Archive for the ‘Editorial, Opinion’ Category

Investigation reveals numerous bogus claims on Obama resume

April 4, 2010

Every so often something momentous happens in life. A Special Forces Soldier or Navy Seal does something that awakens American pride,  a Marine will display the courage and personal sacrifice that has made the Marine Corps what it is, and always will be. A Police Officer or Deputy will face down the more brutal people that inhabit our society. A Firefighter will run into a building that others are trying to escape from. A Paramedic or E.M.T. will face death simply by doing their jobs. Most often though? These things simply go unnoticed because that is the sort of thing that people like that do. Medals and publicity are more for the public than the men and women that do the hard things that are needed in today’s world.

Then there are the glory hogs. An awful lot of the time it turns out that those people simply are not what they say that they are. They come in all shapes and sizes, races, and religions. They come in all professions and trades too. Including politicians. Sometime ago, on another blog I took some serious flak when I commented that I would sooner vote for an honest reformed felon than a dishonest but un-convicted person for political office.

In the case of the current President some things just have not added up. Period.

Hat Tip to Anthony G. Martin for putting this all together.

In what is being called ‘the biggest hustle in human history,’ a special investigation has discovered numerous bogus claims on Barack Obama’s resume, including the outright lie that he was a ‘Constitutional scholar and professor.’

The claim turns out to be false.

(AP Photo/Alex Brandon).

As investigators delve further into the background of Barack Obama, a disturbing picture is emerging of a man who is not who he claims to be.  The information the public has been told concerning Obama is turning out to be false–fabrications and inventions of a man and an unseen force behind him that had clear ulterior motives for seeking the highest office in the land.

According to a special report issued by ‘the Blogging Professor,’ the Chicago Law School faculty hated Obama.  The report states that Obama was unqualified, that he was never a ‘constitutional professor and scholar,’ and that he never served as editor of the Harvard Law Review while a student at the school.

The real truth is that Barack Obama was merely an ‘instructor’ at Chicago Law School, not a professor.  Commonly, instructors are non-tenure-track teachers hired by colleges and universities to teach certain courses for a salary that is well below that of Associate Professors or full Professors.

In the hierarchy of higher education, the status of instructors is below that of associate professors and professors because they lack the credentials.

In fact, it can be safely concluded that the claims of Barack Obama concerning his educational credentials and work history in higher education are a complete sham.  The President of the United States is a complete fraud.

According to Doug Ross:

I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).

Thus,  the question arises, was the claim that Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review a ‘put-up job’ as well, allowing the student to claim he held this prestigious position without having the qualifications or meeting the requirements of holding that position?  And why?

Further,

Consider this: 1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a “lawyer”. He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he “fibbed” on his bar application.

2. Michelle Obama “voluntarily surrendered” her law license in 1993.

3. So, we have the President and First Lady – who don’t actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.

4. A senior lecturer is one thing. A fully ranked law professor is another. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, “Obama did NOT ‘hold the title’ of a University of Chicago law school professor”. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago.

5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) “served as a professor” in the law school, but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.

These are highly disturbing facts, verified facts from the people who know at the Chicago Law School.

There is more from Ross, however:

6. “He did not hold the title of professor of law,” said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.

7. The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the U.S. Constitution recently during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

8. The B-Cast posted the video.

9. In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: “We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in ourConstitution: the notion that we are all created equal.”

10. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?

When you are a phony it’s hard to keep facts straight.

Obama has made sure that all of his records are sealed tight.  And apart from the courageous souls at the various educational institutions who dared to speak the truth, the schools Obama claimed to attend unanimously refuse to release transcripts, records, or other bits of evidence concerning Obama’s presence in their institutions.

BREAKING DEVELOPMENTjust as these disturbing facts come to light about Barack Obama, the White House is busy making deals with numerous ‘journalists,’ promising unprecedented access to the President in exchange for refraining from reporting certain information ‘they may discover.’

For commentary on the issues of the day, visit my blog at The Liberty Sphere.

Matt Mead: Rumor Control..?

April 3, 2010

The State of Wyoming deserves better than a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Matt Mead appears to be attempting to be something that he isn’t. Being a member of the N.R.A. does not mean that you do, in fact, support gun owners. What is Matt mead’s position on the abhorrent and immoral unconstitutional  Lautenberg Domestic Violence Act that made ex post facto law the law of the land? Does it mirror the N.R.A. position? That’s just one example of the N.R.A. playing politics with the rights of Americans. I myself will need to look more deeply into Matt Mead before I will cast any vote for him. At this juncture though, it appears that I will be casting my vote for someone else… What follows is posted with the authors permission, please follow the link for the entire story.

