The Morans over at FR are now having a hissyfit since they 'discovered' that the 'real' reason for ACA is so the gubmint' kin git a list of all yourn names who has gunz and then take 'em away!!


Ammoland ^ | June 28, 2012 | Ammoland.com

Posted on Friday, June 29, 2012 3:02:14 PM by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost

Led by feckless chief Justice John Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court today upheld the ObamaCare law by a 5-to-4 decision, with Roberts voting with liberals Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan.



While the decision means many harmful things for the American public, the Second Amendment community remains greatly affected, as the law requires Americans’ medical information to be culled and entered into a national database.



Centralizing these medical records will allow the FBI to troll a list of Americans for ailments such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) to deny them their gun rights, in the same way that the Veterans Administration has already denied more than 150,000 veterans their right to bear arms.

It's a thing of 'beauty'. First up was Lindsay Graham, so pissed off that he could barely talk (literally). He was red in the face and everything. "It's a tax increase - really- it's a tax increase". Then, Megan (I'm a blonde lawyer) Kelly now firming up the other talking point de jour - that since public displeasure (i.e. Town Halls) was instrumental in getting Rethugs elected in 2010, we're now going to have a whole new summer of Town Halls now, which will sweep Democrats from Congress. The Murdock-Fux news plan is twofold:

1- Keep repeating that, since the USSCt found the authority to fund the ACA was based on Congress' TAXING authority, that the ACA is now a MASSIVE TAX INCREASE. (I found that meme repeated by eight people in less than an hour watching Fux)

2- Try and gin up false public outrage again like the manufactured Town Halls of 2010. Get the people scared about the unknown and LIE to them once again about death panels, and, of course MASSIVE TAX INCREASES.

3 - It's just a MASSIVE TAX INCREASE

REPEAT AND REPEAT AD NAUSEAM

How are are we ever going to be able to overcome the huge disparity of reporting in the MSM which is critical of Obama and non-critical for Romney? Watching tonite's news shows on a variety of channels I was struck (and more than a little discouraged) by the overwhelmingly critical reporting re Obama's truncated statement that the 'private sector was doing fine'. To say it got beaten to death would be a polite understatement. Compare and contrast that with the glaring free pass the Romney gets for not only stupid statements (like his bitching about Obama wanting to 'hire more teachers, firemen and policemen') but also for his many outright lies, as documented by Rachel last night. Every broadcast station - ABC, CBS, NBC as well as the cable networks CNN and MSNBC seem to be getting their scripts right from Rove's playbook. If we add to that all the truly vicious partisan propaganda now freely allowed under Citizens United it becomes an almost insurmountable amount of negative information repeated over and over and over, ad infinitum. And, as Josef Goebbels pointed out years ago, for propaganda to be effective it must, above all, be repeated over and over and over.

Seeing as this election will depend in the final analysis on our persuading the so-called Independent voters to vote for Obama, how are we ever going to be able to counter this deluge of slanted coverage designed to convince the disinterested, disengaged or low-information voters that they should vote against Obama (not FOR Romney) in November? I for one confess I haven't a clue.

Are they under some kind of DOS attack?

Honest to God real radio ad sent me by a RRW relative, who thinks it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. According to him, the 'best part' starts at about 40 seconds into the ad. The ad in total runs about 1:10.

http://biggeekdad.com/2011/10/kellers-riverside-store/

'laryngitis'. Bummer. He let his fame go to his head. Now he's basically burned his last bridge - I can't imagine he'll be doing anything in TV again. What a shame.

Is is possible that Clarence (Slappy) Thomas is really just an outstanding piece of animatronics that walks, sits, nods and falls asleep on the bench? Examining the evidence is seems that for 6 years now Thomas has not been heard to utter a word during oral argument at any of the cases the Supreme Court has accepted. The position that he is really only an Animatron is also given credence by the similarity of his "opinions" to that of "Fat Tony the Enforcer". Thomas rarely seems to have a thought of his own, content to parrot back whatever Scalia regurgitates. And note the animatronic inability to check a simple box on his financial disclosure documents, although years before (when Thomas was actually a living, breathing human) he was able to check the box without difficulty. No, all of this points to the inescapable conclusion that, at some point Thomas was replaced by a RW-programmed Animatronic Justice, worth of inclusion in Disney World. Too bad it's on our highest court instead.

Adam Winkler (Professor of Law at UCLA) has a provocative argument in today's Huffington Post which makes a lot of sense to me. In essence he argues that the rosy expectations that Scalia (and possibly Roberts) might be in play due to some language in prior rulings are not realistic. And he also goes on to show why he believes that Kennedy, the swing vote will vote against the ACA. Worth reading.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/no-surprise-the-supreme-c_b_1384859.html

Source: FAUX NEWS

Faux News at 7:05 this evening announced that former VP Dick Cheney had a successful heart transplant in a Virginia Hospital.

Read more: Link to source

---

According to Faux News tonite, former President Dick Cheney for the first time in his adult life has a heart. He somehow managed to bypass other candidates on the heart transplant list to get a donor (human) heart, which was implanted successfully under cover of strict secrecy in a Virginia Hospital. More news to follow.

Listen to the voice of a well-respected retired Federal Judge, H. Lee Sarokin (in today's Huffington Post):

"Imagine this scenario: a man shoots and kills someone. He tells the police he was temporarily insane at the time. So they say "OK you can go home and take your gun with you," because they can't contradict his claim of insanity at the time of the killing. Ridiculous?...Am I missing something here? The only evidence of self-defense comes from the person who shot the victim. Doesn't he have a motive to lie?... What is undisputed is that George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Whether or not there is a valid defense to that shooting is not a determination to be made by police -- particularly when based solely on the word of the shooter.

It would be unfair to reach any conclusions about Mr. Zimmerman's guilt at this stage, but it is likewise unfair to Trayvon Martin and his family to find Zimmerman innocent. It sounds as though Mr. Zimmerman admitted the shooting, said it was self-defense, and the police accepted his version and sent him home with the gun used in the shooting! Suppose there is evidence that a man committed a murder and he claims to have an alibi -- and "there is no evidence to contradict the alibi"? Does he go free or is he charged and required to present competent and believable evidence of the alibi. The shooting here is admitted. Charges must be filed and the defense has to be proven -- not accepted based solely upon the version of the perpetrator."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/george-zimmerman-self-defense_b_1374135.html

Having the STATE required to prove that the DEFENDANT was not reasonably in fear for his life is the most ridiculous shifting of the traditional burden of proof one could imagine. It only leads to misinterpretations, intentional and otherwise of the intent of the statute which may well permit wrongdoers to walk free. Talk about "legal technicalities".