Like the energizer bunny, these things just keep going and growing…
Posts Tagged ‘Law’
Scandal: Obama, Gore, Goldman, Joyce Foundation CCX partners to fleece USA
May 1, 2010Political mayhem?
May 1, 2010Arizona Immigration Brouhaha
Did these guys just come to work?Last week, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, signed a tough new law designed to crack down on the flood of illegal immigration in the state and the violence and mayhem that has accompanied it. Political mayhem is the price of the law’s enactment.
Stepped-up enforcement of the border in California and Texas has funneled much of the illegal alien traffic and cross-border smuggling through Arizona. A sharp increase in crime has resulted, with Phoenix now being the kidnap capital of the United States. Ranchers near the border live under a state of siege, but demands that the federal government take aggressive remedial action have been unavailing. The recent murder of Rob Krentz, a kind-hearted rancher who often assisted desperate immigrants abused and abandoned by their “coyote” guides, prompted widespread outrage at the federal government’s fundamental failure to protect its citizens against a dangerous foreign invasion.
The race-baiting grievance mongers wasted no time in denouncing the law. Vandals smeared refried beans in the shape of a swastika on the Arizona Capitol building (which we find to be an incredibly strange mixed message). Some leftist church leaders denounced the law as “hateful.” Race hustler Jesse Jackson called it “terrorism.” Calling it “stupid,” “an embarrassment” and “racist,” Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik (Tucson) said he would refuse to enforce it.
Latino activist and far-left Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) called for a boycott of his own state, saying, “I support some very targeted economic sanctions on the state of Arizona. We will be asking national organizations — civil, religious, political — not to have conferences and conventions in the state of Arizona. There has to be an economic consequence to this action and to this legislation.” We’re sure Arizona’s 2.3 million unemployed will thank Grijalva for his principled stand.
Meanwhile, in a stunning display of hypocrisy, the government of Mexico issued a travel advisory and expressed concern about the rights of its citizens in the United States. Of course, Mexico plays by much more stringent rules when dealing with its own immigration issues.
These critics either haven’t read the law or, more likely, don’t want to be bothered with reality. Among other things, Arizona’s new law makes it a state crime for people to be in Arizona if they are in the United States illegally. If the police have an otherwise lawful encounter with someone, and if they have “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the United States illegally, the police are required to ask for documentation of immigration status. An Arizona driver’s license is presumptive proof of lawful status.
The law specifically forbids police from basing their actions solely on someone’s race or ethnicity. It also compels the police to base their “reasonable suspicion” on criteria that are permissible under the U.S. and Arizona constitutions. Moreover, when she signed the bill, Gov. Brewer issued an executive order directing additional training specifically to avoid racial profiling when the law is enforced.
The new law, which in many places quotes federal law verbatim, was enacted because of the failure at the federal level to enforce those same laws. None of this matters to the Left. With tactics straight out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” they have demonized everyone who dares stand up for responsible enforcement of our laws and for the protection of our citizens.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama declared that the nation may not have the “appetite” for an immigration fight this year, so he removed the issue from his agenda. That’s a relief.
“So Arizona passes a tough law against illegal immigration and suddenly they’ve got Washington’s attention. One poll finds 70 percent of Arizona voters support this new law, so, ‘Hey, maybe we better do something, too.’ And like the lemmings they are when they smell a chance to score some political points, and some of them need a lot of help with the midterms coming up, there is now talk of rushing immigration reform through Congress. President Obama called the Arizona law ‘misguided.’ What’s misguided, Mr. President, is the federal government’s ongoing refusal to enforce the laws that are already on the books. Read the Arizona law. Parts of it are word-for-word the same as the federal statutes which continue to be all but ignored. Now we’ll hear all sorts of blathering from our Washington gerbils about the need for a new federal law. There’ll be news conferences and interviews and committee hearings and draft legislation and polling — all the usual carnival acts that accompany any hot button Washington issue. Instead of simply closing the borders and enforcing the existing law so they could turn their attention to something like the national debt and the fact that the country is bankrupt, instead we’re going to get this freak show. Washington’s position on illegal immigration is patently dishonest from the top down. No enforcement, no border security, just pandering to the Hispanic voters and the corporations that hire the illegals. And then, when one of our states that’s being ravaged by the presence of 460,000 illegal aliens inside its borders does something about it, the president says that’s misguided. What a shame.” –CNN commentator Jack Cafferty
Headline of the Week
“Illegal immigrants plan to leave over Ariz. law” —Associated Press
Isn’t that the point?
