Archive for the ‘Editorial, Opinion’ Category

Rosen: Sotomayor won’t disappoint liberals

July 23, 2009

The soon to be anointed Justice Sotomeyor performed pretty much as I expected her to during the Senate conformation hearings. She doesn’t really frighten me so much as the next appointee sticks into a job for life. After all, replacing a sexist constitution hating member of the Supreme Court with another will not make all that much difference. The next one though? The impostor in chief just might get a Second Amendment ruling of the people kind… In any case Mike Rosen summed up the hearings pretty well. Read on;

Predictably, the confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor were mostly for show.

The senators played their roles, just as Sotomayor played hers. Democrats sang her praises and lobbed her softballs. Republicans homed in on her controversial decisions, which she deftly parried with contradictory assertions, evasions, rationalizations, circumlocutions and lateral arabesques.

When pressed to explain how she might rule on future cases, she liberally invoked the “Ginsburg rule,” institutionalized in 1993 when Ruth Bader Ginsburg refused to answer hypothetical questions during her confirmation hearing. (How do they get away with that? If you were interviewing someone for a job, wouldn’t you want to know how they’d deal with future contingencies?)

Alas, in politics, this is the way the game is played. Nominees hold their cards close to the vest. Candor takes a back seat to tap dancing, carefully crafted ambiguity, and declarations of motherhood and apple pie. Even Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts pulled their punches as nominees. The last Supreme Court candidate to say what he really believed — and eloquently, at that — was Robert Bork. He wasn’t confirmed.

As was expected, conservatives were unsatisfied with many of Sotomayor’s answers. But the mixed reviews on the left were more interesting. Pragmatists within the liberal establishment, rooting for Sotomayor, took her coy answers at face value and declared her to be respectably moderate. E.J. Dionne asserted that “she is the most conservative choice that President Obama could have made.” NPR’s oh-so-liberal judicial “reporter” Nina Totenberg hilariously opined on the “Charlie Rose” show that Sotomayor may be even more conservative on some issues than Justice Anthony Scalia!

Maureen Dowd lamented Sotomayor’s retreat from her earlier preening about the superiority of “a wise Latina woman” but explained why it was necessary. “As any clever job applicant knows,” admitted Dowd, “you must obscure as well as reveal, so she sidestepped the dreaded empathy questions — even though that’s why the president wants her.”

On the far left, political pragmatism gave way to doctrinaire ideological grandstanding. This was their moment to proudly proclaim their judicio-political creed. Dahlia Lithwick told MSNBC she was upset that Sotomayor and the Democrats “bought into [Chief Justice Roberts‘] notion that judges call balls and strikes” rather than ruling on their personal opinions.

Rabbi Michael Lerner, chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressives — and a socialist, one-world, Kumbaya utopian of the first order — urged Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to “make statements that explain why a liberal or progressive worldview is precisely what is needed on the Supreme Court.” If they had any backbone, Lerner said, they should declare: “We intend to vote for you, Judge Sotomayor. But we hope that you overcome this notion that you’ve been putting forward that your task on the Supreme Court is simply to enforce the law . . . we hopePresident Obama picked someone who was not just a passive ratifier of precedent, but a creative thinker who could look at the needs of American society today and help shape laws that fit these new realities.”

Lerner then rejected the “false notion that law is somehow impartial” and condemned the “rich white men” who made those laws and the “corporate power” they serve. Whew, what a mouthful!

Liberals needn’t worry. Sotomayor will be reliably “progressive,” if not the left-wing revolutionary Lerner hoped for. To believe otherwise, you’d have to imagine that theObama team got suckered by a closet conservative. No way. Only Republican presidents make mistakes like that. We’ll see soon enough when she takes her seat and starts casting votes and writing opinions. I’m betting Sotomayor will beRuth Bader Ginsburg with a Latino flavor.

Mike Rosen’s radio show airs weekdays from 9 a.m. to noon on 850-KOA.

SOURCE

Reciprocity or a States Rights Issue?

July 21, 2009

National Concealed Carry? Is this a States Rights Issue or would this be a blessing for Americans that have been overwhelmed by crime in those places where the forces that are anti- freedom and liberty?

