The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Archive for December 16th, 2010

Sarah Palin’s Full Haiti Press Conferance

Posted by iusbvision on December 16, 2010

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Palin Truth Squad | Leave a Comment »

Government employees average pay $123K. 590,000 federal government employees hired since 2008. Government unions give half a billion to Democrats to promote big government.

Posted by iusbvision on December 16, 2010

Fat retirement plans, low or no contributions towards fat employee benefits, and pay that is double the average of the private sector. Who is exploiting who?

Often the politicians who negotiate the contracts with the government union work for the union as they are their number one cash contributor and make up much of their campaign force.

Governor Tim Pawlenty:

The majority of union members today no longer work in construction, manufacturing or “strong back” jobs. They work for government, which, thanks to President Obama, has become the only booming “industry” left in our economy. Since January 2008 the private sector has lost nearly eight million jobs while local, state and federal governments added 590,000.

Federal employees receive an average of $123,049 annually in pay and benefits, twice the average of the private sector. And across the country, at every level of government, the pattern is the same: Unionized public employees are making more money, receiving more generous benefits, and enjoying greater job security than the working families forced to pay for it with ever-higher taxes, deficits and debt.

How did this happen? Very quietly. The rise of government unions has been like a silent coup, an inside job engineered by self-interested politicians and fueled by campaign contributions.

Public employee unions contribute mightily to the campaigns of liberal politicians ($91 million in the midterm elections alone) who vote to increase government pay and workers. As more government employees join the unions and pay dues, the union bosses pour ever more money and energy into liberal campaigns. The result is that certain states are now approaching default. Decades of overpromising and fiscal malpractice by state and local officials have created unfunded public employee benefit liabilities of more than $3 trillion.

The moral case for unions—protecting working families from exploitation—does not apply to public employment. Government employees today are among the most protected, well-paid employees in the country. Ironically, public-sector unions have become the exploiters, and working families once again need someone to stand up for them.

Michael Barone:

Who is the largest single political contributor in the 2010 campaign cycle? You can be pardoned if you answer, erroneously, that it’s some new conservative group organized by Karl Rove. That’s campaign spin by the Obama Democrats, obediently relayed by certain elements of the so-called mainstream media.

The real answer is AFSCME, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The union’s president, Gerald McEntee, reports proudly that AFSCME will be contributing $87,500,000 in this cycle, entirely or almost entirely to Democrats. “We’re spending big,” he told The Wall Street Journal. “And we’re damn happy it’s big.”

The mainstream press hasn’t shown much interest in reporting on unions’ campaign spending, which amounted to some $400,000,000 in the 2008 cycle. And it hasn’t seen fit to run long investigative stories on why public employee unions — the large majority of whom work for state and local governments — contribute so much more to campaigns for federal office.

Public employee union members have become, as U.S. News and World Report Editor Mortimer Zuckerman writes, “the new privileged class,” with better pay, more generous benefits and far more lush pensions than those who pay their salaries — and who are taxed to send money to their leaders’ favored candidates.

Franklin Roosevelt thought public sector unions were a lousy idea. Do you?

mm

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Economics 101, Government Gone Wild, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

Woman sues TSA over invasive search: TSA tells woman’s son, “You don’t get pat down because you don’t have boobs.”

Posted by iusbvision on December 16, 2010

KOB TV:

A woman suing the TSA for an invasive pat-down at the Albuquerque Sunport speaks only with KOB Eyewitness News 4.

Adrienne Durso of Carlsbad, California spoke over the phone – she describes her experience during a TSA pat-down at the Sunport back in August.

“Heavily concentrating on my breast area where I told her I had a mastectomy the year previous and in just seemed to go on and on,” said Durso.

She says she felt humiliated as the extensive pat-down happened in front of her 17 year old son and hundreds of other travelers.

“I felt as though I didn’t have any rights other than I had to stand there and let them do what they want to do to my body,” Durso continued.

She says she knew her rights had been violated so she asked to speak to a supervisor who she thought would help.

All the while her son stood by her side and couldn’t remain silent anymore

“My son, who I’m very proud of spoke up and said ‘I went through the metal detector and I did not get a pat-down’ to which the supervisor said ‘well you don’t have boobs’,” she said.

That statement was the last straw for Durso – so she contacted the lawfirm of Drinker, Biddle and Reath. Her attorney, Alex Brodsky, says this whole ordeal violates her 4th Amendment rights which protects Americans from unreasonable search and seizure.

“We think that these searches given the invasiveness and given the extensiveness of these searches are really more akin to something like a strip search and certainly as a result we think we have a strong case,” said Brodsky.

Durso says she isn’t doing this for money or fame but rather for countless other Americans who take to the skies for travel.