Immigration as an electoral weapon
April 29, 2010“Arizona’s new immigration law shows what happens when a state on the front lines of a failed immigration policy reaches the bursting point. What you get is a blunt instrument that produces lawsuits, more political polarization (if that’s possible) and the risk of hostility between the local police and the public. The law makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. without proper documents. It allows the police to stop anyone on ‘reasonable suspicion’ that they may be in the country unlawfully and arrest them on the spot if they can’t produce identity papers. The police aren’t required to have a search warrant or even to suspect some illegal action has occurred before questioning a person. Traditionally the federal government has enforced immigration laws, so this is an extraordinary state criminalization of a heretofore federal authority. … The loud voices denouncing ‘Arizona’ should understand that the results of the nation’s failed immigration policies have come down on this state. … Congressional Democrats have no intention of enacting serious immigration reform before November. President Obama is surely playing politics with the situation in Arizona for gain in the fall. He’d like to pick a fight and define Republicans as anti-Hispanic going into the election, without having to propose anything substantive. We’d support a national immigration reform that was realistic about the fact that most of these are economic migrants who will find a way to come here in any case if this is where the jobs are. The most effective way to reduce illegal entries and defuse these tensions is to expand legal channels, including guest worker programs. This would reduce illegal immigration and free up security resources to threats from drug gangs and the like. But so long as Republicans, Democrats and Mr. Obama mainly view immigration as an electoral weapon, the nation can expect more desperate laws like Arizona’s.” —The Wall Street Journal

“President Obama called the Arizona [immigration] law misguided. What’s misguided, Mr. President, is the federal government’s ongoing refusal to enforce the laws that are already on the books. Read the Arizona law. Parts of it are word-for-word the same as the federal statutes which continue to be all but ignored.” –CNN’s Jack Cafferty
“It is passing strange for federal officials, including the president, to accuse Arizona of irresponsibility while the federal government is refusing to fulfill its responsibility to control the nation’s borders. Such control is an essential attribute of national sovereignty. America is the only developed nation that has a 2,000-mile border with a developing nation, and the government’s refusal to control that border is why there are an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona and why the nation, sensibly insisting on first things first, resists ‘comprehensive’ immigration reform.” –columnist George Will
“In terms of resources and in terms of political will, it has become abundantly clear that the federal government refuses to make the right decisions in terms of enforcing the law and making the critical reforms necessary to drive down illegal immigration. Sadly, efforts in Congress have been more about gaining political votes through an unnecessary amnesty than on honest and effective reforms.” –columnist Jena McNeill, Heritage Foundation
“If a state, or nation, has laws it will not enforce for political reasons, it mocks both the law and politics, to say nothing of the cultural order.” –columnist Cal Thomas
“The election we need so desperately is coming. There’s an intermediate need as well: namely, to balk or slow down the administration’s initiatives until the debate — if there ever is a debate — can commence and the people, knowing what they now know, can say how they truly would like things to be. The establishment, if this happens, will prate about ‘obstructionism.’ Fine. We’re traveling about 150 miles an hour right now as we weave down the political superhighway. Flashing red and blue lights behind us would be a sight for sore eyes.” –columnist William Murchison
An ominous political precedent…
April 29, 2010Army Preps for Tea Party ‘Terrorists’
“The duty imposed upon [the president] to take care, that the laws be faithfully executed, follows out the strong injunctions of his oath of office, that he will ‘preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.’ The great object of the executive department is to accomplish this purpose; and without it, be the form of government whatever it may, it will be utterly worthless for offence, or defence; for the redress of grievances, or the protection of rights; for the happiness, or good order, or safety of the people.” –Justice Joseph Story

A few months back, the commander in chief or our Armed Forces, that erstwhile community organizer Barack Hussein Obama, denigrated a large cross section of Americans who identify with the Tea Party movement — those who advocate for Essential Liberty and Rule of Law.
Obama identified them as malcontents, “waving their little tea bags.”
Since then, the Obama administration and their Leftmedia sycophants have endeavored to characterize Tea Party attendees as rude, radical, racist, redneck, enemies of the state.
In fact, Americans who attend Tea Party rallies are from all walks of life, as noted in the Patriot Declaration, Patriots who are peacefully and constitutionally petitioning their government for redress.
As I noted in my tax-day essay, Tea Parties are “not a call for revolution but for restoration — a call to undertake whatever measures are dictated by prudence and necessity to restore constitutional Rule of Law.”
However, Obama’s words do have consequences.
This week, I was contacted by a number of military personnel, enlisted and officer ranks, who expressed concern about a military exercise underway at Ft. Knox, the U.S. Bullion Depository. As with most such exercises, the Ft. Knox alert occurred in stages, as if real time intelligence was being provided at various intervals.
The first intel advisory was issued on Friday, 23 April 2010, and identifies the terrorist threat adversaries as “Local Militia Groups / Anti-Government Protesters / TEA Party.”
