Archive for the ‘Education’ Category

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


    Black John McCaffery: USMC

    April 1, 2010

    Seems that things in the P.I. are not what one would think. For several years various insurgent groups have been decimating the Islands of the Philippines…

    John McCaffery, called “Black John” by the Marines that he served with would not be happy with what the current Philippine Government is proposing. No, not at all… When all hell broke loose in the P.I. at the beginning of World War Two? He was there. He spent months in the jungle fighting the Japanese. United States Marines are like that. Simple statement of fact folks…

    And now? The Government of the Philippines? Have decided that the people there are to damned stupid to properly and effectively  defend themselves!

    John McCaffery, wasted his, and Americas time…

    Read on…

    PNP wants permanent total firearm ban

    By AARON B. RECUENCO
    March 28, 2010, 4:31pm

    The Philippine National Police (PNP) wants the implementation of the total gun ban to become permanent after it noted positive results not only in the campaign against election-related violence incidents (ERVI) but also in criminal activities nationwide.

    Director General Jesus Verzosa, PNP chief, said that they have been receiving positive feedbacks from various sectors regarding the improvement of peace and order situation even in areas included in the election hot spots, including the usual troubled areas in Luzon like Masbate and in Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).

    “Maganda ang resulta (it has produced good results),” said Verzosa when asked why they are planning to implement the total gun ban beyond this year’s election period.

    “But we cannot decide on this matter on our own, we still have to coordinate with proper government agencies regarding this (proposal to make total gun ban permanent),” he added.

    Right now, Verzosa said that they still have to wait for the after-operation results of all the security measures they proposed since the start of the election period on January 10 such as setting up of checkpoints and suspension of all permits to carry firearms outside residence.

    “We still have to come up with the asessment which will serve as our basis in convincing concerned government agencies to agree on our proposal,” said Verzosa.

    SOURCE

    The “Golden State” of my birth…

    April 1, 2010

    Said State of Gold…? Is broke. As a direct result of socialist policy’s that have been going on for decades. It is broke morally as well as financially. Don’t get me wrong on this. There are still quite a few people in California that are decent, strong, and smarter than your average hoplophobe from San Fransisco. But..? Why, in the name of God, or any of the early Californios, are these things even an issue..?

    Some things are right, and? Some things are wrong. Granted, some things are a bit gray. However? What follows clearly isn’t. Not at all. You see, these things are already granted…

    Assembly Bill 2053, sponsored by Assemblymember Jeff Miller (R-71), would clarify the current statutes for law enforcement to issue a concealed firearms license.  Under AB2053, the “good cause” stipulation would apply to self-defense, defending the life of another, or preventing crime in which a human life is threatened.

    Assembly Bill 2115, introduced by Assemblymember Steve Knight (R-36), would alter California’s concealed carry statutes by eliminating the “good cause” requirement for veterans.

    Assembly Bill 2152, simply put, would exempt honorably discharged members of the United States Armed Forces, National Guard, Air National Guard, and active reserve components of the United States from the handgun safety certificate requirements to purchase a handgun.  AB2152 is sponsored by Assemblymember Jim Nielsen (R-2).

    Please contact the members of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety TODAY and respectfully urge them to support AB2053, AB2115, and AB2152. Contact information can be found below.

    Assembly Member Tom Ammiano (D-13) – Chair
    (916) 319-2013
    Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov

    Assembly Member Curt Hagman (R-60) – Vice Chair
    (916) 319-2060
    Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov

    Assembly Member Danny D. Gilmore (R-30)
    (916) 319-2030
    Assemblymember.Gilmore@assembly.ca.gov

    Assembly Member Jerry Hill (D-19)
    (916) 319-2019
    Assemblymember.Hill@assembly.ca.gov

    Assembly Member Nancy Skinner (D-14)
    (916) 319-2014
    Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov

    Assembly Member Jim Beall, Jr. (D-24)
    (916) 319-2024
    Assemblymember.Beall@assembly.ca.gov

    Assembly Member Anthony Portantino (D-44)
    (916) 319-2044
    Assemblymember.Portantino@assembly.ca.gov

    SOURCE

    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

    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

    SOURCE More HERE

    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?