News for 09/17/2009- What the Senate Takes Away With One Hand, The House Gives Back With Another?

Posted on September 17, 2009. Filed under: General Info, Soapbox | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

So what the Senate takes away with one hand, the House gives back with the other?????

Dems push expanded Community Reinvestment Act; deny Act’s role in mortgage meltdown; GOP cites ACORN connection by Byron York at Washington Examiner
http://www.washington…

A number of experts believe that aggressive enforcement of the 1970s-era Community Reinvestment Act contributed to the mortgage meltdown, and thus to the greater financial crisis, by requiring financial institutions to lend to unqualified borrowers. Now, the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives is responding to that situation by proposing to expand the scope and power of the Community Reinvestment Act.

This morning House Financial Services Committee chairman Rep. Barney Frank held a hearing on H.R. 1479, the “Community Reinvestment Modernization Act of 2009.” The bill’s purpose is “to close the wealth gap in the United States” by increasing “home ownership and small business ownership for low- and moderate-income borrowers and persons of color.” It would extend CRA’s strict lending requirements to non-bank institutions like credit unions, insurance companies, and mortgage lenders. It would also make CRA more explicitly race-based by requiring CRA standards to be applied to minorities, regardless of income, going beyond earlier requirements that applied solely to low- and moderate-income areas.

Republicans on the committee strongly oppose the plan. “Instead of looking to expand the number of institutions that must abide by Community Investment Act regulations,” California Rep. Ed Royce said in prepared opening remarks at today’s hearing, “I think we should reassess the role this and other government mandates played in the financial collapse and consider scaling it back.”

READ THE BILL: http://www.opencongre…

Reinvestment Act Is Tied to ACORN

http://www.lewrockwel…

…So-called “community groups” like ACORN benefit themselves from the CRA through a process that sounds like legalized extortion. The CRA is enforced by four federal government bureaucracies: the Fed, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The law is set up so that any bank merger, branch expansion, or new branch creation can be postponed or prohibited by any of these four bureaucracies if a CRA “protest” is issued by a “community group.” This can cost banks great sums of money, and the “community groups” understand this perfectly well. It is their leverage. They use this leverage to get the banks to give them millions of dollars as well as promising to make a certain amount of bad loans in their communities. …

…Consequently, banks in every community in America have been forced to hold a portfolio of bad loans, euphemistically referred to as “subprime” loans. In order to compensate themselves for the added risk of extending these loans, many lenders have increased the lending fees associated with mortgage loans. This is simply an indirect way of doing what banks always do – and what they must do to remain solvent: charging effectively higher rates of interest on riskier loans.

But this is discriminatory!, complained the “community organizations.” Thus, if one browses the ACORN web site, one can read of their boasts of having “predatory lending laws” passed in numerous states which outlaw such fees, prohibiting banks from protecting themselves from the added risk involved in making forced loans to “subprime” borrowers. …

Interesting to Me This Comes On The Heels of the Senate Vote to Defund ACORN.. Well, perhaps it is not defunding, but rather a shell game- no doubt learned at the knee of ACORN itself

READ THE BILL: http://www.opencongre…

Learn About ACORN/ CCI

http://www.alipac.us/…

Citizens Consulting Inc. (CCI), the shadowy financial nerve center of the embattled radical activist group ACORN, has filed false lobbying disclosure reports with Congress, according to Ron Sykes, a former ACORN employee. This revelation is important because, as former ACORN national board member Charles Turner said earlier this year on “The Glenn Beck Program,” CCI “is where the shell game begins.”

“ACORN has over 200 different entities that the money gets moved around to – for this purpose to that purpose, this organization to that organization,” said Turner. “We believe the way the money has been moved around, they’ve been laundering money.” When former ACORN activist Ron Sykes was informed by this reporter that ACORN affiliate CCI registered him as a lobbyist, he was angry. “It’s like identity theft,” said Sykes in an interview. “I have no idea why they registered me. I didn’t register myself and was not aware that they were doing it.”

Whether this reflects ACORN’s institutional carelessness or a calculated effort to deceive, the discovery throws some light on how ACORN treats its employees, moves money around the ACORN network, and deals with the federal government. Federal lawmakers have known for years about ACORN’s unorthodox and possibly illegal practices, including its use of government resources to promote legislation and its extensive commingling of funds within its network of affiliates.

CCI Tied Directly To Obama Campaign: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/22/acorn-watch-pt-ii-obama-hid-800000-payment-to-acorn-through-citizen-services-inc/  (from Michelle Malkin on 08/22/2008)

..U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an offshoot of the liberal Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now for services the Democrat’s campaign says it mistakenly misrepresented in federal reports. An Obama spokesman said Federal Election Commission reports would be amended to show Citizens Services Inc. — a subsidiary of ACORN — worked in “get-out-the-vote” projects, instead of activities such as polling, advance work and staging major events as stated in FEC finance reports filed during the primary. ..

Official US House of Representatives Report Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:

Is ACORN Intentionally Structured As a Criminal Enterprise?http://republicans.ov…

 The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) has repeatedly and deliberately engaged in systemic fraud. Both structurally and operationally, ACORN hides behind a paper wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a criminal conspiracy on the part of its directors, to launder federal money in order to pursue a partisan political agenda and to manipulate the American electorate. Emerging accounts of widespread deceit and corruption raise the need for a criminal investigation of ACORN. By intentionally blurring the legal distinctions between 361 tax-exempt and non-exempt entities, ACORN diverts taxpayer and tax-exempt monies into partisan political activities. Since 1994, more than $53 million in federal funds have been pumped into ACORN, and under the Obama administration, ACORN stands to receive a whopping $8.5 billion in available stimulus funds.