“I thought, ‘you know, surely this story must mean something to somebody, maybe this will help somebody who is trying to change the situation at airports because I don’t think anybody should have to go through this,” said Durso.

The TSA says it’s asking government security experts if there is a way to make the security pat-down less invasive but just as thorough but they haven’t commented on this case specifically.

> Read the entire lawsuit

 

Posted in Chuck Norton, Culture War, Government Gone Wild, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

DC Appeals Court: Ammunition bans are unconstitutional

Posted by iusbvision on December 16, 2010

The court had to keep it very narrow because the conviction/accusation was narrow. The defendant had handgun ammunition in his home. It is reasonable that since Heller made it clear that outright gun bans are unconstitutional that banning handgun ammunition in all cases whatsoever or from being in someones home is overly restrictive and unconstitutional. Eventually as the lawsuits continue I believe the courts will continue to shoot down more portions of this unjust and foolish law. The 2nd Amendment says that you have the right to keep and bear arms and it shall not be infringed.

Via Eugene Volokh:

From Herrington v. United States, decided today by D.C.‘s highest court (the D.C. Court of Appeals):

Appellant Kevin Herrington was convicted in 2006 of unlawful possession of ammunition (UA), in violation of D.C. Code § 7–2506.01 (2001) (now § 7–2506.01(a) (Supp. 2010)). His conviction was based solely on evidence that he possessed handgun ammunition in his home….What is now subsection (a) of D.C. Code § 7–2506.01 provides as follows:

No person shall possess ammunition in the District of Columbia unless: …(3) He is the holder of the valid registration certificate for a firearm of the same gauge or caliber as the ammunition he possesses; except, that no such person shall possess restricted pistol bullets; …

[F]rom the Court’s reasoning [in Heller], it logically follows that the right to keep and bear arms extends to the possession of handgun ammunition in the home; for if such possession could be banned (and not simply regulated), that would make it “impossible for citizens to use [their handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” By the same token, given the obvious connection between handgun ammunition and the right protected by the Second Amendment, we are hard-pressed to see how a flat ban on the possession of such ammunition in the home could survive heightened scrutiny of any kind. We therefore conclude that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to possess ammunition in the home that is coextensive with the right to possess a usable handgun there. The government has not taken issue with that conclusion….

 

[T]he UA statute makes it a crime to possess ammunition of any kind anywhere, regardless of its use or purpose; and the prosecution may obtain a conviction under the statute without having to prove that the possessor violated any registration, licensing or regulatory requirement or was otherwise disqualified from exercising his Second Amendment right. A UA conviction therefore may be based solely on proof that the defendant possessed handgun ammunition in his home -– solely, that is, on proof of conduct protected by the Second Amendment. In a prosecution such as this one, where nothing more was proved at trial to show that the defendant was disqualified from exercising his Second Amendment rights — there was no evidence, for example, that he possessed the ammunition for an illegal purpose or that he had failed to comply with applicable registration requirements for a firearm corresponding to the ammunition –- the UA statute is unconstitutional as applied. [Footnote: We express no opinion as to whether the UA statute is constitutional in other applications (e.g., as applied to possession of handgun ammunition outside the home or for an improper purpose, or possession of non-handgun ammunition), or whether it is unconstitutional on its face.]

In light of the constitutionally-protected nature of the conduct addressed by the UA statute, its provision of an affirmative defense if the accused had registered a corresponding firearm only compounds the problem. The Due Process Clause “protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” While legislatures do have leeway to reallocate burdens of proof so as to require the accused to prove some facts as affirmative defenses (rather than requiring the prosecution to negate those facts as an element of the offense), “there are obviously constitutional limits beyond which [a legislature] may not go in this regard.” Where the Constitution –- in this case, the Second Amendment –- imposes substantive limits on what conduct may be defined as a crime, a legislature may not circumvent those limits by enacting a statute that presumes criminality from constitutionally-protected conduct and puts the burden of persuasion on the accused to prove facts necessary to establish innocence. That, however, is precisely what the UA statute (as we construed it in [an earlier case] does with respect to the possession of handgun ammunition in the home, by making the defendant’s compliance with the registration condition an affirmative defense.

The limited nature of our holding should be understood. The Second Amendment permits the District to condition the lawful possession of handgun ammunition in the home on the possession of a valid registration certificate for a corresponding handgun (so long as the registration scheme is constitutional)…. [T]he prosecution may assume the burden of charging and proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant lacked the necessary registration in order to satisfy the Second Amendment. By doing so, the prosecution would establish that the defendant indeed was disqualified from exercising his Second Amendment right to possess handgun ammunition in the home. The application of the UA statute to the defendant in such a case would not be unconstitutional.

 

Posted in Chuck Norton, Firearms | Leave a Comment »