BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Heller Decision – No Individual Right to Bear Arms

Washington, D.C. The White House. June 30, 2015:

To say it was a shock that Antonin Scalia announced his immediate resignation from the Supreme Court as soon as the new Congress was sworn in would be a huge understatement. There had been inklings that medical issues would force Scalia to step down, but nobody had taken them that seriously.

But that was nothing like the shock when Barack Obama immediately nominated Eric Holder to fill his position. The Senate, which was evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, deadlocked on party lines, leaving it to Joe Biden to cast the deciding vote that put Holder on the Supreme Court.

The Soros groups moved quickly, bringing multiple cases challenging the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that “the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.” The Obama dominated lower federal courts fast-tracked the decision to the Supreme Court, and by a five to four vote, the Supreme Court overturned Heller, ruling that the Second Amendment applied to bearing arms as part of a state militia and only as part of a state militia. Veteran court observers were shocked with the triumphant, and near sneering, tone adopted by Justice Holder, the deciding vote, as he read portions of the majority decision from the bench on the last day of the session.

Later that day, Justice Holder joined President Obama in Obama’s private study adjacent to the oval office, where several bottles of champagne chilled in silver ice buckets. A knock on the door, and Obama’s secretary peeks her head in and says, “she’s here.” Obama, replies with a big grin on her face “well, let her in; let her in.”  Obama and Holder stand to greet the guest of honor and Obama nodding at the guest says, “Eric, I only thought it would be right to share this moment with the person who made your appointment possible, Jeanne Shaheen.”

As the trio got to work on their third bottle of champagne, Obama asks, “now, now Jeannie, come on, tell us what was the key to your hanging on and beating Scott Brown. It was my get-out-the-vote operation; wasn’t it.”  Shaheen smiled and responded, “well, Mr. President, with all due respect, you really need to thank the New Hampshire GOP for finally making meaningful gun control a reality. Enough of the, shall we call them “no-compromise Republicans,” stayed home or cast a vote for John Stark that I was able to win.”

Obama puts his champagne glass down, and says to Shaheen, slowly, seriously, “You’re telling me that some Republicans in New Hampshire made it possible for me to appoint Eric to the Supreme Court”? Shaheen, her mouth once again filled to the brim with champagne and brie, nods vigorously and after a few moments of rapid chewing and swallowing, giggles and says, “I am, Mr. President.” The three then laugh uproariously for several minutes.  When they finally regain their composure, Holder refills the champagne glasses, and chuckling says “Mr. President, a toast, ….. “to fools.” Three voices in unison, “to fools.”  Glasses clink, champagne is slurped and the sound of laughter echoes through the White House.

Meanwhile at a secret location in Concord, New Hampshire, an emergency meeting of Republican Platform Purity Caucus of New Hampshire:

June Kormier, one of the group’s most vocal members, clears her throat, and nods to Rob Klegg, who was one of the most vociferous advocates during the 2014 election of not voting for Scott Brown. “Rob, this is all the establishment’s fault.  If they hadn’t forced Brown on us we wouldn’t be in this mess.”  Klegg, still as ashen as when he learned about the Supreme Court decision, in a barely audible voice says, “I never thought this would happen.   Iowa was supposed to go Republican. Then Reid used the nuclear option.  I can’t believe it.”

Suddenly the phone rings.  Jimbo Rindell from WNUR is on the line and wants to know the Purity Caucus’s reaction to the rumor that the Governor will be calling the Legislature back in session to address gun-control legislation in light of today’s Supreme Court decision.

Klegg hangs up the phone and glances at Kormier, who has gone from defiant to shaken in a heartbeat.  “What are we going to do, Rob, what are we going to do?”  Klegg casts her a withering glance, “all the polls had Iowa going Republican. We did the right thing. It’s those stupid Hoosiers. I’ll bet they don’t even mandate bariatric surgery in Iowa.”