Operationally, ACORN is a shell game played in 120 cities, 43 states and the District of Columbia through a complex structure designed to conceal illegal activities, to use taxpayer and tax-exempt dollars for partisan political purposes, and to distract investigators. Structurally, ACORN is a chess game in which senior management is shielded from accountability by multiple layers of volunteers and compensated employees who serve as pawns to take the fall for every bad act. The report that follows presents evidence obtained from former ACORN insiders that completes the picture of a criminal enterprise.

Read the report, which is linked above.

RECENT RELATED COLUMNS:

http://soldierforliberty.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/news-for-09142009-the-tides-foundation/

 
 
 
Michelle Malkin Today: Triple Snort Worthy: White House Distances Itself From ACORN

 

How many patriots does it take to affect change in Washington? I guess about 2 million:

HR 3226 Czar Accountability and Reform (CZAR) Act of 2009

http://www.opencongre…

To provide that appropriated funds may not be used to pay for any salaries or expenses of any task force, council, or similar office which is established by or at the direction of the President and headed by an individual who has been inappropriately appointed to such position (on other than an interim basis), without the advice and consent of the Senate.

ACTION ALERT: CALL YOUR SENATORS NOW AND DEMAND THEY CO-SPONSOR THIS BILL

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News for 09/05/2009- Parents Who Object Aren’t Smart Enough To Raise Kids and Other Affronts to American Citizens

Posted on September 5, 2009. Filed under: Soapbox | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

SCHOOL CONTROVERSY CONTINUES:
http://www.eyeblast.t… (1.5 min video)
Liberal media blasts parents objections- says parent’s who object are not smart enough to raise children.

Why Parents Don’t Trust the Educator-in-Chief and His Comrades from Michelle Malkin for CNS News
http://cnsnews.com/ne…
They think we’re crazy. “They” are the sneering defenders of Barack Obama who can’t fathom the backlash against the president’s nationwide speech to schoolchildren next Tuesday. “We” are parents with eyes wide open to the potential for politicized abuse in America’s classrooms.

Ask moms and dads in Farmington, Utah, who discovered this week that their children sat through a Hollywood propaganda video promoting the cult of Obama. In the clip, a parade of entertainers vow to flush their toilets less, buy hybrid vehicles, end poverty and world hunger, and commit to “service” for “change.” Actress Demi Moore leads the glitterati in a collective promise “to be a servant to our president.” Musician Anthony Kiedis pledges “to be of service to Barack Obama.” The campaign commercial crescendos with the stars and starlets asking their audience: “What’s your pledge?” http://www.youtube.co… (here is the video in question)

This same “Do Something” ethos infected the U.S. Department of Education teachers guides accompanying the announcement of Obama’s speech—until late Wednesday, that is, when the White House removed some of the activist language exhorting students to come up with ways to “help the president.” Education Secretary Arne Duncan had disseminated the material directly to principals across the country—circumventing elected school board members and superintendents now facing neighborhood revolts. O’s bureaucrats can whitewash offending language from the Sept. 8 speech-related documents, but they can’t remove the taint of left-wing radicalism that informs Obama and his education mentors. A spokesman maintained that the speech is “about the value of education and the importance of staying in school as part of his effort to dramatically cut the dropout rate.” But the historical subtext is far less innocent.

The Green “Trojan Horse” from Investors Business Daily
http://www.ibdeditori…
Van Jones, a special adviser to the president, revealed his Trojan-horse strategy during a 2008 interview on leftist Uprising Radio in Los Angeles. “The green economy will start off as a small subset” of a “complete revolution” away from “gray capitalism” and toward “redistribution of all the wealth,” he said. “And we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.” A self-described “communist,” Jones caught heat recently for calling Republicans “a**holes.” He’s also a 9/11 “truther” as it turns out, one of many red flags in a radical past that, remarkably, didn’t disqualify him from shaping domestic policy in this White House. Jones apologized for his “inappropriate” remarks concerning Republicans while distancing himself from the nutty people calling for an investigation of the Bush administration for bombing the Twin Towers on 9/11. Jones signed a petition pushing for such a witch hunt, even though the Ivy League lawyer claims he didn’t know what he was signing. But he hasn’t been made to answer for his communist beliefs, which are even deeper than first thought.

Trying to change the subject, Jones insisted his work at the White House is “entirely focused on one goal: building clean-energy incentives which create 21st century jobs that improve energy efficiency and use renewable resources.” That doesn’t tell the full story. As the president’s “green-jobs czar,” it’s clear Jones has a hidden agenda. Judging from his own words, his environmental concerns appear to be a front for creating a massive new welfare program — complete with paid job training and counseling — for criminals. Jones has a shockingly soft spot for felons. Before joining the White House, he agitated against “the punishment industry,” which he claims profits from a “racist war” against people of color. He has called U.S. prisons “slave ships on dry land” and has served on panels calling for an end to prisons and the freeing of all inmates. The former Oakland, Calif., community organizer has said he wants to “build a pipeline from the prison economy to the green economy,” including hiring parolees to weatherize homes and offices. He secured grants to start a Green Job Corps in Oakland.

In his 2006 memoir, President Obama proposed government-subsidized green jobs “to hire and train ex-felons on projects” such as “insulating homes and offices to make them energy-efficient.” Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, who worked with Jones in California as a congresswoman, has already put such plans in motion. Jones’ “green jobs, not jails” program is but a “radical kernel” of what Jones says he wants to reap. He intends to use the green movement as a Trojan horse to socialize the entire economy. “Right now we say we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to ‘eco-capitalism’ where at least we’re not fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet,” Jones said. “Will that be enough? No, it won’t be enough. We want to go beyond the systems of exploitation and oppression altogether.”

Beyond our system of capitalism to communism, is what he means. Though Obama’s father was a Marxist, there’s no indication the president subscribes to Jones’ vision. But Obama and Jones share a common background in the same Marxism-steeped faith: Black Liberation Theology, which we first warned voters about years ago. The father of the movement — James Cone — believes that by merging Marxism with the Gospel, African-Americans will be liberated. “Together,” Cone said, “black religion and Marxist philosophy may show us a way to build a completely new society.” Cone mentored Obama’s longtime preacher, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a big fan of Marxist regimes. Wright has made a number of comments over the years that have been described as anti-capitalist and anti-American, and that suggest he believes deep conspiracies drive American politics. We also warned that it’s dangerous for a presidential aspirant to surround himself throughout his career with a coterie of radicals. They could wind up in the White House making policy. Van Jones is Exhibit A.

