be secured before we even begin to talk about immigration reform that sealing the border “won’t work.”
Even as we are committed to doing what’s necessary to secure our borders, even without passage of the new law, there are those who argue that we should not move forward with any other elements of reform until we have fully sealed our borders,” said Obama. “But our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols. It won’t work. Our borders will not be secure as long as our limited resources are devoted to not only stopping gangs and potential terrorists, but also the hundreds of thousands who attempt to cross each year simply to find work.
I have read that last sentence several times now, and unless I am interpreting it wrong, Barack Obama is stating that we cannot secure our borders because it is too expensive to protect our borders from gangs, terrorists, and those that are seeking work. The implication here is that while we should stop the gangs and the terrorists we should not be stopping people from entering this country illegally if they are just coming here to find work. In other words, the United States has limited resources and cannot afford to crack down on everybody that is sneaking across the borders.
I would like to take a little time out from the subject here to note my amusement that Barack Obama has found an issue on which he actually admits the United States has limited resources, because you would not think that is the case when you look at all if the wasteful spending this regime has been engaged in from the very beginning.
Anyway:
This assertion by Barack Obama that we do not have the money to commit to stopping everyone from crossing the border has me concerned that there are no plans to stop future illegal immigration across the border by people who are looking for work. It doesn’t sound to me as if Barack Obama plans on granting amnesty to illegals already here in return for stopping future illegals from crossing the border. It sounds to me like Barack Obama is willing to let anyone who claims they are looking for work to cross the border even after comprehensive immigration reform is passed.
I would argue that while people who are illegally crossing the border to look for work pose a threat that is not as serious as gangs or terrorists, it is a serious threat nonetheless. We have millions of Americans who are unemployed and have been for months. Infusing these illegal aliens who are looking for work with American citizens who are looking for work will only make it harder for out of work Americans to find jobs. While the illegals who are coming here for the sole purpose of finding work may be benign themselves, the effect they will have on the American economy is not.
The last think that the United States needs during this economic turmoil is more people coming to this country illegally, looking for jobs and taking the few jobs that are out there away from the American citizens who are also looking for work.
Barack Obama claims that we do not have the resources to crack down on illegals who are coming to this country to find work, but I disagree because America can not afford to let people who come here illegally take jobs away from honest, hardworking Americans who will find it increasingly harder to find work if these illegals are continually allowed to come to this country and steal jobs away from hungry Americans.
Barack Obama doesn’t think we can afford to stop illegals looking for work from entering the country; I do not think that we can afford to continue to let these illegals enter the country.
As a candidate Barack Obama opposed economic commissions, but as president he created four of them
Senator McCain’s first answer to this economic crisis was – get ready for it – a commission. That’s Washington-speak for ‘we’ll get back to you later.'”
“Folks, we don’t need a commission to spend a few years and a lot of taxpayer money to tell us what’s going on in our economy,” he continued. “We don’t need a commission to tell us gas prices are high or that you can’t pay your bills. We don’t need a commission to tell us you’re losing your jobs. We don’t need a commission to study this crisis, we need a President who will solve it – and that’s the kind of President I intend to be
Those words were spoken by then presidential candidate Barack Obama back in September of 2008. Barack Obama’s sarcastic and mocking remarks towards John McCain’s suggestion that a commission needed to be formed to look into the economic collapse were meant to show that instead of forming a commission to investigate the collapse, he would be the “hands on” president that would lead us out of the economic crisis, while John McCain would basically punt the issue to a commission.
He claimed that by forming a commission John McCain was saying, “we will get back to you later” but that he would be the kind of president that would be hands on and make the decisions himself– thereby saving time– and would lead us out of the crisis faster than John McCain’s commission could.
He specifically stated, “we don’t need a commission to tell us gas prices are high or that you can’t pay your bills. We don’t need a commission to tell us you’re losing your jobs. We don’t need a commission to study this crisis, we need a President who will solve it.”
So what did Barack Obama do as president to address the economic crisis? What did he do as president to solve the economic crisis in light of the fact that he considered it obvious what the problem was? He formed four economic commissions. As president he apparently thinks it is okay to “get back to you later.” This is 180 degrees opposite of his campaign rhetoric.
We have seen the difference in Barack Obama’s rhetoric and his actions countless times now; whether it is signing a bill laden with thousands of earmarks while claiming that it is time for earmark reform, or whether it is claiming that he did not want to run automobile companies while taking over GM, or whether it is campaigning against wireless wiretaps but continuing them as president, or whether it is GITMO, Iraq, or claiming that he wants to trim the deficit while expanding it, the list goes on and on so this should come as no surprise to anybody.
Barack Obama campaigned as the candidate who would reform Washington; part of that reform would be to eliminate commissions that in his words were meant to delay decisions on important issues such as the failing economy. But as president he has fallen into the same trap that he was so violently opposed to as a candidate.
Barack Obama went to Washington and Washington has changed him, he has not changed Washington. So what happened? Reality set in. It is easy to be against something when you have the luxury of opposing everything, it is not so easy when you actually have to make decisions and are suddenly thrust into a position of responsibility that you were obviously not ready for.