Suddenly the door crashes in and R.J. Fooell, another vocal leader of the anti-Brown crowd, lands on the floor with a thud, a Glock in each hand.  Rising unsteadily Fooell screams, “this is the establishment’s fault.  By not backing my House Resolution recognizing that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to own M1A1 Abrams tanks and Hellfire missiles, and additionally requiring elementary schools to hold machine-gun shoots, the establishment devalued the Second Amendment.”  Kormier, chimes in, “he’s right Rob; he’s right; this is all the establishment’s fault.”

Fooell then leaps through the nearest window: Klegg and Cormier ducks as glass shatters everywhere.  Fooell then races for his off-road segway, indiscriminately firing his Glocks and shouting, “segway to the sound of the guns.”

Concord, New Hampshire, the steps of the Statehouse, June 30, 2020:

June Kormier and Rob Klegg watch the yearly protest of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Heller. Kormier finally breaks the silence, “well this is four years in a row we have had less than a dozen people show.” Klegg nods, “people just gave up after Hillary was elected in 2016.”  Kormier, replies “RINOs.  They’re just RINOS. Stupid RINOs” “But Rob we never compromised our principles one bit. Better to have no right to bear firearms than to vote for a candidate who is not 100 percent with us on the issues that we think are important.”

A stirring is heard in the small crowd of protestors, and they turn as one to watch a bedraggled figure on a beat-up segway approach.  Klegg, turns to Cormier, and they both mutter “Fooell.”  And Fooell begins his too familiar harangue.

If Election Were Held Today – New Hampshire House 212 Democrat, 188 Republican

I have a model to predict what the New Hampshire House will look like after the 2014 election.  I have been keeping it to myself, but decided to make it public after I read an op-ed in the Concord Monitor today by a GOP County Chairman sharing with us, more than two weeks before the election, his choice for the next Speaker.  Hey buddy, I think you should lighten up on measuring the drapes and focus on winning elections because my model has, as a best-case scenario for the GOP, the House going 212 Democrat to 188 Republican.

I am not going to disclose the details of how the model works, but I will share some of the assumptions.

It is wrong to assume that turnout in the 2014 election is going to resemble 2010 turnout.  Stated differently, we should assume that polls of “likely voters,” and even “registered voters” (albeit to a lesser extent), are under-polling Democrats.  The reason for this assumption is that Democrats and their allies have pumped hundreds of millions into replicating voter turnout from 2012.  Data-driven turnout has made the distinction between likely voters and registered voters and unregistered voters obsolete.  Democrats are able to identify potentially friendly voters and turn them out on election day.

For example, in 2012 Obama led Romney in the RealClearPolitics average of polls by two percent; he won by six percent.  For Hassan it was five percent and twelve percent.

Another assumption is that districting favors Republicans over Democrats.  For example, if we were to give equal coattail effect to the Presidential and gubernatorial races in 2012 we would expect a House that was 236 Democrat to 164 Republican.  The actual numbers were 221 to 179.

Finally, a couple of caveats.  A lot depends on this week’s and next week’s Senate debates.  Hassan jumped approximately five points in the polls after a weak debate performance by Lamontagne on WMUR.  A lot also depends on Ebola and ISIS.

POLITICAL FACT: Yes, Jeanne Shaheen Voted for a National Energy Tax

Jeanne Shaheen claims that she has never voted for a National Energy Tax. We have examined that claim and rate it COMPLETELY FALSE.

Let’s start with March of 2013. In an obvious attempt to cover her support for a National Energy Tax (in this case a tax on carbon), Shaheen voted for an amendment: “To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to ensuring that all revenue from a fee on carbon pollution is returned to the American people.” (S. Amdt. 646 To S. Con. Res. 8, Roll Call Vote #58: Rejected 41-58, 3/22/13, Shaheen Voted Yea)

Why would you be talking about how to spend a National Energy Tax, if you did not support a National Energy Tax? You obviously wouldn’t. If you really opposed a national Energy Tax, you would have voted NO on this amendment as Senator Kelly Ayotte, a Senator who really opposes a National Energy Tax, did.