Obama Regulation Czar Advocated Removing People’s Organs Without Explicit Consent from CNS News

http://www.cnsnews.co…

Cass Sunstein, President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has advocated a policy under which the government would “presume” someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation into someone else when they die unless that person has explicitly indicated that his or her organs should not be taken. Under such a policy, hospitals would harvest organs from people who never gave permission for this to be done.

Outlined in the 2008 book “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” Sunstein and co-author Richard H. Thaler argued that the main reason that more people do not donate their organs is because they are required to choose donation. Sunstein and Thaler pointed out that doctors often must ask the deceased’s family members whether or not their dead relative would have wanted to donate his organs. These family members usually err on the side of caution and refuse to donate their loved one’s organs. “The major obstacle to increasing [organ] donations is the need to get the consent of surviving family members,” said Sunstein and Thaler. This problem could be remedied if governments changed the laws for organ donation, they said. Currently, unless a patient has explicitly chosen to be an organ donor, either on his driver’s license or with a donor card, the doctors assume that the person did not want to donate and therefore do not harvest his organs. Thaler and Sunstein called this “explicit consent.” They argued that this could be remedied if government turned the law around and assumed that, unless people explicitly choose not to, then they want to donate their organs – a doctrine they call “presumed consent.” “Presumed consent preserves freedom of choice, but it is different from explicit consent because it shifts the default rule. Under this policy, all citizens would be presumed to be consenting donors, but they would have the opportunity to register their unwillingness to donate,” they explained.

The Trouble With Textbooks- a look at how Textbook Publishers are Shaping America by Incorrectly Reporting History from Fox News
http://www.foxnews.co…

Hard-edged propaganda now suffuses America’s history textbooks. A thorough cover-to-cover reading of almost any high school history text leaves you with the impression that the United States is at best embarrassing, and at worst a menace to world peace.Did shielding children from scary words like “mailman” turn them into better students? Compare the test scores in your kids’ school district to those from 1960, and judge for yourself. Or consider this: When asked about the Vietnam War recently, almost a quarter of students described it as a conflict between North and South Korea.

Yet even flat ignorance is better (and certainly more amusing) than the hard-edged propaganda that now suffuses history textbooks. A thorough cover-to-cover reading of almost any high school history text leaves you with the impression that the United States is at best embarrassing, and at worst a menace to world peace. The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War Two gets almost us much emphasis as the American liberation of Europe. Non-American cultures, by contrast, receive every benefit of every doubt. Try to find a high school textbook that even mentions the widespread practice of slavery among American Indians. Good luck. Even September 11, an event hardly shrouded by the haze of time, gets a rewrite. In Prentice Hall’s textbook on contemporary American history, for instance, the 19 hijackers are not identified as Islamic extremists. Students are left to guess why they did it.

Don’t take my word for it. Make a pledge to yourself to look through your children’s textbooks this year. Take a look at what’s there, but also at what’s missing. If you find bias or distortions, don’t be silent. Raise holy hell. Someday your kids will thank you for it. Check out the Fox Special: “FOX News Reporting: Do You Know What Textbooks Your Children Are Really Reading?” on Friday, September 4 from 9 – 10 p.m. ET on FOX News Channel. The special re-air throughout the weekend including on Saturday at 4 and 10 p.m. ET and again on Sunday at 1 a.m., 3 and 9 p.m. and 2 a.m. ET.

The Constitution and American Sovereignty by Mr. Black at WeThePeople

http://wethepeople.or…

“WOULD WE be far wrong,” President Lincoln asked in a special message to Congress in 1861, “if we defined [sovereignty] as a political community without a political superior?” Maybe that’s not exhaustive, but it comes on good authority. And notice that for Lincoln, sovereignty is a political or legal concept. It’s not about power. Lincoln didn’t say that the sovereign is the one with the most troops. He was making a point about rightful authority….

The Constitution provides for treaties, and even specifies that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”; that is, that they will be binding on the states. But from 1787 on, it has been recognized that for a treaty to be valid, it must be consistent with the Constitution—that the Constitution is a higher authority than treaties. And what is it that allows us to judge whether a treaty is consistent with the Constitution? Alexander Hamilton explained this in a pamphlet early on: “A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.” And he gave a very logical reason: It is the Constitution that authorizes us to make treaties. If a treaty violates the Constitution, it would be like an agent betraying his principal or authority. And as I said, there has been a consensus on this in the past that few ever questioned. Let me give you an example of how the issue has arisen. In 1919, the United States participated in a conference to establish the International Labour Organization (ILO). The original plan was that the members of the ILO would vote on labor standards, following which the member nations would automatically adopt those standards. But the American delegation insisted that it couldn’t go along with that, because it would be contrary to the Constitution. Specifically, it would be delegating the treaty-making power to an international body, and thus surrendering America’s sovereignty as derived from the Constitution. Instead, the Americans insisted they would decide upon these standards unilaterally as they were proposed by the ILO. In the 90 years since joining this organization, I think the U.S. has adopted three of them.

Today there is no longer a consensus regarding this principle of non-delegation, and it has become a contentious issue. For instance, two years ago in the D.C. Court of Appeals, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an environmental group, sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), claiming that it should update its standards for a chemical that is thought to be depleting the ozone layer. There is a treaty setting this standard, and the EPA was in conformity with the treaty. But the NRDC pointed out that Congress had instructed the EPA to conform with the Montreal Protocol and its subsequent elaborations. In other words, various international conferences had called for stricter emission standards for this chemical, and Congress had told the EPA to accept these new standards as a matter of course. The response to this by the D.C. Court of Appeals was to say, in effect, that it couldn’t believe Congress had meant to do that, since Congress cannot delegate its constitutional power and responsibility to legislate for the American people to an international body. This decision wasn’t appealed, so we don’t yet have a Supreme Court comment on the issue.

