Second Amendment Parsing by the Biased Media

Since Trumps rally in NH yesterday, the media has been having a field day accusing him of suggesting that 2nd amendment advocates might take action into their own hands and commit an act of violence against her. To anyone who actually listened to his speech and listened to it in context to the rest of the few paragraphs before and after, it would be nothing more than it was  --  a suggestion that 2nd amendment advocates are a strong voting block which should band together to vote for him rather than Hillary.

Of course the blathering media chooses not to see it this way and becomes riotous in their condemnation of Trump. They are taking every opportunity to excoriate Trump and anyone on the right side of the isle when they give the leftists a total pass.  How do we know this?  Consider the words of Obama and Hillary themselves of which I was reminded by Gary Bauer...

In 2008, then-candidate Obama urged his supporters to "argue with neighbors, get in their faces," and the media yawned. Obama also said, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." When conservatives suggested such rhetoric might encourage violence, Obama and the media laughed it off. End of story from the fawning media.

Now here's a far more interesting comparison. In May of 2008, at a time when Hillary was losing the Democrat primary to Obama and facing increasing calls to bow out of the race, she was asked why she insisted on staying in. She said, "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

Was she suggesting that she might benefit from Barack Obama's assassination? Of course not, and the media moved on.

Yet Trump, innocently makes the suggestion that 2nd amendment supporters are a strong voting block and should band together and he gets castigated.  They make no mention of his economic plan which is sound and will greatly help increase the GDP, bring capital back into the country, bring manufacturing back to the US and help return the large block of workers who have left the labor force back into the ranks of the employed.  Hillary on the other hand, actually makes the declarative statement that she is going to raise taxes, not only on the wealthy, but in her own words, "on the middle class".  Hear the media taking her to task for this?  Hear the media hammering her on her outright lie that Director Comey found her to be truthful?  Do we hear anything from the media about how the absolutely wrong statements by Obama and Hillary about how well the economy is doing when we continue to suffer through the worst recession recovery in our lifetimes?  NO, all we hear is the media going on and on about what they perceive Trump to have meant by a single statement.
Do we hear any comparisons from the media between the rally's Trump holds which are not only packed, but place speakers outside the halls so the overflow crowd can listen as well while the Hillary rally's are so poorly populated that many are cancelled?  Not a peep.

I will be the first to admit that this election cycle has sunk to the point that both candidates are completely flawed, but it really burns me as I watch how one side is being so over scrutinized while the other side is getting a total pass by what is supposed to be a "neutral" media.



This is a campaign which will boil down to which flawed candidate has the best interests of America at heart and which of the candidates has the greatest ability to reform and lead the country out of the economic doldrums of the Obama policies.  Regardless of which you think will do the best job, your decision should NOT be based on the parsed editorials of a transparently biased media which believes they can spoon feed their bias to an uneducated public.  Rise up America and do the research so you can think for yourself.

THE TRUE COST OF OBAMA CARE

Yesterday the SCOTUS heard the King vs. Burwell case concerning the legality of ObamaCare subsidies in states which did not establish individual coops. While the judges questioning and commentary doesn't lend itself to an indication of how they will rule in June, it was an interesting case ion which the justices went to what I consider extremes to justify their seemingly preconceived positions.

Regardless of the outcome, the bottom line is that ObamaCare is EXTREMELY BAD law EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE and doesn't begin to cut costs or solve the issue of the uninsured. Because of this it should be repealed immediately.

Here is a true estimation of the costs involved...

http://dailysignal.com/2015/…/04/damaging-effects-obamacare/

THRASHING THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Yesterday the President, while speaking at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada made the following statement, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”. I have to wonder what this has to do with Mexico and Canada and why it would be of interest to them.

More importantly, the question which comes to mind is why does our President who claims to be a “Constitutional law expert” not understand that the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches share “equal power”? The President further thrashed the Supreme Court when he questioned how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by Congress and that to do so would be an “unprecedented abuse of power”. This comes from a constitutional Law Professor? How is it "unprecedented"? Congress passes laws and if there is a question about their legality the questions are brought before the SCOTUS for review and legal ruling. There are many examples of unconstitutional laws which were passed by congress being overturned. Since when is it an “abuse of power” to overturn an unconstitutional law? In fact, isn’t this the reason the SCOTUS exists?

I find his statement appalling, especially considering this is the President who said last December, “What I’m not going to do is wait for Congress. So whenever we have an opportunity and I have the executive authority to go ahead and get some things done, we’re just going to go ahead and do them”. He is doing this irrespective of whether the people’s duly elected representatives have a say in the matter. Why isn’t the Presidents circumvention of congress considered an abuse of power?

The President went on to state that the “Act” was passed by an overwhelming majority. I am not going to quibble about what constitutes an overwhelming majority, but as I recall the vote in the house was 219 to 212. Personally I don’t consider this to be an “overwhelming majority”. In fact, the bill was only able to be passed in the dead of night by virtue of a manipulation of an arcane rule of the Senate. In reality, a legitimate case can be made that the method in which it was passed is an abuse of power perpetrated against the American citizens. This abuse was answered in the 2010 election when the citizens of America voted overwhelmingly to remove candidates who voted in favor of the Obama cares Act. It seems more reasonable to infer that a clear majority of the American people are not in favor of the Presidents signature legislation.

Due to the majority he enjoyed in the legislative branch and the legislative leaders willingness to push his initiatives using any method possible, the President has ruled with impunity. He has pushed his agenda without any consideration of the constitutionality of his actions. Come June when the court rules on the legality of the “Obama Cares Act” it may just be the time for President Obama to find that his abuse of the Constitution has been stopped in its tracks.