Also in March of 2013, Shaheen voted against a Senate procedure that would have made it more difficult to pass a National Energy Tax: To create a point of order against legislation that would create a Federal tax or fee on carbon emissions.” (S. Amdt. 261 To S. Con. Res. 8, Roll Call Vote #59: Rejected 53-46-1, 3/22/13, Shaheen Voted Nay)

Shaheen, again, was on the opposite side from Senator Kelly Ayotte, who voted “Yea,” on the amendment, which in this case was a vote in favor of preventing a National Energy Tax.

So when Shaheen tells you she’s against a National Energy Tax, she is just parsing her words. While the votes in question technically were not votes on a National Energy Tax, the first vote was to make it easier to pass a National Energy Tax and the second voter was to make it harder to pass a National Energy Tax.

Two times Shaheen could have stood with Senator Kelly Ayotte and put New Hampshire first, and two times she instead chose to stand with the radical environmental groups that have poured millions into her campaign and put the wishes of “Green-Billionaires” like Tom Steyer first.

Jeanne Shaheen Is Not #prochoice

The latest line of attack by Jeanne Shaheen on Scott Brown is that he is “not prochoice.”  But by “not prochoice” Shaheen does not mean that Scott Brown wants to make abortion illegal.

No, by “not prochoice” what Shaheen means is that Scott Brown supports the United States Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision.  Here’s a tweet from Shaheen saying just that:

Shaheen.Hoob.Lobby.Tweet.6OCT14

The Hobby Lobby decision said that closely-held corporations whose owners objected to providing health insurance for certain forms of contraceptives that they considered abortifacients (drugs causing abortions) could not be forced to provide such health insurance.

According to Shaheen, if you support Hobby Lobby that means you support allowing employers to deny their employees birth control, which makes you “not prochoice.”  Shaheen’s syllogism ignores the obvious fact that not paying for something is different from denying something – the employee can still by the abortifacients.  But let’s use  Shaheen’s definition of deny birth control  – “not forcing employer to pay for birth control.”  Under Shaheen’s own definition she is “not prochoice.”

Obamacare, which Shaheen voted for, does not apply to employers with less than 50 employees.  In other words, Shaheen voted not to force employers with less than 50 employees to pay for their employees’ birth control.  Which means, using Shaheen’s definition of “deny,” that Shaheen voted to allow these employers to deny their employees birth control.  Which means, using Shaheen’s definition of “prochoice,” that Shaheen is not prochoice.

Obamacare also does not require abortifacient coverage for those with “grandfathered” plans.  All told we are talking about tens of millions of individuals (over 30 million employed by small employers and approximately 50 million in grandfathered plans).  So using Shaheen-speak, Shaheen voted to allow employers to deny birth control to tens of millions of women.

This is what’s called being hoist by one’s own petard.  Unfortunately, Shaheen never gets hoisted because the press never points out the duplicity in Shaheen calling Scott Brown “not prochoice” for not being in favor of forcing the employers affected by Hobby Lobby to provide abortifacients when she voted to allow all employers with less than 50 employees to not provide any health insurance and to exempt millions from the contraception mandate through the grandfathered plan exemption.

 

Jeanne Shaheen’s Top Ten Excuses For Skipping ISIS Hearings

10.  I was putting New Hampshire first by fundraising at Tom Steyer’s mansion in California.

9.  I was helping one of my non-partisan taxpayer-funded Senate staffers tweet out attacks on Scott Brown.

8.  I was on the phone with the Portsmouth Herald trying to get the story about my supporting an increase in the federal gas tax killed.

7.  I was on the phone with the Londonderry police trying to get that damn chicken thrown in jail where he belongs.

6.  I was on the phone with George Stephanopoulos helping him think of good questions to ask at the WMUR debate.

5.  I was meeting with the editorial board of Cosmos about getting their endorsement.

4.  Billy and I were discussing what other foreign oil companies, besides the one that bribed the Iranians, to invest in.

3.  Somebody on my staff told me they were TownHalls, so I hid under my desk so nobody could find me.

2.  I was meeting with Lois Lerner to follow up on my letter asking her to sic the IRS on conservative groups that criticize me.

1.  I was scheduled to work at Bill & Bob’s those days.

THE TOP TEN REASONS JEANNE SHAHEEN WON’T HOLD TOWNHALLS

10. Jeanne Shaheen doesn’t want to have to explain why she allows one of her Senate-staffers, whose six-figure salary is paid for by the taxpayers, to engage in partisan politics attacks.

9.  Jeanne Shaheen doesn’t want to discuss her vote to confirm an Obama nominee to the United States Department of Justice who advocated for race-based admissions to higher education.

8.  Jeanne Shaheen doesn’t want to answer questions about when she first learned that the family small business, Bill & Bob’s, was selling stolen goods

7.  Jeanne Shaheen can’t explain why one year ago she wanted the U.S. Air Force to be the ISIS Air Force, but now she wants the U.S. Air Force to be the Assad Air Force.

6.  Jeanne Shaheen can’t explain why she is running an ad saying “Big Oil” is bad at same time she’s invested in a French oil giant that bribed the Iranians.

5.  Jeanne Shaheen doesn’t want to discuss the recent report from the Federal Reserve that under  Obamanomics, which Shaheen has steadfastly supported, only the incomes of the top ten percent have gone up.  

4.  Jeanne Shaheen doesn’t want to have to explain why, even after it has been reported that up to 100 Americans radicalized by ISIS, have returned to the United States she still will not support a stand-alone border-security bill:

YouTube Preview Image

3.  Jeanne Shaheen doesn’t want to have to explain why she has never apologized for telling the Political Lie of the Year:

YouTube Preview Image

2.  Jeanne Shaheen doesn’t want to discuss why she did not vote for a law that would have stripped ISIS Americans of their passports.

1.  Jeanne Shaheen can’t explain why voting with Obama 99% of the time is “putting New Hampshire first.”

Fact-Checking Jeanne Shaheen’s Record on Veterans

As is the case on so many issues, there is a world of difference between candidate Jeanne Shaheen and Senator Jeanne Shaheen.  While she campaigns as a leader on veterans’ issues and an independent voice for New Hampshire, she was the very last member of the New Hampshire delegation to call for the resignation of VA Chief Shinseki.

Indeed, as late as  May 22, 2014, Shaheen still had Obama’s back on this issue; she was quoted as saying, “‘What I have said is that I think we need the investigation to go forward and that whoever is responsible for what has happened — if the report substantiates the allegations then they should be held accountable.”  Kelly Ayotte, in contrast, had seen more than enough and called for Shinseki’s resignation back on May 21st.

It took not only the scathing interim report from the Inspector General of systemic and widespread abuses but also Anne McLane Kuster and Carol Shea Porter calling for Shinseki’s resignation for Shaheen call for him to resign as well.

In other words, it was not until every other member of the New Hampshire delegation  had called for Shinseki’s resignation, and Shaheen would have been a pariah for continuing to support Obama, did Shaheen call for Shinseki’s resignation.

 

BuzzFeed Just Doesn’t Get New Hampshire Town Halls

So someone named Evan McMorris-Santoro at BuzzFeed has a piece out on Scott Brown claiming Scott Brown’s Town Halls are not really open to the public because he excluded “Democrat operatives.”  I am serious; that actually is what this McMorris-Santoro wrote.

Our Senators and Representatives are expected to hold Town Halls in order that we may hold them accountable for their votes and let them know our concerns.  The purpose of candidate Town Halls is for voters to learn about the candidates and for the candidates to learn about what’s important to the voters.

The Democrat operatives who tried to crash Scott Brown’s Town Hall were not there to learn about Scott Brown’s position on the issues.  They were not undecided voters seeking to make up their minds before the September primary.  They were Jeanne Shaheen supporters there for the sole purpose of getting Shaheen’s message out and preventing Brown from having an open discussion with legitimate voters by peppering him with Shaheen-campaign-memes dressed up like questions.

Well, if Jeanne Shaheen wants to get her message out through Town Halls, then she should hold one.  Sending her operatives to crash Brown’s Town Halls prevents voters from hearing from Scott Brown and from discussing issues with him.  Every faux-question from a Shaheen operative means one less question from the voters there because they want to hear from Brown.