The delegation of judicial power is another open question today. There’s no doubt that the U.S. can agree to arbitrations of disputes with foreign countries, as we did as early as the 1790s with the Jay Treaty. But it’s another thing altogether to say that the rights of American citizens in the U.S. can be determined by foreign courts. This would seem to be a delegation of the judicial power, which Article 3 of the Constitution says “shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” This became an issue last year in the case of Medellin v. Texas, which considered an International Court of Justice ruling that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer, because he had not been given the chance to consult the Mexican consulate before his trial, as he had the right to do under an international treaty. The Supreme Court, after much hand-wringing, concluded that it didn’t think the Senate had intended to give the International Court of Justice the power to decide these questions of American law as applied by American courts. I would go further and say that no matter what the Senate intended, this is not a power which can be delegated under the Constitution. But it is no longer clear that a majority on the Supreme Court would agree.

Or consider the Spanish judges who want to arrest American politicians if they venture into Europe, in order to try them for war crimes. This is preposterous. It is akin to piracy. And not only has our government not protested this nonsense, but it has contributed to building up an international atmosphere in which this sort of thing seems plausible—an atmosphere where the old idea of a jury of one’s peers and the idea of Americans having rights under the Constitution give way to the notion of some hazy international standard of conduct that everyone in the world can somehow agree upon and then enforce on strangers….

It is important to think about these issues regarding sovereignty today, because it is possible to lose sovereignty rather quickly. Consider the European Union. The process that led to what we see today in the EU began when six countries in 1957 signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established a court in Luxembourg—the European Court of Justice—which was to interpret disputes about the treaty. To make its interpretations authoritative, the Court decreed in the early 1960s that if the treaty came into conflict with previous acts of national parliaments, the treaty would take precedence. Shortly thereafter it declared that the treaty would also take precedence over subsequent statutes. And in the 1970s it said that even in case of conflicts between the treaty and national constitutions, the treaty would take precedence. Of course, judges can say whatever they want. What is more remarkable is that all the nations in the EU have more or less grudgingly accepted this idea that a treaty is superior to their constitutions, so that today whatever regulations are cranked out by the European Commission—which is, not to put too fine a point on it, a bureaucracy—supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. And when there was eventually a lot of clamor about protection of basic rights, the court in Luxembourg proclaimed that it would synthesize all the different rights in all the different countries and take care of that as well…..

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News for 08/28/2009- FCC Czar, Regulatory Czar, We the People Have the Power

Posted on August 27, 2009. Filed under: Enemies of The State, General Info, Soapbox | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 Check Out This New Citizen Tool

Touted as “Transparency’s Sidekick”…. cool site! LegiStorm helps bring trans- parency to the U.S. Congress by disseminating public docu- ments and non-partisan infor- mation over the web.
 
How America Voices Their Democracy- FAX YOUR REPS FOR FREE- check out this site
  

 

Michael Badnarik On The Constitution: We The People Have the Power 5 min video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIggk2dFHMI

Another Story of Government Insulting Concerned Americans from American Liberty Alliance

http://americanlibertyalliance.com/blog/2009-08-27/taxpayer-dollars-used-to-call-american-patriots-tea-baggers/ We at the American Liberty Alliance, an organization that is deeply involved in the Tea Party Movement, find this incredibly offensive. Our group demands that the Rules Committee immediately apologize and ensure the person responsible for sending this message is reprimanded for insulting the hundreds of thousands of American Patriots who consider themselves “Tea Partiers.” Anyone wishing to contact the Rules Committee can call the number they provide in their email. Call (916) 319-2800 and tell them how you feel!

This would suggest that someone working on taxpayer time, in a taxpayer funded office, using taxpayer funded email servers to contact taxpayer employees, deliberately chose to use the phrase “tea baggers” instead of “Tea Partiers.” (“tea baggers” is an explicit sexual term whose definition can be found at wikipedia.com)

 
FCC Diversity Chief Asked Liberals to Copy FDR, Take on Limbaugh, Murdoch, Supreme Court
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/53136
Federal Communications Commission Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd called on fellow liberals to follow the model of former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and challenge conservative media moguls and station owners, particularly figures such as Rush Limbaugh, Rupert Murdoch, and “a pro-big business Supreme Court aligned” with them. Lloyd made the call in a 2007 article for the liberal Center for American Progress while he was a senior fellow there.  Entitled “Media Maneuvers: Why the Rush to Waive Cross-Ownership Bans,” the article ostensibly talks about the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) decision to allow Chicago real estate mogul Sam Zell to purchase the then-failing Chicago Tribune Co., owner of the Chicago Tribune newspaper.  Lloyd, however, uses the Zell case, in which Zell ultimately prevailed, to make a broader argument that liberals should look to the tactics employed by FDR to combat his conservative critics in the media, saying that liberals must challenge outspoken conservatives who own media outlets. “Progressives should take a page from FDR’s media diversity playbook,” Lloyd wrote. “[A]t the end of a second FDR administration [in 1940] when the New Dealers were still battling a conservative print media and a conservative Supreme Court to fix the great debacle of American capitalism – the Great Depression. “FDR’s fireside chats and his ready access to radio allowed him to speak directly to Americans and continue to push a progressive agenda,” said Lloyd. “But FDR was becoming increasingly concerned about the purchase of radio operations by the newspaper publishers.”
 

 

 

President Obama said: “If you want to know what my views are, look who I surround myself with”
 
Ok, that’s fair… so let’s look:
 
 
Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein
 
Sunstein was named head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration if confirmed – in other words, he will be the new Regulatory Czar.
 