Could this also be an Interstate Compact issue? After all, if Gay Marriage is, and other licenses such as Drivers licenses are, then why not the fundamental right of self-defense? Or? Could this just be another example of just how divided these not so United States are these days? Could this be Federalism gone insane? Or could this in reality be something that could be used by haters of liberty to further restrict freedom via unforeseen circumstances? The devils are always in the details, and at least for now I am on the fence about this. My first question would be why any person that has not been adjudicated insane or convicted of a felony needs any sort of permit, or license issued by anyone, anywhere, to exercise an unalienable right.

First, from the Chicken Little’s of the world we have this. The usual list of suspects are prominent, and, if they had their way only the elites, including themselves, would be able to effectively defend themselves from the forces of evil.

Then, we have a more balanced approach here. Examining the issue based upon merits and not simple emotional hyperbole.

Then there is the problem of State Constitutions. Nearly all the States protect gun/ weapon rights. But not all of them, including California. This could go on and on into the never-land of circular argumentation that leads to nowhere, and accomplishes nothing.

OBAMA STILL NUMBER ONE!

July 19, 2009

The impostor in chief is still number one! Yes, his polls are off, and he seems to be doing a rope a dope of sorts using distractions such as “health care reform.”

While it may be true that sales of semi auto pistols may be off a bit he still remains “Salesman of the year” because of the interrelationship of ammunition. Remain vigilant America because the anti freedom cabal of this administration are still there, and attempting to wreck havoc upon you.

High demand for bullets puts strain on manufacturers

Friday, July 17, 2009

By JEFF DUTE
Outdoors Editor

Sales of semi-automatic guns have fallen sharply, but now it’s the bullet manufacturers who can’t keep up with demand. In most cases locally, however, retailers are experiencing no long-term, across-the-board shortages.

“There are just more people that are panic-buying, and the manufacturers are going to keep smiling as long as they continue to do it,” said Joan Garrett, who has sold guns and ammo at Quint’s Sporting Goods in Saraland for 30 years.

Politics and the economy are both are work, according to manufacturer representatives who’ve spoken to Garrett.

Full Story Here

Single Payer Health Care: An example

July 18, 2009

The pure socialism that is Obamacare is not an experiment at all. In fact, there has been a model available for all to see, and no, I’m not talking about the Veterans Administration. The current administration, all too obviously failed to grasp economics and recent world history while in school. So, they plow on. Sewing the seeds of disaster across this once wonderful place.

Around the Nation: Massachusetts Health Care

With the debate over health care raging on Capitol Hill, one need only look to Massachusetts to see how ObamaCare would play out. A study conducted by Harvard-Pilgrim, a private insurer, has exposed the Bay State’s insurance plan — similar to Democrats’ proposal — for the disaster that it is. The plan, which was favored by former Governor Mitt Romney, requires residents (except those covered by the state) either to buy health insurance or to face penalties. In addition, for the past 15 years, under the “guaranteed issue” and “community rating” system, insurers must cover anyone who applies with no regard to his or her health or pre-existing condition. The result: people are waiting until they are sick or about to go into surgery to buy coverage. Many are buying coverage for a few months, running up astronomical bills, and then canceling it, leaving others to foot the bill.

Speaking of leaving others with the bill, The New York Times reports, “A hospital that serves thousands of indigent Massachusetts residents sued the state on Wednesday, charging that its costly universal health care law is forcing the hospital to cover too much of the expense of caring for the poor.” The state is also dropping coverage for 30,000 legal immigrants to close a growing budget deficit. The question is, why is any of this shocking? How many socialist experiments have to fail before people realize that it just doesn’t work?

SOURCE

While Congress Argues, Producers Work

July 18, 2009

When I first read this I almost burst out laughing! As a matter of fact one of the first posts here was about this very thing. That being that most often liberty and freedom offer solutions, while government, for the most part only creates problems. Read on…

One of the problems with Congress is that they think they’re experts on everything. This, of course, causes the real experts to be affected by the legislation produced. For example, while arguments raged in the halls of the Capitol building on the merits of pie-in-the-sky renewable energy methods and how much it would cost taxpayers to implement energy created from these “free” sources (like sunshine and wind), there were private businesses that actually know what they are doing finding the energy we need.