Bridge for sale call Matt Mead
Image – A.Bouchard

Related Articles:

Matt Mead for Governor, wolf in sheep’s clothing

Matt Mead – rejected for governor by Wyoming Gun Owners


It appears Matt Mead has been deceptive while attempting to combat his anti-gun record as a U.S Attorney. In a recent email from the Mead campaign there was as stated a “little ditty” called “Killing the Rumor Mill” in which it states the following-

“We have added this little ditty to our email updates and will have a similar feature up on our website soon. It will be used to answer questions that come up or to kill strange email rumors. Just because you read it on the internet does not mean it is true. If you believe everything you get in an email then I have a bridge to sell you. ”.

It goes on with in Q&A format with this :

Rumor: Matt Mead does not like guns.

Fact: Matt Mead is a member of the NRA, a lifelong hunter, with a lifetime small game license. Matt is also an avid gun collector.

Maybe Mead is trying to sell us a “bridge”, because I don’t believe anyone ever said that “Mead does not like guns”, and lets be real here, being an NRA member, hunter and avid collector doesn’t make one a gun rights supporter does it?

“Maybe Mead is trying to sell us a bridge”

The NRA could be considered as a “strike” against Matt Mead. Just look at what this NRA Board Member Joaquin Jackson said in support of the Clinton Gun Ban. How do you spell “elitist” gun owner?

Or, look at this state level NRA group the Wyoming State Shooting Association (WSSA) and their take on things- Wyoming’s – NRA little brother the WSSA exposes its true colors.

REAL LIFE FACT- there is documented proof that Mead has fought on the side of the BATF and against gun owners of Wyoming, PERIOD.

ANOTHER REAL LIFE FACT- Matt Mead and his VENOMOUS ANTI-GUN past will haunt him in his campaign for governor.

Full Story HERE

Attenion G-Mart Shoppers!

April 2, 2010

Today’s green light specials are hand grenades, and Fully Automatic Rifles. We also have a limited supply of RPG launchers, and a six pack of  high explosive rockets in a money saving package that will certainly make you the talk of the block!

Well, we all know that what is above is nothing but satire, and that would be fine if certain people didn’t insist on continually telling lies. Read on…

Heavily-Armed Cartel Attacks Mexican Army;
Weapons Used Show U.S. Gun Laws Not To Blame
Friday, April 02, 2010
At the end of March, troops of a major drug cartel launched a series of attacks on military personnel and installations in a half dozen cities in the northern Mexican states of Nueva Leon and Tamaulipas. Fortunately, things did not work out as the narco-thugs had hoped. At least 18 of them are now taking the kind of siesta from which there is no awakening and, at last count, only one Mexican soldier was injured.

Contrary to the notion that the cartels depend on semi-automatic rifles bought illegally in the United States, the cartel conducted its attacks with a variety of weapons that cannot be legally bought anywhere in our country. As the Los Angeles Times reported, “In coordinated attacks, gunmen in armored cars and equipped with grenade launchers fought army troops this week. . . . The army said it confiscated armored cars, grenade launchers, about 100 military-grade grenades, [and] explosive devices” in addition to a large quantity of ammunition.

Contrast that reality with the fiction perpetuated by politicians on both sides of the border. NRA members certainly recall that soon after President Obama took office last year, Attorney General Eric Holder stated his support for an “assault weapon” ban as the solution to Mexico’s drug violence. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal.), the sponsor of the federal “assault weapon” ban in 1993, soon called upon President Obama to support the Inter-American Convention Against Illegal Arms Trafficking, claiming, “According to the Mexican government, about 90 percent of the weapons they seize from Mexican drug cartels came into the country illegally from the United States.” Newspapers around the country fell for the ruse hook, line and sinker, parroting the 90 percent claim, as well as the utterly absurd, mathematically impossible claim that 2,000 guns cross from the U.S. into Mexico each day.