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), within the Office of Management and Budget, was created by Congress with the enactment of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (PRA). Under this and other authorities, OIRA develops and oversees several critical functions, including:
  • The implementation of government-wide policies and standards with respect to Federal regulations and guidance documents;
  • The quality, utility, and analytic rigor of information used to support public policy;
  • Dissemination of and access to government information;
  • Privacy and confidentiality;
  • Electronic records; and
  • Federal statistics.
OIRA reviews significant proposed and final rules as well as information collection requests prior to publication in the Federal Register. Coordinated review of agency rulemaking is necessary to ensure that regulatory actions do not conflict with the policies or actions taken or planned by another agency, are consistent with applicable law, the President’s priorities, and the principles set forth in Executive Order 12866. The office is headed by a Presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed Administrator.
 
 
noisyroom.com:
 
 Sunstein is a proponent of the ‘nudge’ philosophy - Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness:

By a nudge we mean anything that influences our choices. A school cafeteria might try to nudge kids toward good diets by putting the healthiest foods at front. We think that it’s time for institutions, including government, to become much more user-friendly by enlisting the science of choice to make life easier for people and by gentling nudging them in directions that will make their lives better.

In other words, you institute change by constantly tweaking the law, etc. until it becomes what you want it to be. Fascist baby steps if you will. From Wikipedia:

Sunstein (along with his coauthor Richard Thaler) has elaborated the theory of libertarian paternalism. In arguing for this theory, he counsels thinkers/academics/politicians to embrace the findings of behavioral economics as applied to law, maintaining freedom of choice while also steering people’s decisions in directions that will make their lives go better. With Thaler, he coined the term “choice architect.”

He also has views on a ‘New Deal’ for speech and he seeks to tweak the Constitution so to speak (actually, more like rewriting it) in this area as well as others…

1st Amendment

In his book Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech Sunstein says there is a need to reformulate First Amendment law. He thinks that the current formulation, based on Justice Holmes’ conception of free speech as a marketplace “disserves the aspirations of those who wrote America’s founding document.” The purpose of this reformulation would be to “reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.” He is concerned by the present “situation in which like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another,” and thinks that in “light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals.” He proposes a “New Deal for speech [that] would draw on Justice Brandeis’ insistence on the role of free speech in promoting political deliberation and citizenship.”

newsrealblog.com:

Here are some Sunstein gems:

  • “Much of the time, the United States seems to have embraced a confused and pernicious form of individualism. This approach endorses rights of private property and freedom of contract, and respects political liberty, but claims to distrust ‘government intervention’ and insists that people must fend for themselves. This form of so-called individualism is incoherent, a tangle of confusions.”
    – Cass R. Sunstein, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need it More Than Ever, Basic Books, New York, 2004, p. 3
  • “A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.”
    –Cass Sunstein, arguing for a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet in his book, Republic.com 2.0, p.137
  • “In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live?… Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day …”
    – Cass R. Sunstein, “Why We Should Celebrate Paying Taxes,” The Chicago Tribune, April 14, 1999 
Leftist False Flag Operation in Colorado? from Canada Free Press

Colorado Citizens’ Coalition, a 527 pressure group, may have been behind an attack on a Democratic Party office in Denver calculated to depict opponents of ObamaCare as violent. Maurice Schwenkler, reportedly an anarchist who goes by the name Ariel Attack and whose sex is a subject of debate, was arrested for vandalizing the Denver office. One available photograph shows a shattered window that bears two signs on the inside reading “Want Health Care Reform? Come Inside” and “Today 100 Coloradans will lose their health insurance.” The damage may cost $10,000 to repair. Colorado Democratic Party chairwoman Pat Waak blamed opponents of President Obama’s healthcare nationalization scheme for the vandalism. “Clearly there’s been an effort on the other side to stir up hate,” she said. “I think this is the consequence of it.” … {As it turns out, that was not the case.] Waak has not yet apologized.  Video: http://tinyurl.com/n3dw8s 

 
New “Lingo” in the news:
 
What’s black bloc activity

A black bloc is a group of protesters dressed in black, who often cooperate in small, autonomous affinity groups to resist police. There may be several black blocs within a particular protest, with different aims and tactics. Black blocs tend to be anarchist-themed, and may include members of union flying squads, anarchists, situationists, pagans, communists and other anti-racist, anti-capitalist, and anti-fascist groups. What defines a black bloc is not ideology but action in self-defense of the larger group of protesters. They are named for the typical black garb they wear for uniformity. Many also wear masks and scarves over their faces, to avoid identification, to protect their faces against tear gas and pepper spray, and for symbolic purposes. Typical actions of a black bloc are distracting police, misleading police about protester motions, ‘unarresting’ people already arrested by police, administering first aid to persons affected by tear gas in areas where protestors are barred from entering, building barricades, attacking/disarming police, and unmasking police who pose as black blockers (easily identified as they attack protestors). Some black blockers also engage in vandalism and rioting. Although black blocking is usually connected with some form of direct action, black blocs also participate in wholly symbolic action, as well as action that falls entirely within traditional definitions of nonviolence. Property destruction carried out by black blocs tends to have symbolic significance: favorite targets include banks, institutional buildings, outlets for multinational corporations, pornography and sex shops, gasoline stations, and videosurveillance cameras. Groups such as the WOMBLES and Wild Greens advocate participating in black bloc activity, and have similar mandates. Groups that have engaged in similar forms of action include Radical Anti-Capitalist Blocs, Anti-Racist Action, and Anti-Fascist Action

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

News for 08/18/2009- Another Day in America Where Nothing Makes Sense

Posted on August 18, 2009. Filed under: Enemies of The State, General Info, Soapbox | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