One such business is a favorite whipping boy of the left, ExxonMobil. The company just announced a “world-class” find of shale gas on 250,000 acres in the Horn River Basin, in British Columbia — a source that could easily supplement the plentiful natural gas we already have locked away within our continent. “[R]esults from the first four wells lead the company to conclude that each well will produce between 16 million and 18 million cubic feet of gas a day,” reports The Wall Street Journal. “That’s five times the size of average wells in Texas’s Barnett shale and comparable to big wells in Louisiana’s Haynesville shale, two major shale-gas fields that already have moved the U.S. natural-gas market from scarcity to abundance.” All this without a huge infusion of federal funding. Now if only ExxonMobil could draw useful energy from the hot air emitted by Beltway commissars who think they know better. Indeed, that source would seem to be in limitless supply.

SOURCE

Climate Change This Week: Where Has Summer Gone?

July 18, 2009

In June this year, New York temperatures never made it past 85° F; Chicago saw 12 days of 70° F and below, and Western Pennsylvania nights have dipped into the mid-50s. Temps in Calgary, Canada, have been below average since November, with Environment Canada Senior Climatologist David Phillips saying, “For seven months, it’s really been a long bout of cold weather.” Across the Great Lakes and Northeast in general, the “hot” months haven’t been this cold in more than a decade, prompting some to label 2009 “The Year Without True Summer.”

AccuWeather.com Chief Meteorologist and Expert Long Range Forecaster Joe Bastardi attributes the cold spell in part to “the combination of El Niño and worldwide volcanic activity over the past six to nine months.” But going back even further, global temperatures have dropped by 0.74° F since the 2006 release of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.” How … inconvenient.

There is still hope for global warming alarmists, though, as Bastardi predicts a whopping five to 10 days of “more typical summer weather” in the Northeast and Great Lakes in late July and early August — that is, before the eastern U.S. plunges into a colder- and snowier-than-normal winter.

SOURCE

Income Redistribution: ObamaCare Advances

July 18, 2009

Make no mistake: The health care debate going on in Washington is about one thing, and it is not the millions of uninsured Americans. It’s about the Obama administration’s goal of turning this country into a socialist nation.

President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) are pushing Congress to pass the health care overhaul before the August recess, riding roughshod over the protests not only of Republicans, but of some Democrats, many business interests and hospitals. Obama has made clear that, as White House advisor David Axelrod put it, “Ultimately, this is not about a process, it’s about results. … We’d like to do it with the votes of members of both parties, but the worst result would be to not get health-care reform done.”

Wednesday, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee passed the “Quality, Affordable Health Coverage for All Americans” bill, otherwise known as QAHCAA (pronounce it as it looks — CACA). The House Ways and Means Committee followed suit Thursday. No Republicans have voted for it so far, and several Democrats have voted against it.

During the presidential campaign, Republicans, including candidates Fred Thompson and John McCain, warned about the tax implications of electing Obama president. They were right. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) announced late last Friday that Congress would pay for health care by hiking taxes on the households earning more than $350,000 per year and individuals earning $280,000. The hike would put New York’s top bracket at nearly 60 percent. Rangel predicts revenue of $540 billion over 10 years. Democrats’ ultimate goal is to have the highest income earners pay for health care for everyone else. But even the liberal Washington Post editorialized, “There is simply no way to close the [funding] gap by taxing a handful of high earners.”

To cover part of this deficiency, Democrats propose cutting tax breaks for hospitals because they don’t provide enough charitable care to earn them any longer. According to the American Hospital Directory, fewer than half of the 5,482 hospitals in the country actually pay federal, state or local taxes. That will change. Furthermore, the hospital industry agreed this week to take $155 billion less in payments from the government, leaving the money to cover the uninsured.

Beyond the money, the regulations are mind-boggling. In the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section on page 16 of 1,018, under the Orwellian heading “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the bill states: “Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.

In other words, according to Investor’s Business Daily, “[W]e can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.” Private individual coverage will be outlawed by attrition.

Meanwhile, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) added an amendment to the bill that would require all health insurance companies to provide unspecified “preventive care and screenings” for “pregnant women and individuals of child-bearing age.” Asked if this would include abortion, Mikulski sidestepped: “It would provide for any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate.”

More “highlights”: CNS News editor in chief Terence Jeffrey also reports that “the legal use of tobacco products is the only vice for which insurance companies will be able to charge their customers higher premiums,” adding, “a person could have been admitted to hospitals three times for heroin overdoses, or been pregnant five times out of wedlock, or been treated for venereal diseases at least once per year for the past five years, but none of these factors could be used to charge that person a higher insurance premium.” Jeffrey further notes that the bill calls for improved immunization coverage, including the use of “reminders or recalls for patients or providers, or home visits” to accomplish it. Yes, home visits.

Ronald Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'” Little did the Gipper know just how terrifying those nine words could be.

SOURCE

National Concealed Carry Bill

July 18, 2009

Someday I will figure out why a permit is needed for an unalienable right. But? This is certainly a step in the right direction.

Vote on Right to Carry Coming Soon
-- Please urge your Senators to vote YES!

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

Friday, July 17, 2009

A vote to protect your right to travel out-of-state with a firearm could
come to a vote next week -- even as early as Monday!

Senators John Thune and David Vitter are the sponsors of S. 845 -- a
bill that will establish concealed carry reciprocity amongst the several
states.

Senators Thune and Vitter offered the bill as an amendment (#1618) to
the Department of Defense authorization bill (H.R. 2647).

This provision will use the constitutional authority allowing Congress
to enforce "full faith and credit" across the country, so that each
state respects the "public acts, records, and judicial 
proceedings" of
every other state (Article IV).

The benefit of the Thune/Vitter legislation is that -- unlike other,
competing measures -- it would protect the right of any U.S. citizen to
carry out of state (regardless of whether he possesses a permit), as
long as he is authorized to carry in his home state.  This is important
because of states like Vermont and Alaska, where residents can carry
concealed without prior approval or permission from the state... in
other words, without a permit!

ACTION:  Please urge your Senators to vote YES on the Thune/Vitter
concealed carry reciprocity amendment that will be offered to the
Department of Defense authorization bill and NO on any modifying
amendments.  This vote could come as early as Monday, so please act on
this right away!

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the
pre-written e-mail message below.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

Please support the Thune/Vitter amendment to the Department of Defense
authorization bill. This amendment will protect the right of citizens to
carry firearms outside of their home state without violating the rights
of the other states. Thus, the reciprocity language masterfully protects
the principle of federalism while also promoting Second Amendment
rights.

A person's right to defend himself and his family should not end at the
border of his state.

I urge you to vote for the Thune/Vitter concealed carry amendment and to
oppose any modifying actions that seek to weaken their amendment.

Sincerely,

****************************

Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will
bounce back as undeliverable.

To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to
http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail
address may also be made at that location.

 

Joint Statement On Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Nomination To The United States Supreme Court

July 17, 2009

Can you say “holding back again?” Judge Sotomayor should fit right in on the Supreme Court. After all, she, like so many others appears to be a master of deception…
WAYNE LAPIERRE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION

AND

CHRIS W. COX, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION – INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION
Other than declaring war, neither house of Congress has a more solemn responsibility than the Senate’s role in confirming justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Senate considers the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Americans have been watching to see whether this nominee – if confirmed – would respect the Second Amendment or side with those who have declared war on the rights of America’s 80 million gun owners.

From the outset, the National Rifle Association has respected the confirmation process and hoped for mainstream answers to bedrock questions.  Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor’s judicial record and testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

It is only by ignoring history that any judge can say that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states. The one part of the Bill of Rights that Congress clearly intended to apply to all Americans in passing the Fourteenth Amendment was the Second Amendment.  History and congressional debate are clear on this point.

Yet Judge Sotomayor seems to believe that the Second Amendment is limited only to the residents of federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. and does not protect all Americans living in every corner of this nation.  In her Maloney opinion and during the confirmation hearings, she deliberately misread Supreme Court precedent to support her incorrect view.

In last year’s historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual’s right to own firearms and recognizes the inherent right of self-defense.  In addition, the Court required lower courts to apply the Twentieth Century cases it has used to incorporate a majority of the Bill of Rights to the States.  Yet in her Maloney opinion, Judge Sotomayor dismissed that requirement, mistakenly relying instead on Nineteenth Century jurisprudence to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States.

This nation was founded on a set of fundamental freedoms. Our Constitution does not give us those freedoms – it guarantees and protects them. The right to defend ourselves and our loved ones is one of those. The individual right to keep and bear arms is another. These truths are what define us as Americans. Yet, Judge Sotomayor takes an opposite view, contrary to the views of our Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of the American people.

We believe any individual who does not agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of self-defense should not serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land. Therefore, the National Rifle Association of America opposes the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Time to put the heat on your Senators as Sotomayor hearings begin.‏

July 13, 2009
Should We be Surprised by Sotomayor's Radical Views?
-- Time to put the heat on your Senators as hearings begin

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

"I will be talking [to Judge Sotomayor] about the question of 
foreign law and the question of [her] commitment to the Second 
Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms....  President Obama, who 
nominated Judge Sotomayor, has a rather limited view of what the Second 
Amendment guarantees." -- Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), June 2009

Monday, July 13, 2009

Today, the U.S. Senate commences hearings on Justice Sonia Sotomayor, 
who was nominated by President Obama to replace the retiring Judge 
David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court.

In many ways, Sotomayor's views are out-of-step with our American 
heritage and with the views of Americans in general.  For example, 
Sotomayor believes that our fundamental law is constantly evolving and 
that rights are constantly changing with the times.

But should we be surprised?  The President who nominated her holds some 
of the most radical views ever held by a resident of the White House.  
His take on the Constitution -- and the Second Amendment in particular 
-- has stationed him to the far left on the political spectrum.

Consider just a small snapshot of his record over the years:

* As President, Obama has nationalized much of the car and banking 
industry and is now looking to do the same with health care.  Even the 
Marxist President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, joked on live television 
last month that he and Fidel Castro need to be careful or else "we 
are going to end up to [Obama's] right."

* As a U.S. Senator, Obama was ranked by the National Journal in 2007 
as the most liberal legislator in that chamber.  Realize that such a 
ranking put Obama to the left of 99 other Senators -- including an 
open, self-avowed socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

* Like many socialists, Obama has supported some of the most extreme 
positions on gun control:  supporting a ban on handguns, opposing the 
repeal of the draconian DC gun ban, opposing the right of self-defense 
for residents in the Chicago suburbs, and much more.

Obama's brand of far-left politics sees the Constitution as moldable as 
a ball of wax.  In a 2001 interview, he criticized earlier Supreme 
Courts for "never ventur[ing] into the issues of redistribution of 
wealth....  It didn't break free from the essential constraints that 
were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution."

Sotomayor appears to have the same view of our highest document, as she 
stated in 1996 that law is not "static and predictable," but 
"constantly overhaul[ed] and adapt[ed] [by lawyers and courts] to 
the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political 
conditions."

ACTION:  Please urge your two Senators to vote AGAINST the Sotomayor 
nomination.  Tell them to cast a pro-gun vote on EVERY vote related to 
Judge Sonia Sotomayor (whether it's a vote on sustaining a filibuster 
or a vote on final passage).

Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your legislators the 
pre-written e-mail message below.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

Judge Sonia Sotomayor's views are out-of-step with our American 
heritage and with the views of Americans in general.  Not surprisingly, 
the Rasmussen polling firm reported on July 1 that more Americans 
oppose her nomination than support her.

Sotomayor believes that our fundamental law is constantly evolving and 
that rights are constantly changing with the times.  But a majority of 
Americans disagree.  Multiple polls have found that almost 
three-fourths of all Americans believe that the Second Amendment of the 
U.S. Constitution protects the rights of "individuals" to own 
guns.  Not so for Judge Sotomayor:

* She ruled in United States v. Sanchez-Villar (2004) that "the 
right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

* And earlier this year, Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel 
which ruled in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment does not 
apply to the states.  This makes her more liberal than the Ninth 
Circuit, which stated in the Nordyke case in April that the Second 
Amendment does apply to the states.

Please cast a pro-gun vote on EVERY vote related to Judge Sonia 
Sotomayor (whether it's a vote on sustaining a filibuster or a vote on 
final passage).

I would like to hear back from you on this.  Although rest assured, Gun 
Owners of America will keep me up to date on any further developments.

Sincerely,
---