Got this from a friend. Make of it what you will.
Support Our Troops & Allies
The Wayback Machine revs up in time for today’s SCOTUS examination of the individual mandate.
Here’s looking at your illogic Mr. Pres**ent.
(He was against individual mandate before he was for it. Sound familiar?)
Take your pick.
Actually, you don’t have to. The oversized federal government is doing it all – just for you. And to you. Us, that is.
Can we shrink government now? It has proven it will not follow the Law of the Land, our Constitution. So, they are completely lawless. Throw them in jail.
Apparently, it’s no longer a question.
Here’s a few recent items:
So what we have here is NJ’s Governor vetoes a bill where MD’s Governor is (almost) ecstatic that he may soon sign into law a “marriage equality” legislation package.
But what the heck is a “conditional veto”? Is that a Jersey thing?
Anyway, what does it matter anymore since the DOJ is now deciding it won’t have anything to do with enforcing any legislation having to do with or against “marriage” of any kind? Is it the stench of the Fast And Furious scandal that soured the taste of any type of law enforcement? (cough) Naw, that can’t be it. Or, is it that the DOJ won’t even bother with allegations of voter initimidation? (hack cough) Naw, DOJ is too busy suing states they claim are breaking NVRA (National Voting Rights Act) laws in preparation for the November 2012 elections? Hhhmm, don’t know, what do you think? In fact, when was the last time the DOJ actually enforced constitutional laws anyway?
Psst, isn’t marriage a religious Sacrament? Why would the Government have anything to say or do about that anyway?
“Congress shall make no law …..” Now where is that phrase found? Oh yeah.
The First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.
How about that.
No kidding. This Pres**ent and Administration, especially including Hillary Clinton, have absolutely no real regard for the ENTIRE U.S. Consitution. They pick and choose. They know the truth, but won’t admit that to the public.
They cannot be trusted.
Besides the GatewyPundit article linked above, listen/watch the video here.
Just how “rational” is Hillary when saying – when was the last time you saw a deer wearing Kevlar?
If the U.S. Constitution is The Law of The Land, then why should a treaty over-ride our Constitution’s Laws?
Answer that one.
Susan G Komeen Foundation cuts off funds to Planned Parenthood, then restores it. Under pressure.
Michigan Governor Dayton refers to the state’s legislature as “extreme” when they press to have a Right To Work Law put to Referendum, bypassing him, for the sake of the people. In other words, preventing union leaders from taking funds from employees by forcing them to pay dues whether members or not.
So, am I confused? No.
Exactly when did it become “mainstream” to take money without permission (and it isn’t a tax, by the way) as well as force an organization to restore voluntary donations because the recipient feels slighted???????
There is somethimng seriously wrong with this picture. At least the Michigan legislature is trying to do the right thing for the people. PP? Don’t ask me.
This Washington Times article is part of a series where Emily Miller is attempting to purchase and obtain a handgun that meets the criteria specified by D.C. lawmakers.
This might make one decide whether to live in, or leave, our nations Capital.
Sheesh. So much for the Heller decision.
Remember that company? The one that the Obama regime bailed out (even though they would still close down)?
Well so do a lot of us.
That’s criminal. How do you like your change now?
Remember in November 2012. And here’s an ad by the Americans For Prosperity to help you remember.
Will someone in D.C. please look up the definition of treason in the Mirriam-Webster Dictionary now?
A Hot Air article titled – “Mickey Mouse” is free to petition for Scott Walker’s recall – talks of the Wisconsin government board that will accept the signatures of “Mickey Mouse” and even “Adolf Hitler” on petitions for a recall election.
As long as they are properly dated, they say.
What I say is that, if this stands, any and every legal document that requires your signature will then be highly questionable and likely null and void – should you employ a signature other than your name.
This is highly irregular and should be disallowed. Any lawyer care to weigh in?