School Officials Facing Criminal Charges for Prayer  from Liberty Counsel  http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14102&AlertID=1016
Pace High School Principal Frank Lay and Athletic Director Robert Freeman are facing criminal contempt charges for allegedly violating a court order prohibiting prayer. The ACLU claimed the two men were responsible for a prayer of blessing over a meal at an appreciation luncheon with former booster club members and other adults who helped with a field house project. Liberty Counsel represents Principal Lay and Director Freeman. A trial is scheduled for September 17. If convicted, Mr. Lay and Mr. Freeman could be fined or jailed, yet neither willfully violated any court order. Last year the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the school district, claiming that some of the teachers and administration “endorsed” religion. Rather than fight, the district consented to a very broad order fashioned by the ACLU, essentially banning employees from engaging in prayer or religious activities, whether before, during, or after school hours. Without hearing legal argument, a federal court entered the Consent Order, which unconstitutionally infringes on the rights of teachers, administrators, and students. The ACLU then complained that Mr. Freeman and Mr. Lay violated the order at the luncheon, so a federal judge initiated criminal contempt proceedings and referred the case to the United States Attorney’s office for prosecution. Liberty Counsel says no students were present for the prayer.  

EXPOSED: Big Labor Announces “Secret Plan to Destroy the Right Forever”  from Right To Work http://nrtw.org/en/blog

 In a surprising display of honesty about their true agenda, union bosses and Far Left activists participated on a panel at the Netroots Nation conference called “The Secret Plan to Destroy the American Right.” What’s their “secret plan” to expand the power and size of government and raise taxes on hard-working Americans? It’s passage of the woefully misnamed Employee Free Choice Act, more accurately called the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill. Union bosses apparently see the billions of forced dues dollars that the bill would funnel into pushing Organized Labor’s radical political agenda as THE major selling point for the bill. Unfortunately for the panelists and the Big Labor hierarchy, but fortunately for the American people, there’s nothing secret about the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill and how it would obliterate the rights of American workers.  Right here on Freedom@Work, we’ve kept concerned citizens informed about this union boss power grab:

  • Expert legal analysis explaining how the Card Check Bill would destroy the secret ballot in union certification elections
  • Workers in Albion, Indiana tell Fox News about the real life intimidation they felt during a card check organizing drive by the militant United Auto Workers (UAW) union
  • A former union president testifies before Congress about the dangers of card check organizing
  • Worker explains to Senate labor committee how union goons lied to him to get him to sign a card
  • National Right to Work president Mark Mix discusses card check and union intimidation on a nationally syndicated radio program
  • At the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference, Mix demonstrates why union bosses love card check
  • Far Left icon George McGovern writes in the Wall Street Journal about another disturbing feature of the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill: mandatory binding arbitration

VICTORY – Flag.gov Dies A Slow Death Monday

Flag.gov bit the dust Monday after first changing, for a few short hours, into a “form” based site, then to gone. While a “form” based site, directions asked informants to please not provide any personal information on someone else nor anyone’s email address. Chalk up one for old fashioned American values, although I doubt the motive was anything other than their lawyers directive.

List of Obama’s Czars and Request For Watchdogs at Glenn Beck.com http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29391/ 32 Officially, but others in the role of Czar and others to be named later, per the Administration. Glenn Beck is asking concerned citizens to take the name of one and investigate. Research to find their agenda, past alliances, past press. Please send results to Glenn at his website: www.GlennBeck.com

Yet Another Government Takeover of American Business by Friends of the U.S.Chamber of Commerce  http://www.friendsoftheuschamber.com/email/email4.cfm?ID=443 Another day, another assault on free enterprise. This time, it’s the Administration’s so-called Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) Act. This act is supposed to create a new bureaucracy that will protect consumers from fraudulent financial products. In truth, it is another government-run bureaucracy that will actually design financial products of its own — and then require private companies to offer these government-designed products. Free markets be damned.  The House of Representatives is currently considering this flawed bill. Email your Representative now and help stop this government takeover of the American financial system. This bill will stifle competition and put private companies out of business. It will allow big government to choose winners and losers. It will destroy choice and quality for consumers. More big government. Lower quality. Less choice.

Have You Read The Health Care Bill Yet? Find it Here:  http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf    

Kathleen Sebelius Misspoke in Saying Public Option Not an Essential Part of Health Care Reform at The Minority Report http://tinyurl.com/la9hkm

Marc Ambinder: An administration official said that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius “misspoke” when she told CNN Sunday morning that a government run health insurance option “is not an essential part” of reform. This official asked not to be identified in exchange for providing clarity about the intentions of the President. The official said that the White House did not intend to change its messaging and that Sebelius simply meant to echo the president, who has acknowledged that the public option is a tough sell in the Senate and is, at the same time, a must-pass for House Democrats, and is not, in the president’s view, the most important element of the reform package.

Dems Not Backing Down On Public Option, But Stepping Up the Fight  from lp.org  http://tinyurl.com/ldx5gc
Faced with withering criticism from the independent voters who elected Obama, as well as polls showing majorities of Americans oppose their health care reform plans and would prefer government inaction to the current system, the media reported this weekend Democrats may consider removing a provision for government-run health insurance from a massive bill outlining a government takeover of the nation’s health care system. Don’t be fooled.  The so-called “public option” isn’t about to be taken off the table. The eradication of your private health insurance plans is at the very core of the entire so-called “reform” movement.  Just listen to official White House health care spokesperson Linda Douglass.  “Nothing has changed. The president has always said that what is essential is that health insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and it must increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals.” House Democrats also tell the Capitol Hill newspaper Politico government-run health insurance will stay in their bill.  It’s their goal for the legislation.

 The Array of WH ObamaCare Tactics Grows at American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/the_array_of_wh_obamacare_tact.html   The White House is deploying an array of tactics to promote ObamaCare. Here’s the list to date.

