Archive for March, 2010

When Rights Collide

March 31, 2010

Regular readers know that I am a big supporter of the Bill of Rights. The entire document. I believe that if, or when any part is weakened, the whole of it is also weakened.

That said, it has always been accepted that one persons rights end when they intrude on another persons rights. I don’t force hopolophobes to own firearms, and I resent it when they try and impose their own mental illness on myself or others as an example.

Clashes involving rights are bound to occur. That’s just a fact of life. Still? I for one am just about to blow a gasket at some of the things that are going on.

Read about that HERE. I had better stop… My blood pressure is getting really up there the more that I think about this…

Payola: Epic Fail obama style

March 31, 2010

One has to admit grudgingly, that the impostor in chief does things with style, Chicago politics style…

Obama Pushing Another Radical Anti-gunner to the Federal Bench

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408

“Liu believes that judges have the authority to impose their views… using clever verbal camouflage to disguise what they’re doing.” — Ed Whelan, a one-time clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia and now president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (3/4/10)

Monday, March 29, 2010

Imagine a judicial candidate that is so far to the left that even Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, is hesitant to push him forward.

Imagine a liberal law professor that not only fails to meet the ABA’s basic requirements for a federal judge, but is so green behind the ears that it appears the only reason he is being nominated to the federal courts is because he served as part of President Obama’s transition team.

If you can imagine such a leftist candidate, then you would be thinking of Goodwin Liu, the President’s recent nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Liu is the Associate Dean and Professor of Law at the ultra-left UC Berkeley School of Law.  Only 39 years old, he comes nowhere near fulfilling the ABA’s standards for a judge.

But what he lacks in experience, he makes up for in radical liberalism.  In a recent book that he co-authored, Liu says that, “Applications of constitutional text and principles must be open to adaptation and change… as the conditions and norms of our society become ever more distant from those of the Founding generation.”

Got it?  Like many radical progressives, Liu believes that our rights are constantly evolving.  The Second Amendment might have been necessary in the 1700s, he believes, but now those rights are no longer necessary.

In Liu’s world, there would be no gun rights

Noted author David Kopel cites a law journal article of Liu’s where he criticizes the Supreme Court for declaring two gun control laws as unconstitutional — the Brady Law’s unfunded mandate and the Gun-Free School Zones Act.

Liu said that Supreme Court cases like these did “damage” to civil rights and “upset settled understandings of congressional power.”  What?!  Striking down gun control laws does damage to civil rights?  Well, let’s be clear:  the Court did upset someone’s “settled” understanding of things, but it was the LIBERAL’S misunderstanding of the Constitution.

By the way, Liu co-authored the 2002 law journal article with then-Senator Hillary Clinton… which should tell us all we need to know about Liu’s liberal, anti-gun views!

Rights evolve over time?

The bottom line is that Liu would not be a stickler for the Constitution if he were to sit on the appellate court.

“It becomes pretty clear why ‘originalism’ and ‘strict construction’ don’t make a lot of sense,” Liu said in an interview promoting his book. “The Framers deliberately chose… broad words so they would be adaptable to new challenges over time.”

No wonder that the ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions (R-AL), spoke out so forcefully against the nomination of Goodwin Liu:

I am very disappointed by President Obama’s nomination of Professor Goodwin Liu to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit….

Instead of nominating an individual who has demonstrated an impartial commitment to following the Constitution and the rule of law, President Obama has selected someone far outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence.  Professor Liu believes that judges should look to “evolving norms and social understandings” in interpreting the Constitution, he has a history of advocating for racial preferences, and he served on the Board of the directors of the ACLU.

ACTION: Please urge your two Senators to oppose Obama’s appointment of Goodwin Liu, the latest anti-gun liberal to be picked for the federal courts.  You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at to send your legislators the pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

I oppose the nomination of Goodwin Liu, the President’s recent nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Liu is an anti-gun, radical leftist who doesn’t even meet the ABA’s basic requirements for a federal judge, as he has neither practiced law for 12 years, nor has he any experience as a trial lawyer.

