Saturday, May 27, 2017

Washington DC

by -

Pope Francis has landed in the United States for the first time ever–but he would’ve been here a little bit sooner, had Obama not intervened.

According to reports from The Atlantic, President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were running late to meet the pope. So they forced air traffic control to put the pope into a holding pattern over North Carolina.

It’s visible on the tracking for the papal jet–an Alitalia jet that’s been given the call sign Shepherd One: it made a few loops over southeastern North Carolina on its way from Havana, Cuba, where the pope’s previous stop had been, to Washington, D.C.

As if putting the pope into a holding pattern wasn’t insult enough, that still didn’t give Obama enough time: the pope was standing at the top of the air stairs for two minutes and eighteen seconds. According to reports, he could be seen hanging back near the plane’s bulkhead, waiting to get greeted by a White House official.

President Obama and the pope finally met for the first time on the tarmac shortly after.

Immediately, Obama’s lateness and lack of respect for the head of the Catholic Church was slammed on Twitter and in the media.

Radio host Brian Sussman summed it up succinctly: “Obama’s Papal diss? Even if you aren’t Catholic you don’t keep the Pope waiting.”

The White House, however, fired back on claims–saying that Obama’s meeting with the pope had been scheduled for 4pm–and that Obama had arrived at the airport at 3:31, before the papal jet. Other reports say that, because Pope Francis left early from Cuba, he had to circle in order to arrive on time in Washington, D.C.

But, if the pope really had been the victim of Obama’s schedule, it wouldn’t be the first snub Obama has planned for this week: his official reception with the Holy Father will include a number of Catholic dissidents, including transgender activists and pro-abortion nuns.

After his time in Washington, Pope Francis will continue his American tour with visits to Philadelphia and New York.

by -

Imagine the outrage from the “civil rights industry” if bureaucrats required citizens to give government a “good reason” why they should be able to vote in an election… or speak freely… or practice their religion… or gather together in peaceful protest… or to petition the government for the redress of grievances.

There would be hell to pay.

But to some in government, the outrage reserved for other civil God-given rights does not extend to the Second Amendment right of all law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms for hunting, shooting and self-defense.

In Washington D.C., a long time bastion of gun bans and anti-Second Amendment schemes, the government has been requiring people applying for a concealed carry permit give a “good reason” why they need one or the answer is no.

Thankfully, U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. for the D.C. federal district court doesn’t agree.

This past week, Judge Scullin placed a hold on Washington D.C.’s mandate that firearm owners have a “good reason” to get a concealed carry permit in the District saying the requirement is arbitrary and designed to take away citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

Prior to the hold, lawful gun owners had to go hat in hand to the government and give anti-gun bureaucrats a “good reason” why they should be allowed to exercise their gun rights. If the bureaucrats decided your reason for a permit was not a “good reason” – which was the “rubber stamp” outcome to virtually all applications – you would be flat out of luck.

Judge Scullin granted the preliminary injunction against enforcement of the “good reason” gun ban scam in response to a lawsuit brought by three gun owners who sought to overturn the D.C. gun law claiming the regulations make it impossible for the majority of law-abiding citizens to qualify for a D.C. firearms permit.

“For all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms,” Judge Scullin wrote within his 23 page opinion.

Local anti-gun politicians created the D.C. gun permitting process as an end run around Judge Scullin’s ruling last year that the District’s ban on carrying firearms in public was unconstitutional.

Prior the passage of the gun permit law, the D.C government allowed law-abiding citizens with permits from other states to carry in D.C. for a period time before the District took legal action to end the brief carry period.

While this move in the chess game the D.C. government has been playing with Judge Scullin over the Second Amendment didn’t go D.C.’s way, no one should expect this latest setback to be D.C.s the last move in the game.


Republican Representative Jason Chaffetz (Utah), chairman of the US House Oversight Committee, claimed on Sunday, that he has planned a private talk with James...