1.  Warn about the cost of inaction.

2.  Use Grandma to build empathy through association.

3.  Accuse opponents of racial prejudice – play the race card.

4.  Shift the focus of the debate.

5.  When accused of having a controversial proposal, just say “No we don’t.” 

6.  Hide the plan.

7.  Hide key congressional proponents. 

8.  Pretend to give up on controversial issues that were never acknowledged in the first place.

9. Hold pro-Obamacare pep rallies that profess to be open town hall-like events.

10. Blame the media for focusing on the opponents. 

11. Demonize the opposition.

12. Make false claims for Obamacare.

Joker Poker with the Health Care Bill (video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obXt3FUs-yQ   

Obama Unaccustomed to Having His Lies Challenged  Doug Patton  at Canada Free Press http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13860

Barack Obama is one of the most spoiled politicians ever to capture the imagination of a nation. He has enjoyed what author and newsman Bernard Goldberg has described as “a slobbering love affair” with the American media. So many members of the Fourth Estate in this country have so thoroughly compromised themselves to sell his radical agenda that the American people no longer trust them even to report the news. And now, as the president and his toadies in Congress run into a brick wall in their efforts to take over the American health care system, they are shocked to discover that many of the same people who put them in office last year are outraged at their lies. American citizens have been vilified, marginalized, lied about and smeared by these Washington hucksters. Good people, frustrated at the arrogance of their government, are being called names like a mob, Nazis, evil-mongers, terrorists, etc. Meanwhile, the president and Congress are watching the poll numbers they live by fall into the basement. I wonder why. Most of us learned in kindergarten that when you call other people names, they are not likely to react kindly. And they certainly are not likely to vote for you again. Does this president really have so little regard for the medical practitioners of this country that he believes an American physician would cut off a limb just to put money in his/her pocket? Is this how his mind works? Does he have no shame? Does he actually know of such a doctor? Does he have evidence of such a contemptible act? If so, why is he not reporting it? We all know the answer to that. He is simply a liar who will say or do anything to drive home his agenda.

Obama’s State Department Submits to Islam by American Thinker

Here is but the latest act of submission to Islam by your State Department. A State Department cable has just been sent out with this announcement:

The Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) has assembled a range of innovative and traditional tools to support Posts’ outreach activities during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
Here, in contrast, is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The State Department’s Ramadan programs are wide-ranging. “On August 10,” the cable continues, “America.gov will publish a ‘Multicultural Ramadan’ feature. American Muslims trace their ancestry to more than 80 countries and the feature will highlight the richness of these various cultural traditions through the lens of Ramadan and Eid. Content will include essays by young Muslims who are part of Eboo Patel’s Interfaith Youth Core (IYC). Contact: Alexandra Abboud (AbboudAM@state.gov).”
 
There’s more! The Bureau of International Information Programs “will publish three articles for Ramadan 2009 addressing the concept of an Islam in America ‘brand'; advocacy (civic and political) of the Muslim American community; and community innovation/community building. The writer will contact Muslim American experts in each of these fields. These articles will be available on America.gov in English, Arabic, and Persian.”
The main publication is Being Muslim In America: “Conceived as IIP’s flagship print publication on the rich and varied experiences of the nation’s growing Muslim population, this lavishly illustrated new book links the Muslim-American experience to those of other American racial, religious, and immigrant groups as they moved into the American ‘mainstream.'”
Can you imagine every Embassy and consulate putting up a Menorah and having some Rabbis as speakers via a webcast? Can you imagine if we had the Stations of the Cross put on the walls of all of our embassies, consulates, and other posts, as well as the many Department of State buildings across the country, including C Street? Why aren’t priests, pastors, etc. invited during Christmas to give blessings or talk about Christianity in the United States? Can you imagine if the Buddha were revered and we had some monks coming to do a meditation session with all of the officers of each embassy, consulate, etc.? Can we get printed and distributed Hare Krishna posters for all of our posts, so as to reach massive audiences? I mean, put it in reverse and see how crazy it is. Absolutely nuts.
Perhaps this is an initiative of President Barack Obama’s newly created Office for Outreach to the Ummah at State. In June Obama had the Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, at the White House. Ihsanoglu urged Obama to appoint a U.S. ambassador to the Islamic world – and Obama immediately created a new State Department Office for Muslim Outreach, with a Muslim woman, Farah Pandith, serving as the new U.S. Special Representative for Muslim Outreach. In keeping with Obama’s U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project, a charter of dhimmitude, we are to be conditioned to respect Muslim immigrants and accept their culture.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News for 07/16/2009- Pocket Full of Czars & Treaties, Grassroots for Hire, Other Cluster*ucks

Posted on July 16, 2009. Filed under: Enemies of The State, General Info, Soapbox | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Is Obama’s Science Czar a Crackpot?By Cliff Kincaid at Candad Free Press
http://canadafreepres… (items below are taken from this article.. chock full of quotes from a book writen by our Science Czar.. check it out)
… A quote from US Climate Czar: “Should a Law of the Sea be successfully established, it could serve as a model for a future Law of the Atmosphere to regulate the use of airspace, to monitor climate change, and to control atmospheric pollution. Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP [United Nations Environmental Program] and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime-sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist.” … as is: “If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.” (Ed note: there are also quotes regarding chemically drugging our water supply to promote sterilization should our population get to large, as well as mandating abortion for unwed mothers, etc.. you need to read this for yourself in order to believe it- and he is top advisor to the president on science issues ??? Really????)
Accuracy In Media was told Monday by Holdren’s office that only two telephone calls had been received from the press about the sensational charges being reported against Holden in the blogosphere. Clearly, the major media haven’t taken the charges seriously, explaining why there has been a “deafening silence” from the mainstream media, as noted by Michelle Malkin.