As a candidate his positions did not have consequences– he could say whatever he wanted to– but as president his decisions do come with consequences so he is no longer able to blindly and irresponsibly make claims that he can’t follow up on. Now he has to consider the consequences and that is a consequence that neither he nor his supporters who bought into the whole notion of Barack Obama being a reform candidate bothered to think about.
I am sure that if Barack Obama was ever asked about this change of positions, he would reply “we will get back to you later.”
Barack Obama promised to have the most open, transparent, and honest administration in history. He also promised that he would end the culture in Washington and not be beholden to lobbyists.
According to the liberal group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) Barack Obama has failed on all accounts, and they are asking the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to open up an investigation into the Obama regime’s use of personal email accounts to keep in touch with lobbyists.
CREW is claiming that members of the Obama regime are using personal email accounts to hide the fact that the regime is in touch with lobbyists– contrary to campaign promises of being an open administration which shuns lobbyists and would reform Washington– and they believe that if this is true, the Obama regime has violated federal law.
It is outrageous that White House staff are deliberately using personal email accounts – in violation of the law – to hide the fact that they are in touch with lobbyists,” CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan said in a paper statement. “This is what all the administration’s anti-lobbyist rhetoric gets you – less transparency. Rather than being open and clear about who is influencing White House policy, the White House is trying to hide who it’s really talking to. Even worse, the public is being suckered with lofty rhetoric about the evils of the same lobbyists White House officials are meeting with
There you have it, according to CREW, Barack Obama’s “anti-lobbyist rhetoric” has actually led the regime to be less transparent than they would normally be because they are trying to hide the fact that the regime is engaging in the type of behavior that they campaigned against. The regime is going out of its way to hide its involvement with lobbyists even as it works behind the scenes with them; yet another example of Barack Obama saying one thing while doing the exact opposite.
This is exactly the type of behavior that Barack Obama promised to rectify, yet now he may be engaged in it stealthily.
This is not Darrell Issa and other Republicans calling for this investigation, this is a liberal watchdog group that is now targeting Barack Obama. While Darrell Issa has many legitimate reasons to ask for investigations into Barack Obama’s activity, the regime and the Democrats in congress are easily able to write off the requests for inquiry as right wing vitriol, political wrangling, smearing, and character assassination but they can not so easily brush these charges aside because this is a request from a left leaning organization.
Because this request is coming from a left leaning organization we can rest assured that this is not a politically motivated request. More than likely there is something to this or else CREW wouldn’t even bother moving forward. But there is only one way to be sure– let the investigation begin!
While the second amendment victory that the Supreme Court handed down earlier this week on the Chicago handgun ban was a major victory because it reaffirmed the rights of all citizens to keep and bear arms regardless of where they live– the first time that the Supreme Court has ruled the second amendment is an individual right– it was also disappointing because it did not strike down the Chicago handgun ban outright.
Even though this ruling did not strike down the Chicago handgun ban, this decision opened the door for more challenges in court of other gun restrictions, because the Supreme Court ruled that while some “common sense” gun restrictions were constitutional, outright bans and overly restrictive gun laws were not.
However, the court did not rule on what type of laws were “common sense” and what laws would be considered overly restrictive and unconstitutional. This opens the door to other challenges of gun restrictions that will be taken on a one by one basis and decided individually.
We are now finding out what the first challenge will be. The Second Amendment Foundation– the very same group that brought forward the challenge on the Chicago handgun ban– is now readying its next challenge. They plan to challenge North Carolina’s law that allows the state government to ban all weapons during a declared state of emergency.
Through this lawsuit in North Carolina, we intend to show that state emergency powers statutes that allow government officials to suspend fundamental civil rights, including the right to bear arms, are unconstitutional and therefore should be nullified,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.
“Citizens do not surrender their civil rights just because of a natural or man-made disaster
This seems like a very logical choice for the next challenge because there are two main arguments that many gun control advocates make in order to validate their opinion; first, the term “militia” refers to what today would be called the National Guard and all other branches of the military and not the people themselves, and second; that the second amendment was written during a time in which there were foreign nations still present in the country, therefore the second amendment was written strictly to defend the United States against foreign aggression on our own soil, and that it was also written during a time when Americans still feared that the federal government could easily– and probably would eventually– become tyrannical if not for the “militia” always ready to take up arms against the government. These people believe that for this reason the second amendment is outdated and irrelevant in today’s America.
The Chicago handgun decision ended once and for all the first argument I stated when it ruled that the second amendment was an individual right, and if this North Carolina challenge is won, it will show that the government does not have the right to declare an emergency in which it will be allowed to infringe on civil rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, thereby destroying the argument that the second amendment is irrelevant because the government can not step in and take away our rights in today’s America, because that is exactly what the North Carolina law does.
North Carolina actually used a snowstorm as an excuse to pass this law. Imagine that, a person is not allowed to defend himself because it is snowing outside!?
It would seem to me that if a state of emergency was declared in North Carolina and mobs and riots broke out and people were looting stores, that people would have more of a need to defend themselves, their property, and their businesses, but this law does the exact opposite. While unlawful people are looting and rioting with weapons of all kinds, law abiding citizens are not allowed to defend themselves on the streets if need be.
This is just the beginning, this is next lawsuit of many to come and it is going to be interesting to see how far the court is willing to go in upholding a person’s right to keep and bear arms. Momentum is on the side of the people and on the side of the constitution.
America's Watchtower 