You read that right: “TEA Party”!
The alert states that plans for the demonstration may have been interrupted by “Federal and local law enforcement” raids on a “White Supremacists Organization,” but “TEA Party organizers have stated that they will protest at the Gold Vault at a future date.”
Further, the intel advisory states, “Anti-Government – Health Care Protesters have stated that they would join the TEA Party as a sign of solidarity.”
In accordance with the exercise, Ft. Knox post security is placed on high alert because, “these groups are armed, have combative training and some are former Military Snipers. Some may have explosives training / experience,” and “a rally at their compound / training area is scheduled.”
Another intel update was issued on Monday, 26 April 2010, noting that the “rally at the Militia compound occurred,” and “Viable threats … have been made.” The intel on the rally notes, “Many members were extremely agitated at what they referred to as Government intervention and over taxation in their lives. Alcohol use ‘fanned the flames.’ Many military grade firearms were openly carried. An ad hoc ‘shoot the government agent’ event was held with prizes (alcohol) given for the best shot placement.”
The report states further, “Components of bomb making are reported to have been on the site. Some members have criminal records relating to explosive and weapons violations.”
In response to the “immediate threat,” the exercise stipulates, “local detention centers are being made ready for mass arrests.” Both the “QRF I and QRF II” are placed on two hour recall, and the “5-15 CAV” was ordered to “draw weapons from holder and store in most available arms room,” and “coordinate with MASA for immediate ammunition draw; have equipment readied for immediate use, i.e. vehicles staged and loaded IAW 5-15 CAV SOP; LMR’s charged.”
QRF refers to Quick Reaction Force. QRF I is the 16th Cavalry Regiment. QRF II is the 194th Armored Brigade.
The 26 April order gives specific instructions for the 5-15 CAV (a 16th Cavalry battalion) to have weapons, ammo, vehicles and communications at ready, and it places the other 2,200 members of the units on two-hour recall. In other words, these orders are to gear up for defending Ft. Knox against Tea Party folks and their co-conspirators who oppose nationalization of our health care sector.
Now, for almost 30 years I have participated in the development and implementation of small and large scale military exercises within the U.S. and around the world.
Such exercises are critical to the readiness of our forces, and the standard for the real time intel reports in these drills requires thinly veiled references to assets of existing or collateral threat vectors such as communist regimes such as China and real terrorist networks such as al-Qa’ida, etc.
Perhaps the writers of such exercises today should focus on response plans for, say, an Islamic terrorist who attacks a post. (See Ft. Hood / Major Nidal Malik Hasan.)
The Ft. Knox exercise is not only amateurish in its construct, but also sets an ominous political precedent.
The military officers and enlisted personnel with whom I spoke are all dedicated uniformed Patriots who are loyal, first and foremost, to their oath to “support and defend” our Constitution “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Their concerns about this exercise mirrored my own. As one put it, the exercise “misrepresents freedom loving Americans as drunken, violent racists — the opponents of Obama’s policies have been made the enemy of the U.S. Army.”
They were equally concerned that command staff at Ft. Knox had signed off on this exercise, noting, “it has been issued and owned by field grade officers who lead our battalions and brigades,” which is to say many Lieutenant Colonels saw this order before it was implemented.
It’s not likely that Ft. Knox Commanding General James Milano or Deputy Commander Col. David Teeples, or even the regimental and brigade commanders for the 16th Cav and 194th AB, actually read the exercise scenario, but that doesn’t absolve responsibility for such an egregious example of political exploitation of U.S. forces.
One officer insisted, “The American people should require greater accountability of their commissioned officers, that they abide by their oath and never allow politically motivated propaganda like this exercise on any post or base again.”
Another observed, “Whether this is complacency by officers who do not see such orders as a problem, or worse, officers who recognize the problem but do not insist the orders are changed, this is a serious problem. We are discussing the training of American citizen soldiers in the use of potentially deadly force against a specific group of political dissenters. There is never a time in an officer’s career in which he does not have a duty to apply critical thought to the orders he is given and asked to give. It is my opinion that any officer that has allowed these orders to persist, to reach the level of junior officers and soldiers, has demonstrated a lack of judgment or apathy towards what his duty requires of him. Either way, we should demand more of the commissioned officers, who we as a nation empower to lead our sons and daughters into battle.”
Indeed, and at best, the blatant malfeasance on the part of the individuals who composed this exercise reflects poorly on the uniformed services.
The antidote to this patent misrepresentation of peaceable Patriots is to expose it with the Light of Truth. As our motto Veritas vos Liberabit affirms, the Truth shall set you Free!