Apoplectic anti-gun members of Congress held dozens of hearings on the Mexico situation, including field hearings along the border. At one dog and pony show in El Paso, former Democrat Party presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) obligatorily called for a ban on the importation of “assault weapons,” a ban already imposed in 1989 by the BATF (as it was then known), apparently without Sen. Kerry’s knowledge. In fact, at a hearing on Capitol Hill, Sen. Feinstein nearly burst a blood vessel when a witness refused to support her belief that 2,000 guns crossed the border every day.

U.S. politicians have since maintained a low profile on the issue, fearful of the potential for a backlash at the polls in November. Last month, however, Mexico’s president, Felipe Calderon, complained that “there are more than 10,000 gun stores along the American border with Mexico. . . . So, the United States must stop the flow of assault weapons to Mexico.”

The claim is no more true today than when it was first floated a year ago. As we have noted, most of the guns that Mexico has seized from the cartels and asked the BATFE to trace (because markings on those particular firearms indicated that they came from the U.S.) represent only a small percentage of guns that Mexico has seized.

This was stated, though not clearly, in a Government Accountability Office report last summer (see document pages 14-15). However, lest anyone be misled by GAO’s lack of thoroughness on this point, the Department of Homeland Security, in an appendix to the GAO’s report (see page 69), set the record straight.

“DHS officials separately question the statistic involving the origination of weapons as currently presented by GAO,” DHS said. “GAO asserts that, ‘Available evidence suggests most firearms recovered in Mexico come from U.S. gun dealers, and many support Drug Trafficking Organizations.’ and fuel Mexican drug violence. Using the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) eTrace data, GAO determined that about 87 percent of firearms seized by Mexican authorities and traced from fiscal years 2004 to 2008 originated in the United States. DHS officials believe that the 87 percent statistic is misleading as the reference should include the number of weapons that could not be traced (i.e., out of approximately 30,000 weapons seized in Mexico, approximately 4,000 could be traced and 87 percent of those—3,480—originated in the United States.) Numerous problems with the data collection and sample population render this assertion as unreliable.”

In the early part of the 20th century, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” That is certainly the case in this story. As the vast scope of the Mexican drug cartels’ multi-million dollar arsenals is incrementally uncovered, the attempt by opponents of the right to arms to use Mexico’s problem as the excuse for restricting Second Amendment rights has fallen flat.

And to Mexico’s soldiers who obliterated the cartels’ punks and thugs last week, we say “buen tiro” (translation: “Good shooting”).

SOURCE

Fast Tracks, Federal Slaps, Tabor and More

April 2, 2010

The Coming Battle is, well, Coming….  We are being swamped by questions about our hopeful ballot initiative to defend Colorado from Obama Care.  The short answer is we are going through the very bureaucratic process with the state before we can hit the streets with petitions.  We should be able to get petitions out there in early April, and WE NEED HELP!  If you can volunteer to gather signatures please give us your contact information here. And if you’d like to give some cash for our fight go here.

If you help, we are going to make Colorado a sanctuary state for quality health care.

Fighting Obama Care in the Courts – Must Hear Podcast: Colorado Attorney General John Suthers joins our Research Director Dave Kopel to discuss the lawsuit he and 12 others State Attorneys General have jointly filed, that claims the health care bill recently signed by President Obama is unconstitutional because it violates the 10th Amendment. AG Suthers makes a good point: if Obama Care is allowed to ride, it will be a dangerous precedent – one from which we can never return. As the AG puts it, if the Feds can punish you for NOT engaging in commerce, is there any limit to their power? To get the whole scoop, listen to the podcast on iVoices.org.

Attacking TABOR “for the kids”?: The usual suspects have lined up to float a proposal that would exempt our state legislators from having to ask voters before raising taxes to fund education. Policy Analyst Ben DeGrow explained the problem with the proposal on a recent Colorado Springs TV news story. As a result, our young blogging prodigy Eddie added in his two cents worth, too.

Unintentional Comedy at 70 mph: As Yogi Berra once said, “It’s deja vu all over again.” Remember those FasTracks lies we’ve been told for 30 years? Well, a new report from the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority makes RTD’s distortions look like child’s play. The report claims that “high speed” rail lines between Fort Collins and Pueblo, and Denver International Airport and Eagle County – I-25 and I-70, respectively – would cost over $21 billion AND not need a dime of taxpayer money. I’ll let you finish laughing before I go on….

