Mr VJP

Laugh now Steve. You will not be laughing when you see how easy it will now be for the Fed to determine what you no longer have any right to do. I never cease to be amazed by how little foresight the majority of America's electorate has. As I said prior, the US Constitution has just been rendered meaningless. The next attack will be on the 2nd Amendment, then the 1st Amendment, and continually move on from there. If not for my own progeny, I really wouldn't care about the rest of the fools in this land who deserve the oppression that will eventually engulf all of them.

Even if Roberts sided with the dissenting 3, the ruling would still be the same.

“More importantly, the Court forgets that ours is a government of laws and not of men. That means we are governed by the terms of our laws, not by the unenacted will of our lawmakers. ‘If Congress enacted into law something different from what it intended, then it should amend the statute to conform to its intent.’ In the meantime, this Court ‘has no roving license … to disregard clear language simply on the view that … Congress ‘must have intended’ something broader.” Justice Scalia

The Supreme Court has handed down a controversial decision in regards to Affordable Care Act subsidies. The ruling is a major victory for the Obama administration and saves the law the clutches of doom. The 6-3 decision in King v. Burwell allows for federal subsidies on state healthcare exchanges established by the federal government under the ACA. However, the law itself states that only exchanges established by states would be eligible for subsidies. Those arguing on behalf of the subsidies to the exchanges said that the particular passage of the law shouldn’t be read literally. In a demonstration of twisted logic, the majority has held that the word “State” should be considered in its “context” rather than its actual meaning. The Court has effectively rewritten the law to save it. The decision has left Justice Antonin Scalia searing and his dissent was scathing. “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State,’” he wrote. Scalia implied the Court was more concerned with political motives than doing their jobs. “Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved,” the dissent says. Scalia went on to say that if Congress did a poor job drafting the law, that is was not the Court’s problem. In his opinion, it is up to the Congress to save Obamacare, not the Supreme Court. This isn’t the first time the Court has rewritten the ACA to save it. Three years ago, when Obamacare first went to the Supreme Court, in the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Chief Justice Roberts saved the law by interpreting its penalty for those without insurance as a tax. This ruling came despite the fact that the word “tax” was not used in the ACA and the law did not pass Congress as a tax bill. Now the Court has done it again, and in doing they create a dangerous precedence. The Court is not supposed to write law, only determine its constitutionality. As Scalia stated, the Congress is responsible for writing laws and if one is written poorly it is not the Court’s concern. Scalia’s lament is sadly on target. We are becoming a society where words have no meaning. A consequence of this will be governments with no constraints. Today will be remembered as the day the US Constitution DIED!

I thought that title would get a lot of folk's attention. Nothing sinister here though. I wanted to post one of my favorite quotes for all to think about. It might be of value to a lot of folks. ATTITUDE The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, than education, than money, than circumstances, than failures, than successes, than what other people say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness, or skill. It will make or break a company… a church … a home. The remarkable thing is we have a choice everyday regarding the attitude we will embrace for the day. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude. I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% how I react. And so it is with you … we are in charge of our attitudes. Charles Swindoll

If you are a fan of the 16 gauge, as I am, you may enjoy this info. http://www.16ga.com/history.html

I wonder what camo pattern the marketing people will say is best for hunting coyote at night?

With all due respect, you're not always very good at making points I guess. Based on your past history of sarcasm and innuendo, one tends to assume more of it in your posts. Especially when you are directly quoting someone. Better to not post what can be understood. Try to post what cannot be misunderstood.

Caring what you post and setting the record straight are different things. A man prone to calling other's liar's is usually the one who practices it most. Call me out whenever you like. that's what debate is about. Although intelligent debaters do not stoop to calling their opponents names, unless they are of very low I.Q. and vocabulary. If you care about propaganda and other lies, you really should be quite incensed with Progressives, Liberals, Leftists and Obama. I don't see any posts from you calling any of them out though. Perhaps you only care about lies that do not support your political bent.