(Note: To report examples of politically motivated “exercises” in either the civilian or military sectors of our federal government, please contact us — NewsTip@PatriotPost.US)
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US
Redactions: Epic Fail Obama; Chi Town Politics
April 25, 2010Seems that our dear leader, the epic fail obama, may have got his hand caught in the cookie jar. This reminds me of Richard Nixon proclaiming that he was not a crook. Uh, right!
Former governor Rod Blagojevich‘s defense team asked Thursday to issue a trial subpoena to the President of the United States of America.
The motion, intended to be heavily redacted, was improperly edited — the full document was easily viewable if the text is copied and pasted to another document (an error first revealed on Capitol Fax).
Below, the six revelations the redacted portions were meant to conceal.
Please link to the above source for all the dirt revealed. This is hot stuff, really hot stuff!
1. Obama may have lied about conversations with convicted fraudster Tony Rezko
2. Obama may have overtly recommended Valerie Jarret for his Senate seat
3. A supporter of President Obama may have offered quid pro quo on a Jarrett senate appointment
5. Rahm Emanuel allegedly floated Cheryl Jackson’s name for the Senate seat
6. Obama had a secret phone call with Blagojevich
Colorado: House Considering “Deny-On-Arrest” Legislation
April 10, 2010The Colorado House of Representatives is currently considering legislation that would that would solidify an unconstitutional provision in the state’s background check system.
House Bill 1391, sponsored by State Representative Joe Rice (D-38), would extend a provision in state law that was due to sunset in July 2010. The provision the bill extends would deny gun purchases to those with an arrest on their record, even if they were never convicted. This deny-on-arrest provision would remove a constitutional right to own a firearm based on an arrest (an accusation), NOT a conviction. It directly conflicts with the fundamental American doctrine of “innocent until proven guilty.”
Because the disposition of an arrest record isn’t always available, the burden of proof falls on gun buyers to prove they are eligible to purchase a firearm. In many cases, this costs these individuals thousands of dollars of their own money to prove their innocense.
The bill has been scheduled for a hearing on Monday, April 12, in the House Judiciary Committee. Please call members of the committee and respectfully urge them to vote against HB 1391 and this unconstitutional attack on the Second Amendment rights of Colorado citizens. Contact information can be found below.
State Representative Claire Levy (D-13), Chair
Phone: (303) 866-2578
Email: claire.levy.house@state.co.us
State Representative Beth McCann (D-8), Vice Chair
Phone: (303) 866-2959
Email: beth.mccann.house@state.co.us
State Representative Lois Court (D-6)
Phone: (303) 866-2967
Email: lois.court.house@state.co.us
State Representative Bob Gardner (R-21)
Phone: (303) 866-2191
Email: bob.gardner.house@state.co.us
State Representative Daniel Kagan (D-3)
Phone: (303) 866-2921
Email: repkagan@gmail.com
State Representative Steve King (R-54)
Phone: (303) 866-3068
Email: steve.king.house@state.co.us
State Representative Joe Miklosi (D-9)
Phone: (303) 866-2910
Email: joe@joemiklosi.com
State Representative B.J. Nikkel (R-49)
Phone: (303) 866-2907
Email: rep.nikkel@gmail.com
State Representative Sal Pace (D-46)
Phone: (303) 866-2968
Email: sal.pace.house@state.co.us
State Representative Su Ryden (D-36)
Phone: (303) 866-2942
Email: sy.ryden.house@state.co.us
State Representative Mark Waller (R-15)
Phone: (303) 866-5525
Email: mark.waller.house@state.co.us
Another loser about to be appointed…
April 9, 2010As noted in an earlier post epic fail obama’s nomination for the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals is completely unqualified to be a JUDGE. Much less an appellate court judge.
Yet the Senate Judiciary Committee appears bound and determined to force feed this sorry excuse of an attorney to we, the American people.
Republicans on the committee demand a delay in the scheduled April 16 hearing for Goodwin Liu, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. The committee this week received almost 120 items that Liu omitted from an earlier background questionnaire.
Consideration of Liu’s appointment to the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is a warmup for the debate over a Supreme Court replacement if Justice John Paul Stevens decides to retire this year, said Curt Levey, executive director of the Committee for Justice in Washington and a critic of Liu’s confirmation.
With the announcement that Justice Stevens will retire this summer it is clear that judicial battle lines will be drawn. Further, that we will have to live with these idiots in power for years to come. But what the heck? They are all probably just as qualified as obama is…
Investigation reveals numerous bogus claims on Obama resume
April 4, 2010Every 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.
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 DEVELOPMENT—just 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.
Black John McCaffery: USMC
April 1, 2010Seems 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
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.
Just the facts mam: Don’t allow pesky things like facts get in the way…
March 28, 2010Yet 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.