Obama’s Ambitious U.N. Treaty Agenda (Treaty of the Seas) from Accuracy In Media
http://www.aim.org/ai…
With Al Franken replacing Norm Coleman, Senate Democrats have another vote for the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty, and there are strong indications that they intend to bring this controversial document up for a vote within days or weeks. Those who favor the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) believe that U.S. security lies in passing a treaty and hiring more lawyers to defend America before an international tribunal, rather than building more ships for the Navy and Coast Guard. The anticipated vote on the treaty follows a strong recent push for ratification from the Council on Foreign Relations and newspaper ads in favor of the treaty from the Pew Charitable Trusts, a $5 billion non-profit entity. Plus, the Obama State Department sent a document to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on May 11 that declared UNCLOS to be a top priority for the administration. In fact, Obama’s submission to the Foreign Relations Committee names 17 treaties that he wants ratified. In addition to UNCLOS, they include the feminist Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the unverifiable Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and the gun rights-destroying Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.

Communist Past of the ‘Green Jobs’ Czar from News Busters
The administration’s “Green Jobs” czar, Van Jones, has a “very checkered past” deep-rooted in radical politics, including black nationalism, anarchism, and communism. The broadcast network newscasts have mostly failed to report on Mr. Jones’s past political affiliations which are lock-step with the network’s downplay of coverage regarding President Obama’s associations with the former radical and terrorist William Ayers during the election. The administration’s “Green Jobs” czar, Van Jones, has a “very checkered past” deep-rooted in radical politics, including black nationalism, anarchism, and communism. The broadcast network newscasts have mostly failed to report on Mr. Jones’s past political affiliations which are lock-step with the network’s downplay of coverage regarding President Obama’s associations with the former radical and terrorist William Ayers during the election. At 6:47 a.m. EDT on the July 10 edition of “Fox and Friends,” Americans for Prosperity Policy Director Phil Kerpen, told interviewer Brian Kilmeade that Jones is “somebody who was involved in radical politics in San Francisco, “who was self-admittedly “radicalized in jail” and found “Communism and anarchism.” Kerpen compares Van Jones’s Communist past with his new quest for environmentalism and the creation of green jobs:

I think it’s pretty instructive what his past is…it’s the same sort of philosophy, the idea that government ought to be reordering society in accordance with some utopian vision that failed with communism and socialism, and will fail with this green jobs idea.

In an April 12, 2009 World Net Daily article titled “Will a “red” help blacks go green?”Aaron Klein reports that Jones himself stated in a 2005 interview his environmental activism was a means to fight for racial and class “justice,” and that he was a “rowdy black nationalist,” and a “communist.” Because the administration’s “czars” do not go through congressional confirmation, and are therefore not scrutinized or vetted, many Americans have no idea who they are or where they come from. Kudos to Fox News for bringing Van Jones’s controversial past and political ideology to light.

OBAMA NOW HIRING “GRASS ROOTS” WORKERS TO BOOST SUPPORT FOR HEALTH CARE BILL from Drudge

http://sfbay.craigsli…

Ed note: Just as ACORN does, so, apparently, does the white house. When Acorn needs concerned citizens to parade by AIG bosses, homes, they pay them by the hour. When ACORN needs people to (fruadually in many cases) voters signed up, they pay people by the hour. Now, our president, needs normal people to support his health care bill and guess what… he’s paying by the hour! $11-16 dollar an hour, expecting to pay these “grass roots” supports $4-6K for the summer. No lie. Apparently, grass roots does not mean what it used to mean.. now it means employees… go figure!

Sec 542 of HR 2647 http://ow.ly/15HOp8…
This legislation was passed in the house. Now it’s on to the Senate for vote THIS WEEK. CALL YOUR SENATORS, NOW.

This legislation is written purposely in a manner very “open to interpretation” by Attorney General Eric Holder, or his successors. It would make it illegal to belong to, blog on, associate with and group or groups of people who not only hate people or ethnic groups, etc.. but hate the GOVERNMENT. Please take a moment and read the article linked above from the 9/12 website.

Ed Note:Look… I am not a hater…. I am a lover .. of the Constitution of the United States of America. It is my opinion that the past several administrations of our government are the haters… Hey, maybe we could have THEM all arrested ?????

Have You Seen The Organizational Chart for The Democrats Version of Health Care Bill???

Check this out! (It reminds me of the Mouse Trap game I had as a kid)

http://www.ibdeditori…

CNN Legal Analyst Calls 2nd Amendment Rights Preposterous from News Busters

http://ow.ly/15HRHu…

During CNN’s coverage of the Sotomayor hearings on Wednesday, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin implied that the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision to uphold the Second Amendment was revolutionary: “When I was in law school…the idea that you had a Second Amendment right to a gun was considered preposterous….But the Supreme Court [in Heller]…said that…individuals have a personal right to bear arms.” Just after the bottom of the 12 noon hour of the network’s coverage, anchor Wolf Blitzer raised the Second Amendment issue with Toobin, a graduate of Harvard Law School, and the others on their panel analyzing the hearings, which included anchor/correspondent John King; senior political analyst Gloria Borger; and correspondent Candy Crowley, as well as Republican strategist Alex Castellanos and former Clinton administration official Maria Echaveste. After playing a clip of Republican Senator Tom Coburn asking Sotomayor about the right to keep and bear arms, Blitzer asked Toobin what were the nominee’s “positions, specifically on the federal obligation to support the Second Amendment, as opposed to local communities or states?” The CNN senior legal analyst harkened back to his law school days in his answer … the idea that you had a Second Amendment right to a gun was considered preposterous. The text of the Second Amendment, you know, speaks of a well-regulated militia and the right to bear arms. Well, courts used to say, well, this only affects the rights of state militias. But the Supreme Court, two years ago, in the famous Heller decision, said that when it comes to the federal government, we- individuals have a personal right to bear arms, and the D.C. gun control law was thus unconstitutional. And the question that came before Judge Sotomayor in the Second Circuit was, what about states? Do individuals have a right against states- state law to a personal right to bear arms? And she said, according to her reading of the precedents, is that that’s not decided yet, that it only applies to the federal government. Now, it’s up to the Supreme Court to make that decision.

Acorn Hails Confirmation of New Census Director by Michelle Malking (their approval can not be good, all things considered)

http://michellemalkin…

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,675 other followers