Further, the study claims, “for every dollar of capital and operating costs, the project creates economic benefits greater than one dollar.” If true, that begs the question: Why on earth would we need government to do it if the project is both economically feasible and profitable? The fact that entrepreneurs are not jumping all over this alleged gold mine is proof enough it’s a money loser. Obviously, I don’t even need to rely on any sort of theoretical argument here. Look at the history! Look at the empirical evidence right in front of our eyes! We’ve got a FasTracks project underfunded, over-budget, and largely unbuilt that is already over 30 years in the making.

For your viewing pleasure, an additional assortment of unbelievable claims and interesting tidbits:

  • We’re supposed to believe that this passenger rail system can be maintained without taxpayer money, while Amtrak is subsidized by taxpayers to the tune of $50 per ticket.
  • The study was funded by a firm that designs rail projects and manages construction projects.
  • That people would be willing to pay $80 round trip to Vail just to go as fast as they would in their cars.
  • That $40 ticket each way is the low cost estimate. As in, “could be as low as $40 per ticket.” Wow.
  • It projects ridership upwards of 35 million passengers a year. The Boston to Washington, D.C., corridor carries around 10 million per year.
  • About that last figure, the 35 million one, Amtrak carries around 10 million per year as well. That math just doesn’t add up.
  • These great facts and figures were brought to my attention through this fantastic Denver Post editorial and Denver Daily News piece. The DDN article features our very own Senior Fellow in Transportation Randal O’Toole. Randal has been waging a war on the bogus claims made by RTD over the years and pulled no punches on this outrageous report saying, “They’re using the most optimistic assumptions imaginable and then relying on compounded optimistic assumptions.” Yeah, kind of like compounded interest. Except with compounded optimism you don’t make money, you lose a ton and go deep into debt.

    If you haven’t had the chance to hear Randal, take a few minutes and listen. His recent appearance on my TV show Independent Thinking was an opportunity to say “I told you so” with Denver Post columnist Chuck Plunkett. Randal also presented to an audience for an event here at the Institute a little while ago titled, “Mobility vs. Gridlock: Colorado’s Transportation Future.” You can view that event via YouTube playlist here.

    Leave Our State Alone: A Constitutional Path to Prosperity: It’s no secret that University of Colorado economics professor and senior fellow Barry Poulson is a prolific writer. The man cranks out a consistent bevy of works that are both substantive and interesting (the latter being something you almost never get from an economist). His latest piece is no exception. In “Restoring Federalism and State Sovereignty: A Constitutional Path to Prosperity,” Barry gives a brief overview of how we got to where we are – states becoming more and more subservient to Federal power – and the important role the Judiciary played in steering us in that direction. (I say “steering,” but Barry would probably say “pushing.”) After years of judicial abdication bolstering Federal powers and all but eviscerating Constitutional constraints, what can we do to turn the ship around? Is it too late?

    Are teachers unions to blame?: On March 16 in New York City, a panel of three union officials and supporters (including American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten) debated a panel of three union critics (including former Secretary of Education Rod Paige) on whether teachers unions are to blame for our nation’s failing schools. Watch the revealing two-hour event, and see for yourself why most of the audience ended up agreeing that unions bear the blame. If you don’t have enough time, please read our own Ben DeGrow’s insights on the Ed News Colorado blog.

    The State Board of Ed… According to Bob: Ever wonder what the Colorado State Board of Education does? I was curious myself, so I tuned in to this two- part iVoices.org podcast between Fiscal Policy Center Director Penn Pfiffner and former Congressman and current State Board of Education Chairman Bob Schaffer. In the first installment, Bob gives listeners news from the Board – what’s going on, what they’re planning, and information regarding the “Race to the Top” funds. In the second installment, Bob goes over what the Board does, its functions, its impact, and how it shapes policy for all of Colorado’s schools.

    Must See TV: It’s Obama Care and medical privacy on this week’s Independent Thinking as the Independence Institute’s Health Care Policy Center Director Linda Gorman and Colorado Transparency Project Director Amy Oliver-Cooke join me to discuss the political and policy implications for Colorado of the recently passed federal health care reform bill (otherwise known as Obama Care), and the implications for medical privacy in Colorado should the state legislature pass House Bill 1330, the All-Payer Database, which would allow the state to collect and store your personal health care information without your consent. It’s a health care double whammy this Friday at 8:30 PM on KBDI Channel 12. Re-broadcast the following Monday at 1:30 PM.