Liu believes that our rights are constantly evolving… which is why I’m very concerned about his Second Amendment views.  He co-authored a law journal article in 2002 with then-Senator Hillary Clinton, wherein he criticizes the Supreme Court for declaring two gun control laws as unconstitutional — the Brady Law’s unfunded mandate and the Gun-Free School Zones Act.

Leftists like Liu think our gun rights might have been necessary in the 1700s, but are no longer necessary today.  I agree with Senator Jeff Sessions’ critique of Liu, as the latter mistakenly thinks that judges should look to “evolving norms and social understandings” in interpreting the Constitution.

I vehemently oppose this view and hope you will vote against any nominee who doesn’t stand strong on the Bill of Rights.

Please oppose Goodwin Liu.


Establishing a “Ready Reserve Corps” : Epic fail obama’s private army

March 31, 2010

And you thought that obamacare was all about give away’s to special interests, and the destruction of the economy? Nope, as reported here some time back the impostor in chief has indeed slipped in a few things that have nothing at all to do with health care, and yes, obama’s private army is enshrined in it. That would be the one that I blogged here almost in real time as I had a streaming video in Colorado Springs when he announced his plan during the run up to the election. Here’s just a bit from the monstrosity that the Congress and Senate passed in bald faced defiance of the American people. Can you say “Left Wing Militia?”

H/T fauxcajun via Texas Fred’s


Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:



(1) IN GENERAL.—There shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.

(2) REQUIREMENT.—All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act of
1923, as amended.

(3) APPOINTMENT.—Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and
consent of the Senate.

(4) ACTIVE DUTY.—Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training.

(5) WARRANT OFFICERS.—Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the
Service shall be considered for purposes of this Act and title 37, United
States Code, to be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned Corps of the

(b) ASSIMILATING RESERVE CORP OFFICERS INTO THE REGULAR CORPS.—Effective on the date of enactment of the Affordable Health Choices Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section
(as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act)
and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the
Regular Corps.


(1) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist
regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and
emergency response missions.

(2) USES.—The Ready Reserve Corps shall—

(A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps;

(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel;

(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and
domestic; and

(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 399SS) to improve access to health services.

(d) FUNDING.—For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the Office of
the Surgeon General for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Funds
appropriated under this subsection shall be used for recruitment and training
of Commissioned Corps Officers


Propaganda, pure and simple…

March 28, 2010

The Gray Lady aka New York times is well known for being a leftist mouth piece, and, in spite of a revenue stream that resembles a person hell bent on flowing over Niagara Falls continues to amuse and entertain.

Op-Ed columnist Frank Rich makes a case for the debate of whether the Times uses Saul Alinsky’s Rules for radicals or Goebbels Principles of Propaganda. Filled with misconceptions and untruths, but just enough substance to make his insane accusations believable he continues the NYT tradition.

Read that HERE.

As always, the devil will be found within the details, and? This is what I think. The New York Times is bleeding revenue, therefore, it stands to reason that they will back the obama to the hilt. Can you say another bailout?

I knew ya’ could!

Just the facts mam: Don’t allow pesky things like facts get in the way…

March 28, 2010

Yet another Federal Judge chooses to ignore the facts… Read on.

Today, District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, dismissed Heller v. District of Columbia, NRA’s case challenging D.C.’s prohibitive firearm registration requirements, and its bans on “assault weapons” and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” Mr. Heller was, of course, lead plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller, decided by the Supreme Court in 2008.

Judge Urbina rejected Heller’s assertion that D.C.’s registration and gun and magazine bans should be subject to a “strict scrutiny” standard of review, under which they could survive only if they are justified by a compelling government interest, are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and are the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.

In support of that rejection, Urbina opined that in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Supreme Court “did not explicitly hold that the Second Amendment right is a fundamental right,” and he adopted the argument of dissenting Justices in that case, that the Court’s upholding of a law prohibiting possession of firearms by felons implied that the Court did not consider that laws infringing the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms should be subject to a strict scrutiny standard of review.

