Gun Control according to Bill O'Reilly

Bill O'Reilly demonstrated profound ignorance yesterday when he went on this rant about how all sales of "heavy" weapons need to be reported to the Federal government. This opinion was espoused in reaction to the shooting in the theater in Aurora Colorado. He slathered on about thousands of rounds of ammo, bazookas, and grenades, lumping them all into one apocalyptic pile. Surely, Bill exclaimed in his most narcissistic demeanor, "The FBI would have been alerted to the Aurora Colorado theater shooter if they saw he was stockpiling all this dangerous ammunition." Confidently Bill stated, the authorities would have tracked the purchases and would have interviewed him and discovered he was a nut-job and this tragedy would have been avoided. Wow. That's pretty amazing considering the great job the authorities are doing now to protect us on our national borders as well as within our cities. Rising up on his podium, nostrils flaring, smoke emanating from his ears, O'Reilly then exclaimed that these days people could buy fully automatic machine guns, and the Feds would have no way of knowing about it. He mocked and excoriated his guest on the show for suggesting that Colorado already had very strict gun laws, that you couldn't just go out and buy a Class III weapon, and that there were constitutional concerns as well as privacy concerns if anything like what O'Reilly was advocating were actually implemented. I thought this was just the same old bloviating I'm used to seeing, but watching The Factor today, I sadly realized it's much worse. Today, in the segment of the show where O'Reilly reads emails he's received, a viewer said that "The devil is in the details. What do you mean by "heavy" weapons?" , to which O'Reilly responded that "Congress will define what they (heavy weapons) are. That's the job of Congress." The only thing I can figure out is that O'Reilly must have been drinking from the same water fountain as Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

American Dhimmi

Pat Condell is an Atheist.  And he's very proud of it.  That's the only thing which prevents me from otherwise really liking Pat.  I do have a great respect for him, and have found that he is a moral person of great integrity.  Other than our difference of opinion as to the existence of a Deity, I find myself in agreement with what he says. In this video, he talks about the Islamic concept of Dhimmi, a reference to all non-Muslims who are treated as second class citizens and subservient to Islam through Sharia Law.  He sets forth the proposition that our President sees himself as Dhimmi.  The implications are alarming.  Draw your own conclusions.

The SCOTUS ObamaCare Decision

Having been a trial lawyer for over 30 years, and having taught Constitutional Law, many of my friends have asked my opinion of Justice Roberts' decision on ObamaCare.  They have asked me to review a blog  written by attorney Richard Bolen, of Lexington, Kentucky, which suggests a positive spin to the decision and purports to give us hope the Republic will be saved. (You can "Google" it folks, I'm not going to print the whole thing here).  To all of my friends, and to Mr. Bolen, I say "RUBBISH".  There is no silver lining to this decision.  As a retired lawyer and one who certainly knows more about the Constitution than Barack Obama, I can tell you this decision has severely damaged the reputation of the Court, but more importantly has fundamentally changed the nature of the relationship between "We the People" and government.  Justice Roberts had to re-write the statute, and define a tax where none was to be found.  He expanded the taxing authority of Congress beyond any definition of a tax authority found in the Constitution.  His decision was not based on the Commerce Clause.  And indeed, because the taxing authority formed the basis for this decision, the Commerce Clause didn't even have to be considered.  Anything Justice Roberts said about the Commerce Clause, was as we lawyers call it, mere "dicta".  I submit that anytime in the future, all of the big-government State-ists can pass a new law, again not call it a tax, and argue it is constitutional under the Commerce Clause, so they won't be accused of raising taxes.  We are now screwed both ways.  Our very freedom is now in jeopardy for Justice Roberts has given the green light to government to tax "in-activity".  What is to stop the government from imposing a tax on you if you don't by a Chevy Volt? Or if you're overweight? The possibilities are endless.  The only way to save us from truly becoming another socialist society with all it's implications is to defeat Obama in November and immediately repeal ObamaCare.  America is bleeding out financially and unless we apply a tourniquet, the future is bleak for the patient.

The Impact of ObamaCare: Taxing Your Firearms/Ammo out of Existence

Conservatives still reeling from Chief Justice John Roberts's decision to uphold the 2,700-page ObamaCare legislation as a Federal tax are rightly worried that Roberts opened the door to unlimited Federal coercion of the American public through the tax code. One possibility that should generate grave concern is that the Federal government could use to the tax code to undermine the Supreme Court's landmark decisions affirming Second Amendment rights in Heller v. D.C. and McDonald v. Chicago. This is not a new idea; it is an old one. The New York Times reported in 1993 that the late Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan (D-NY) proposed adding a 10,000% Federal tax to 9mm handgun ammunition as part of "HillaryCare." Yes, you read that correctly; it is not a typo. Ten thousand percent. Did John Roberts just open the door for a future Democratic Congress to actually enact such a tax as part of ObamaCare? Of course, like most left-wing Democratic proposals, the truly rich would be unaffected. The goal of the gun-controllers has never been total disarmament, just the disarmament of the common man. The rich will always have a loophole, a political connection, or be able to hire private armed security firms. A truly wealthy person – say, a Warren Buffett – could easily pay a 10,000 per cent tax on a box of handgun ammunition, and it would be an absolute bargain if he ever had to use it to save his life. But most people would probably not be able to afford it – and they'd just have to submit to the will of the armed criminal who stole his ammunition or purchased it on the black market without paying the tax. (It may be recalled that, when the FDR administration was trying to circumvent the Second Amendment with the National Firearms Act that would be passed in 1934, a sympathetic SCOTUS justice suggested they could do so by couching it as a tax, albeit a prohibitive one.) http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/can_government_now_tax_handgun_ammunition_10000.html