    Perspective: In this week’s op-ed, Jessica Corry takes CU to task for not exploring all options before making their decision to raise tuition rates by the maximum 9% allowed by law. If Colorado citizens have to tighten the ol’ belt, why not CU?

    Until next week…

    Straight on

    Jon Caldara

    www.independenceinstitute.org


    Playing the Race card: A dead mans hand…

    April 1, 2010

    When people on the left simply cannot come up with rational arguments to use against their opponents it is inevitable that they play the race card. Often in conjunction with the “it’s for the children” card.  Sorry, but that just does not cut it anymore, we are  on to you, and those things just don’t work any longer.  But? You just keep on playing those ace’s and eights.

    Racist, or just tired of too much government?

    “Democrats last week began a well-orchestrated campaign to change the subject from Obamacare by declaring Republicans the newest terrorist threat. House Majority leader Steny H. Hoyer claimed that Democrats faced threats of violence in their home districts. He demanded that Republicans take a stand against it. ‘Silence gives consent,’ added Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, who accused Republicans of ‘aiding and abetting this kind of terrorism.’ Democrats promptly exploited their own fear-mongering by rushing out a fundraising letter. Meanwhile, a shot was fired through the window of Republican House Minority Whip Eric Cantor’s Richmond office. Instead of attempting to fill his campaign coffers over the incident, Mr. Cantor denounced Democratic recklessness in creating ‘media vehicles for political gain.’ To hear Mr. Clyburn talk, you’d think the Capitol had been bombed — like President Obama’s spiritual mentor Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground did in 1971 or the communist Revolutionary Fighting Group did in 1983. We don’t recall Republicans placing the blame on Democrats for those bona fide terror attacks committed by the Democrats’ ideological cousins. For the party’s leaders to make such insinuations now rings hollow. The Democrats and their supporters have consistently demeaned and mischaracterized the broad, nationwide, nonviolent grass-roots movement that arose in opposition to their radical agenda. A willing press establishment relays baseless claims that these protesters are violent uncritically and without investigation. … Any leftist thug is now free to toss a brick through a Democratic congressional district office window secure in the knowledge that the act of vandalism will be blamed automatically on Tea Partiers or Republicans. Such hoaxes are tickets to instant press coverage. … This victimization sideshow is meant to hide the fact that Democrats are pursuing policies that the American people oppose, and they are beginning to face a political price.” —The Washington Times

    Anger, venom and bile: “I know how the ‘tea party’ people feel, the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health-care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their ‘Obama Plan White Slavery’ signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.” –Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy

    That’s racist! “[T]he current surge of anger — and the accompanying rise in right-wing extremism — predates the entire health care debate. … If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play.” –New York Times columnist Frank Rich with a tired refrain

    “[W]hat are the tea partiers really angry about? Health care reform or the fact that it was an African-American president and a woman Speaker of the House who pushed through major change?” –MSNBC host Chris Matthews

    Which one of these is not like the other? “[The ‘Don’t Tread on Me‘ flags are] the same imagery that was on [Oklahoma City bomber] Timothy McVeigh, you know? I mean, this is the kind of thing that’s worrisome to me. I don’t see how you can get away from it.” –Fox News contributor Juan Williams, trying desperately to make a connection between the Tea Parties and terrorism

    Non Compos Mentis: “Because I think there’s been very consistent strategy from the right to racialize public policies so that poor white people who are often most vulnerable or most in need of those policies will vote against it to align themselves with a certain kind of whiteness, whiteness of property. So the poor white guy in Mississippi who needs welfare votes against welfare because he thinks he’s voting against a poor black woman in Harlem.” –CNN’s Marc Lamont Hill

    It’s not fair: “[M]aybe we have reached the point where the Congress needs to equal it out. Equal out the audience. … I think that, you know, hell, if we’re going to be socialist, let’s be socialist all across the board.” –MSNBC radio host Ed Schultz, advocating for the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” simply because Rush Limbaugh has far more listeners than he does

    SOURCE

    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
    http://www.gunowners.org

    “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 http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm 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.

    Sincerely,

    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

    SEC. 430. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.

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

    SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS.

    (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—

    (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
    Service.

    (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.

    (c) PURPOSE AND USE OF READY RESERVE.—

    (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

    MULTIPLE SOURCES

    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.

    SOURCE