Judge Urbina also rejected D.C.’s contention that its laws should be required to pass only a “reasonableness test,” which would “require the court to uphold a law regulating firearms so long as the legislature had ‘articulated proper reasons for acting, with meaningful supporting evidence,’ and the measure did ‘not interfere with the “core right” the Second Amendment protects by depriving the people of reasonable means to defend themselves in their homes.'”

Instead, Urbina purported to subject D.C.’s registration, gun ban, and magazine ban to an “intermediate scrutiny” level of review, in which he first considered whether those laws “implicate the core Second Amendment right” and, if they do, whether they are “substantially related to an important governmental interest.”

Urbina agreed that D.C.’s firearm registration scheme implicates the “core Second Amendment right,” which, based upon the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), he described as the right to have a firearm at home for protection. But, he noted that the Court “suggested in Heller that such requirements [as registration] are not unconstitutional as a general matter,” and he concluded that D.C. had adequately articulated a compelling governmental interest in promulgating its registration scheme.

Based upon the Supreme Court’s statement in Heller, that machine guns might not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment because they are not commonly owned, and relying heavily on error-ridden testimony provided by D.C. and the Brady Campaign about the use of semi-automatic firearms in crime, Urbina concluded that D.C.’s “assault weapon” and “large” magazine bans do not infringe the right to have a firearm at home for protection.

Regrettably, Urbina uncritically accepted all of the “factual” claims in the committee report of the D.C. City Council and ignored hard evidence that “assault weapons” and “large” magazines are in “common use,” the standard Heller adopted. As we have detailed in other Alerts, of course, such firearms and their standard magazines holding over 10 rounds are owned by millions of Americans and their numbers are rising rapidly with every week that passes.

Stay tuned. Word about whether Judge Urbina’s decision will be appealed, or whether a legislative remedy will be sought in Congress, or both, will certainly be forthcoming.


Recess Appointments: Here we go again…

March 28, 2010

Recess appointments are indeed authorized by the Constitution. I fully understand the need for them, and, when used properly they can fill positions that are critical to the national well being.

What I seriously dislike is when a President uses them in a purely political manner. BHO has just done exactly that. To be fair though, I can’t remember any President that hasn’t done the same thing. Still,  just because someone else has done something despicable doesn’t make it any less despicable.

Jeffrey Goldstein, undersecretary for domestic finance at the Treasury Department

_ Michael Mundaca, assistant secretary for tax policy at the Treasury Department

_ Eric Hirschhorn, undersecretary of commerce for export administration and head of the Bureau of Industry and Security at the Commerce Department

_ Michael Punke, deputy trade representative — Geneva, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative

_ Francisco Sanchez, undersecretary for international trade, Commerce Department

_ Islam Siddiqui, chief agricultural negotiator, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative

_ Alan Bersin, commissioner of U.S. customs and border protection, Department of Homeland Security

_ Jill Long Thompson, member of the Farm Credit Administration Board

_ Rafael Borras, undersecretary for management, Department of Homeland Security

_ Craig Becker, member of the National Labor Relations Board

_ Mark Pearce, member of the National Labor Relations Board

_ Jacqueline Berrien, chairwoman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

_ Chai Feldblum, commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

_ Victoria Lipnic, commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

_ P. David Lopez, general counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission


I first saw that list and just went… You have got to be kidding! I’m not completely sure on this, but I think that I have never seen a list of people that are either more,  one: incompetent, or two: possess credentials that make the term conflict of interests  laughable!

There should be some unspoken rule, based upon personal honor, that a President will not use recess appointments to circumvent the will of the Senate. As in, don’t use the process to appoint anyone to a position that the Senate has held up. There have to be any number of qualified people that could do those jobs on an interim bases while things get sorted out.