Once again, they're trying not to let a good crises go to waste. There are lots of agenda issues they hope to win with this culture war they have started. But you can only push people so far, before they will start to push back. The Leftist media is playing with fire.

That was not protest, It's an astute observation about today's political reality. Maybe you don't protest enough. Haven't you gotten tired of bending over yet? So what does this say about the future meaning of our country's flag. Will they be demanding this symbol be taken down as well after they change it's meaning? Wake up people. http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/06/24/farrakhan-i-dont-get-debate-over-confederate-flag-we-need-to-put-the-american-flag-down/

The only difference is the Leftists decide who gets a pass.

Conservatives are racist. Republicans are racist. People who don't like Obama's policies are racist. All Whites are racist. Police Officers are all racist. People who support the Police are racist. People who don't have a problem with a minority being rightfully arrested, or even killed, for trying to kill a cop, are racist. The NRA is racist. Gun owners are racist. Hunters are racist. Southerners are racist. Bikers are racist. Affluent people are racist. Flags are racist. Anyone who says they are not racist, is racist. Of course, none of that is reality or even close to the truth, but the people who have a vested interest in stoking the fires of racism know, if you tell a lie often enough and long enough, many people will begin to believe it's true. And when that happens, the race hustlers can have their way with all of you.

They will never do that Papist. They would have to ban the Democrat Party.

I know they aren't blaming the flag for the shooting, but it's obvious they are using the shooting in the time honored Progressive manner of never letting a good crises go to waste. You can bet when anything bad happens in this land, leftists will show no shame in tying it to one of their oppressive goals.

It's merely political grandstanding at the expense of freedom, free speech and freedom of choice. Nobody in America has a right not to be offended. But if we allow things to progress down this path, many things may become illegal or banned on the altar of political correctness. What bothers me most, is the obvious fact many people are trying to blame all manner of things, like gun ownership, concealed carry, flags, conservatives, Republicans, all whites, etc. etc., for what this one murderous kid did. It seems they blame everything but him. We are chastised for blaming any secular group for the actions of one of it's members, but those same folks are quick to blame entire groups of people for the actions of one person when it propels their political agenda. If the ban on selling the Confederate flag expands, you will only be able to buy one on the black market. How ironic! (That's humor, in case you weren't sure)

Steve, with all due respect, it seems to me you are not capable of getting the point.

Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals is the late work of community organizer Saul D. Alinsky, and his last book, published in 1971 shortly before his death. His goal for the Rules for Radicals was to create a guide for future community organizers to use in uniting low-income communities, or "Have-Nots", in order to empower them to gain social, political, and economic equality by challenging the current agencies that promoted their inequality.[1] Within it, Alinsky compiled the lessons he had learned throughout his personal experiences of community organizing spanning from 1939-1971 and targeted these lessons at the current, new generation of radicals.[2] Divided into ten chapters, each chapter of Rules for Radicals provides a lesson on how a community organizer can accomplish the goal of successfully uniting people into an active organization with the power to effect change on a variety of issues. Though targeted at community organization, these chapters also touch on a myriad of other issues that range from ethics, education, communication, and symbol construction to nonviolence and political philosophy.[3] Though published for the new generation of counterculture-era organizers in 1971, Alinsky's principles have been successfully applied over the last four decades by numerous government, labor, community, and congregation-based organizations, and the main themes of his organizational methods that were elucidated upon in Rules for Radicals have been recurring elements in political campaigns in recent years. Rules for RadicalsIn 1971, Saul Alinsky wrote an entertaining classic on grassroots organizing titled Rules for Radicals. Those who prefer cooperative tactics describe the book as out-of-date. Nevertheless, it provides some of the best advice on confrontational tactics. Alinsky begins this way: What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away. His “rules” derive from many successful campaigns where he helped poor people fighting power and privilege For Alinsky, organizing is the process of highlighting what is wrong and convincing people they can actually do something about it. The two are linked. If people feel they don’t have the power to change a bad situation, they stop thinking about it. According to Alinsky, the organizer — especially a paid organizer from outside — must first overcome suspicion and establish credibility. Next the organizer must begin the task of agitating: rubbing resentments, fanning hostilities, and searching out controversy. This is necessary to get people to participate. An organizer has to attack apathy and disturb the prevailing patterns of complacent community life where people have simply come to accept a bad situation. Alinsky would say, “The first step in community organization is community disorganization.” Through a process combining hope and resentment, the organizer tries to create a “mass army” that brings in as many recruits as possible from local organizations, churches, services groups, labor unions, corner gangs, and individuals. Alinsky provides a collection of rules to guide the process. But he emphasizes these rules must be translated into real-life tactics that are fluid and responsive to the situation at hand. Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do. Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat. Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat. Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.” Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.” Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues. Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.” Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation. Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?” Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame. According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.” The only conclusion one can come to about adopting these tactics, is overthrow of the current system. These "rules" are currently being used in an attempt to destroy the US Constitution and the Rule of Law. To me, anyone wishing to overthrow the current Constitutional system of government we are supposed to be living under, is a traitor.

Like I said Blackie, I was asked to do a favor for someone and I obliged. I couldn't care less about it's veracity, nor your post. With all due respect, of course. I would point out that the list actually seems to indicate exactly what Obama has been doing since he's been President.

The flag debate strikes me as particularly ironic. Lately we have seen instances of people protesting the American flag by stomping it into the ground, yet the Left has no problem with that. Today I even read an article about a college professor who wants to ban the AMERICAN flag, because it's a racist symbol. I find people who find the Confederate flag offensive, while ignoring disrespect of the American flag, to be a special kind of stupid.

With all due respect..... big·ot·ry ˈbiɡətrē/ noun intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Another member asked me to copy and paste this to the forums for him. Always glad to help out. 8 Levels of Control (this is scary) AND.....TAKE HEED!!! Rules for Radicals, Reveille for Radicals S aul Alinsky died about 43 years ago, but his writings influenced those in political control of our nation today....... Recall that Hillary did her college thesis on his writings and Obama writes about him in his books. Died: June 12, 1972, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Ca Education: University of Chicago Spouse: Irene Alinsky Books: Rules for Radicals, Reveille for Radicals Anyone out there think that this stuff isn't happening today in the U.S.? All eight rules are currently in play . How to create a social state by Saul Alinsky: There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important. 1) Healthcare– Control healthcare and you control the people 2) Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live. 3) Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty. 4) Gun Control– Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state. 5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income) 6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school. 7) Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor. Does any of this sound like what is happening to the United States ? Alinsky merely simplified Vladimir Lenin's original scheme for world conquest by communism, under Russian rule. Stalin described his converts as "Useful Idiots." The Useful Idiots have destroyed every nation in which they have seized power and control. It is presently happening at an alarming rate in the U.S. If people can read this and still say everything is just fine… they are “useful idiots. "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."

With all due respect.......Wow. This is generalization at it's worst. I hope you can look at this comment objectively and see the bigotry you yourself harbor towards affluent people. The only difference between most wealthy people and middle class people is they have more options. Nothing more. It is quite possible the State would allocate 2 extra tags for auction, just to get the big money a couple of affluent people could contribute to the state's conservation efforts. Those tags might not ever be allocated otherwise. It's the state that decides to do auctions for tags, not wealthy hunters. I would direct my hatred of tag auctions at the legislature, not the hunters. If you think the hunters can buy your elected officials, you should be still directing your anger at the lawmakers for taking bribes or selling out.

With all due respect, how is it much more complicated?

Blue states do not believe in the US Constitution being the law of the land, nor do they believe in Rule of Law. The horrifying part is, they seem to be getting away with it. It took the SCOTUS over 30 years to find Washington D.C.'s gun control laws to be unconstitutional.