This will never happen of course, and it just shows how damned stupid the American people  can be at times. Electing people to office that are more concerned with “legacy” than the sound and moral governing of the nation.

On that note, I respectfully submit Texas Fred for the still open position at TSA

What next? Bill Ayers to head DHS?


March 27, 2010

DENVER, Colo. —Eight years after the Hayman burn scorched 138,000 acres of land, the largest wildfire in Colorado history, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) has transplanted Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep into their historic habitat.

Nine female and three male bighorn sheep from the Rampart Range herd near Colorado Springs were released within the perimeter of the burn on January 11th and 12th of this year.  This area is adjacent to habitat occupied by the Tarryall-Kenosha Mountains bighorn sheep herd.

Wildfire can be good for wildlife.  In this case, plant growth since the early 1900’s had covered the site in  dense forest, which precluded bighorn sheep use for the last 50 years.  However, the massive fire cleaned out large areas of dense trees, improving the habitat potential for sheep.   Bighorns typically thrive in steep, broken terrain devoid of dense vegetation. In Colorado, they prefer habitat dominated by grass, low shrubs, and rocky terrain for escape.

DOW biologists, working with additional funds from the Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society, began studying the site for reintroduction in 2006.  GIS mapping analysis and site visits confirmed that conditions were ripe for the return of the bighorns, as five years after the burn; the site had not grown over with the previously thick tree canopy.

“Moving sheep to their historic range due to the Hayman Burn shows that good things can often come from tragic events,” said Janet George, senior terrestrial biologist with the Northeast region of the DOW.  “As the state animal, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep are one of our most prized wildlife, with visitors coming from all over the states to hunt and view these magnificent animals.  It is gratifying to be part of an opportunity to expand their range and give them a shot at a larger population.”

Ten of the twelve sheep, nine ewes and one ram, were radio collared prior to release and are being monitored regularly.  Since the release, their movements indicate the bighorns have been exploring a five-mile radius around the release site and have stayed within the perimeter of the Hayman Burn. Additional sheep will likely be transported to the area next year.  The sheep will continue to be monitored for the next several years, as DOW studies the success of the transplant.

For more information on bighorn sheep in Colorado, go to:

Photos available upon request

For more information about Division of Wildlife go to:

A Most Humble Invitation to Osama bin Laden

March 25, 2010

It seems Mr. bin Laden ignored my invitation to him. Lo those many years ago…

The offer still stands, and, we could accommodate many of your fellows as well. Although I am no longer a resident of Colorado the offer still stands. I am sure that you would feel right at home. There have also been rumors about your health issues over the years Osama, and Colorado can surly help with those as well, possibly ending the suffering that you have gone through for so many years!

We grow, and learn Osama. There is no need for anger. Please, come to Colorado, we eagerly await your august presence!

David Frum: chuckles…

March 25, 2010

Well? I told ya so!

David Frum is a loser!

David Frum: So what!

March 25, 2010

David Frum, another has been neo-conservative has been getting an awful lot of press the last couple of days. So much so that I don’t even think any citation is needed. Defeatism, apparently, is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. Oh, alright, HERE is one example.

Taking on the socialist’s / communist’s  at every opportunity is what we, the people, wanted our elected representatives to do.  Not work with them, no not at all. We, the people, call us The Tea Party or whatever, don’t want, or need your type of RINO faux conservatism.

You, and your phony blue bloods do not represent what we want, nor what we need. Nor are we quitters that would rather “compromise” away our beliefs.

If indeed we do take it on the chin come this November we will at least know that we took the fight to them, and never surrendered.

No compromise Mister Frum, none, none at all. Not when it comes to our rights as stated under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Not when it comes to our Natural Rights or our shared Common Law Rights.

Your choice Republican’s. You can do what is moral and correct. Or you can continue to prostitute yourselves by “working with” the Democrat machine. You need us. We do not have any need, or desire for you to get on board if you and yours are still not willing to take a stand, and boldly hold to the shared values of the American people.

%d bloggers like this: