Rep. Joseph DioGaurdia tells how Congress hides problems by taking them off the books.

Here is his book Unaccountable Congress – LINK

Police State Injustice in New Jersey

This is the story of Brian Aitken. This story is an absolute outrage. Governor Christie gave him commuted his sentence to time served, but it should have been an out and out pardon. This is why we need judges that respect the limits of the law and the Constitution.

Obama Administration moves to regulate internet against court ruling and will of Congress.

Congress wouldn’t pass it. The government sued for the authority to regulate the internet and lost. So of course the Obama Administration has decided to do it anyway.

The regulations passed are not onerous but that isn’t the point. By declaring the internet to be phone lines the FCC has made a massive power grab of which this is only the first step. This is one of the important messages of this election; the American people have had enough of government officials who simply refuse to recognize any limits on their power.

Wall Street Journal:

Tomorrow morning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government’s reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling.

How did the FCC get here?

For years, proponents of so-called “net neutrality” have been calling for strong regulation of broadband “on-ramps” to the Internet, like those provided by your local cable or phone companies. Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand. That sounds good if you say it fast.

Nothing is broken and needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net-neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure.

Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs. By moving forward with Internet rules anyway, the FCC is not living up to its promise of being “data driven” in its pursuit of mandates—i.e., listening to the needs of the market.

It wasn’t long ago that bipartisan and international consensus centered on insulating the Internet from regulation. This policy was a bright hallmark of the Clinton administration, which oversaw the Internet’s privatization. Over time, however, the call for more Internet regulation became imbedded into a 2008 presidential campaign promise by then-Sen. Barack Obama. So here we are.

Last year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski started to fulfill this promise by proposing rules using a legal theory from an earlier commission decision (from which I had dissented in 2008) that was under court review. So confident were they in their case, FCC lawyers told the federal court of appeals in Washington, D.C., that their theory gave the agency the authority to regulate broadband rates, even though Congress has never given the FCC the power to regulate the Internet. FCC leaders seemed caught off guard by the extent of the court’s April 6 rebuke of the commission’s regulatory overreach.

In May, the FCC leadership floated the idea of deeming complex and dynamic Internet services equivalent to old-fashioned monopoly phone services, thereby triggering price-and-terms regulations that originated in the 1880s. The announcement produced what has become a rare event in Washington: A large, bipartisan majority of Congress agreeing on something. More than 300 members of Congress, including 86 Democrats, contacted the FCC to implore it to stop pursuing Internet regulation and to defer to Capitol Hill.

Facing a powerful congressional backlash, the FCC temporarily changed tack and convened negotiations over the summer with a select group of industry representatives and proponents of Internet regulation. Curiously, the commission abruptly dissolved the talks after Google and Verizon, former Internet-policy rivals, announced their own side agreement for a legislative blueprint. Yes, the effort to reach consensus was derailed by . . . consensus.

After a long August silence, it appeared that the FCC would defer to Congress after all. Agency officials began working with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman on a draft bill codifying network management rules. No Republican members endorsed the measure. Later, proponents abandoned the congressional effort to regulate the Net.

Still feeling quixotic pressure to fight an imaginary problem, the FCC leadership this fall pushed a small group of hand-picked industry players toward a “choice” between a bad option (broad regulation already struck down in April by the D.C. federal appeals court) or a worse option (phone monopoly-style regulation). Experiencing more coercion than consensus or compromise, a smaller industry group on Dec. 1 gave qualified support for the bad option. The FCC’s action will spark a billable-hours bonanza as lawyers litigate the meaning of “reasonable” network management for years to come. How’s that for regulatory certainty?

To date, the FCC hasn’t ruled out increasing its power further by using the phone monopoly laws, directly or indirectly regulating rates someday, or expanding its reach deeper into mobile broadband services. The most expansive regulatory regimes frequently started out modest and innocuous before incrementally growing into heavy-handed behemoths.

On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter’s night for Internet freedom.

Mr. McDowell is a Republican commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.

ACORN supervisor convicted for election fraud

May there be more to come.

Examiner:

A supervisor for the now defunct political advocacy group the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, has entered into a plea bargain with prosecutors in a case alleging that canvassers were illegally paid to register Nevada voters during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Amy Busefink, 28, pleaded no-contest in state court to two misdemeanor counts of conspiracy to commit the crime of compensation for registration of voters. Her nolo contendere plea acknowledged the state had sufficient evidence for a conviction if the case went to trial.

Busefink is expected to get a slap on the wrist, according to critics of ACORN, with only one year of probation, a $1,000 fine and 100 hours of community service probable.

Last month, House Republican Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri applauded reports that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had opened a criminal investigation into whether the left-wing advocacy group ACORN has violated federal election law by fostering and promoting a national program of voter registration fraud.

The Associated Press reported at the time that “the FBI is actively pursuing leads in the investigation of ACORN. Word of the investigation comes less than a week after Blunt joined Reps. Candice Miller (R-Mich.), Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), Tom Cole (R-Okla.), and Lamar Smith (R-Texas) in sending a letter to the Department of Justice urging it to act.”

Blunt, a former secretary of state in Missouri, joined other House leaders in urging the Bureau to “take all active and appropriate measures” to ensure the civil rights of legitimate voting Americans aren’t diluted by systemic voter fraud.

 

 

Top Ten Most Gerrymandered Congressional Districts in the United States

Pajamas Media has a fabulous post about the 10 most gerrymandered districts in the country. For those of you who do not know what gerrymandering is, it is the drawing of districts in long snake like scribbles in order to generate a politically motivated outcome.

Here in Indiana, the Democrats twisted out a portion of Elkhart county like a long snake for the express purpose of drawing our Congressman Chris Chocola out of the district.

Go HERE to see the material and wow is it educational. It goes to show just how far government will go to manipulate and thwart the votes of some to amplify the votes of others.

 

Democrats Drop 2000 Page 1.1 Trillion Spending Bill in Hopper at Last Minute – UPDATE – Democrats pull bill from floor after outrage

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell –

Cavuto – Here we go again ….

BY THE NUMBERS: DEMS’ LAST-MINUTE, $1.1 TRILLION SPENDING BILL CONTINUES WASHINGTON’S JOB-KILLING SPENDING BINGE GOP URGES PRESIDENT OBAMA TO VETO RECKLESS SPENDING BILL, REAFFIRMS PLEDGE TO IMMEDIATELY CUT SPENDING IN JANUARY December 15, 2010 | House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) | Permalink   While millions of Americans are struggling to make ends meet this holiday season, Senate Democrats proved just how out-of-touch they are yesterday by unveiling a $1.1 trillion-dollar spending bill loaded with thousands of earmarks costing billions of taxpayer dollars.   Democrats are hoping to ram the bill through Congress this week, seeing it as “their last chance at delivering pork before serious fiscal belt tightening begins next year.”  This latest 1,924-page spending monstrosity is nothing less than an insult to the American people who have been pleading with Democrats inWashington to stop their job-killing out-of-control spending spree and focus on creating jobs. With the unemployment rate near 10 percent and the national debt climbing by the day, it is clear that America’s economy cannot afford for Democrats’ reckless spending binge to continue.  Here is a by-the-numbers look at how Democrats’ latest spending spree will add to their already-extensive record of fiscal failure: 6,600: Total number of earmarks in the Senate Democrats’ pork-laden omnibus spending bill. (The Hill, 12/14/10) 1,924: Number of pages in the Senate Democrats’ pork-laden omnibus spending bill.  (The Washington Post, 12/15/10) $575.13 Million: Amount of spending per page in the Senate Democrats’ pork-laden omnibus spending bill. (The Washington Times, 12/14/10) $78 Billion: Amount of taxpayer money that would be saved if Congress would adopt the Republicans’ plan to cut spending back to pre-‘stimulus,’ pre-bailout levels as outlined in the Pledge to America. (Pledge to America, Accessed 12/15/10) $1 Billion: Funding included in the omnibus bill for the implementation of Democrats’ job-killing health care law, including $176 million to implement Medicare Advantage cuts.  (The Hill, 12/14/10) 20,785: Number of earmarks President Obama signed into law his first two years in office.  (Taxpayers for Common Sense, 2/17/10) 84 Percent: Increase in non-defense discretionary government spending since President Obama took office. (House Budget Republicans, 6/4/10) $3.22 Trillion: Amount added to the debt on President Obama and Washington Democrats’ watch. (U.S. Department of the Treasury, Accessed 12/15/10) 0: Number of budgets passed by Democrats this year.

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.

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

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

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

 

Video: More Teachers Gone Wild – You will never think the same of the teachers’ union again.

James O’Keefe at Project Veritas strikes again.  Are government unions really necessary? Pay special attention to the union’s statements about how they will protect teachers who touch students inappropriately.

City councilman calls cops on boys’ cupcake sale

Pinhead of the Year: New Castle Councilman Michael Wolfensohn (D-NY)

 

I have seen some pretty dumb politicians in my time, but when you think you have seen it all, another comes along just to remind you that there is still room to sink lower. On a side note, I could not find one elite media news outlet that mentioned Wolfensohn’s political party. Is it just that a Democrat hates the idea of any private business going on unless he gets a cut?

Lower Hudson Valley.com:

NEW CASTLE — When Andrew DeMarchis and Kevin Graff, two 13-year-olds from Chappaqua’s Seven Bridges Middle School, set up shop at Gedney Park on a fall weekend last month, they were expecting a tidy profit.

Instead, the two wannabe entrepreneurs selling cupcakes, cookies, brownies and Rice Krispie treats baked by them for $1 apiece got a taste of cold, hard bureaucracy .

New Castle Councilman Michael Wolfensohn came upon the sale and called the cops on the kids for operating without a license.

The boys’ parents are incensed and can’t believe a Town Board member would handle the situation that way.

“I am shocked and sad for the boys. It was such a great idea, and they worked hard at it,” said Laura Graff, Kevin’s mother. “But then some Town Board member decided to get on his high horse and wreck their dreams.”

DeMarchis and Graff, along with two other classmates, Zachary Bass and Daniel Katz, had a simple, if half-baked, business plan: sell their treats at Gedney Park for a couple of years and save up enough to open a restaurant.

Their first day was wildly successful, the boys said. They netted $120, of which they invested $60 to buy a cart from Target and added water and Gatorade to their offerings on their second day, the next Saturday, Oct. 9.

After about an hour of brisk business , during which DeMarchis and Graff — Bass and Katz were not with them — said they made $30, police arrived at their stand and asked them to shut it down.

“The police officer was extremely pleasant. He said he was sorry to have to do this, but that he was following up on a report filed over the phone by a Town Board member,” said Suzanne DeMarchis, Andrew’s mother, who was called to the scene. “Kevin was so upset, he was crying all the whole way home. He was worried if he was going to get arrested or have a criminal record.”

The boys, all of whom had bar mitzvahs this year, had done projects to benefit charities in the community, their parents said. The projects included collecting books for Maria Fareri Children’s Hospital and raising money for Haiti earthquake victims.

“These are good kids who haven’t once gone to the principal’s office,” said Laura Graff, Kevin’s mother. “This was a very scary experience for them.”

This month, after receiving a complaint from a friend of the DeMarchis family, The Journal News filed a New York state Freedom of Information Law request for the police report. The report, received Wednesday, listed Wolfensohn as filing the complaint.

API: Recent Studies Show Obama Drilling Moratorium Will Cost 50,000 Jobs; 160,000 by 2032.

While Obama tried to stop offshore drilling and exploration here and while his administration puts more of our domestic resources off-limits, the White House is using taxpayer dollars to aid Petro-Brazil’s  offshore drilling efforts in waters deeper than the United States. George Soros is an investor in PetroBraz and this falls in line with the view of the academic left, that the wealth of the united states should be redistributed to the rest of the world. One way to do that is to send our jobs overseas and to have us send our money abroad for energy.

Jack Gerard API:

“As our country looks for ways out of the hole of lackluster economic growth and job creation, today’s decision shows that this administration would rather keep digging than take the ladder to increased economic prosperity offered by developing our nation’s domestic energy resources. “The oil and natural gas industry is a reliable vehicle for growing the economy and creating good-paying jobs.

This decision shuts the door on new development off our nation’s coasts and effectively ensures that new American jobs will not be realized. It will stifle investment, deny billions in revenue for critical government services and increase our dependence on foreign energy sources.

“The oil and natural gas industry is committed to safe and environmentally responsible operations, and both the industry and regulators have added new safeguards to ensure such operations. This reversal on new lease sales off America’s coasts comes on top of a de facto moratorium, which has all but stopped new drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.” 

 

More from Jan Van Ryan:

For months, numerous studies–such as this one from LSU professor Dr. Joseph Mason and another by Moody’s Analytics–have demonstrated the significant economic impact the deepwater drilling moratorium could have on the Gulf and U.S. economies.

A Southern Methodist University (SMU) study released this week is no different, and it presents some alarming figures on the impact the de facto moratorium is having on shallow-water drilling.

According to Dr. Bernard L. Weinstein, associate director of SMU’s Maguire Energy Institute, the Interior Department’s slowdown in issuing new permits for shallow-water drilling operations could mean:  

• 50,000 lost jobs;
• Economic losses of $4.3 billion that would occur if 75 percent of the rigs become idle as a result of fewer issued permits; and
• $12.5 billion in lost income nationwide.

As Dr. Weinstein points out, shallow-water drilling is extremely safe. In the last 15 years, the federal government reports that more than 11,000 wells have been drilled and just 15 barrels of oil have spilled as a result of a loss of well control:  

“Shallow-water drillers work in less than 500 feet of water, mainly extracting natural gas. Projects center on well-charted fields of known pressure and geography, using simple and straightforward technology.”

 

Prior to the moratorium, 10 to 15 permits for new shallow-water wells were approved each month. But since April, only seven permits for new shallow-water wells have been issued, and 15 of 46 shallow-water rigs in the Gulf are idle.  

As Jack Gerard mentioned in a blog post last week, a drilling slowdown hurts more than just oil companies. It’s time to put the oil and natural gas industry back to work and produce reliable American energy for Americans

Baywatch Star Singled Out for ‘Nude’ Bodyscan. Mocked by TSA Employees

 

KTLA:

Former ‘Baywatch’ star Donna D’Errico says she was singled out by a TSA agent for a full body scan while traveling through LAX. The actress thinks the system of randomly selecting passengers for scans should be changed.

D’Errico says she was recently flying to Pittsburgh with her boyfriend and 17-year-old son when she was approached by a TSA agent immediately after she placed her luggage on the moving carrier.

“A male TSA agent took me by the elbow and said come with me,” D’Errico told KTLA.

D’Errico, 42, says when she asked the agent why she was singled out for the full body scan and not others he responded, “because you caught my eye and they didn’t.”

Her son was also given the body scan after she told the agent that they were traveling together, she said.

D’Errico says the agent never gave her the option for a pat-down.

Once she got through the line, she says she looked back and saw the TSA agent laughing, whispering and smiling as he and two other male TSA agents looked at her.

“I felt like I was in high school,” she said.

D’Errico says no one else from the long line was pulled aside for a body scan.

She says she would like to see the system changed.

“You shouldn’t have a human being randomly selecting people,” she said.

2010: The Return of the ‘Reagan Democrat’?

San Francisco Fed – Jobs created by stimulus is statistically zero

Via Reason Magazine –

The folks at e21 point out a new study by Daniel J. Wilson of the San Francisco Fed on the effects of the stimulus :

Wilson’s study makes an important contribution to this debate by focusing on state-by-state comparisons. A large portion of stimulus funding at the state level was based on criteria that were entirely independent of the economic situation that states faced. For example, the number of existing highway miles was used to calculate additional transportation spending.

The study uses this resulting variation in state-level stimulus funding to determine what impact ARRA funding had on employment — including both the direct impact of workers hired to complete planned projects, as well as any broader spillover effects resulting from greater government spending. Administration economists have repeatedly emphasized the importance of this indirect employment growth in driving economic recovery.

The results suggest that though the program did result in 2 million jobs “created or saved” by March 2010, net job creation was statistically indistinguishable from zero by August of this year. Taken at face value, this would suggest that the stimulus program (with an overall cost of $814 billion) worked only to generate temporary jobs at a cost of over $400,000 per worker. Even if the stimulus had in fact generated this level of employment as a durable outcome, it would still have been an extremely expensive way to generate employment.

Next time that Democrats tell you that ObamaCare will make the cost of health care cheaper, in spite of adding millions of people to government programs, because of “inherent efficiencies” in the government bureaucratic system, remember this.

Gov. Christie: Newark Schools spend $25,000 per student per year and the schools are still failing. The teachers union blocks all reforms.

Dem Sen. Bennett On Lame Duck Session: “It’s All Rigged” – GOP Rep. Buyer Blasts Acting Dem Speaker: “This is why the People have Thrown You Out”

Real Clear Politics:

A hot microphone caught a conversation between a male and female Senator.

“Because — because, it’s all rigged. I mean, the whole conversation is rigged. The fact that we don’t get to discussion before the break about what we’re going to do in the lame duck is just rigged. This stuff’s rigged,” the Senator said.

UPDATE (1:32 ET): Washington Examiner reports the speaker was Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO).

UPDATE (1:41 ET): The Daily Caller confirms.

 

Indiana’s own Steve Buyer blasts the Democrats flagrant violation of the process rules in Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives.

Good job Steve, we are so proud of you ! 

 

Six reasons why Tom DeLay’s conviction will be reversed on appeal.

Why the DeLay conviction will not stand:

1 – In the first place a six year investigation into Delay’s fund raising by the Justice Department yielded in no violations of federal elections law or charges being filed (keep this in mind when we get to reasons 4 and 5).

Tom DeLay Cleared — N.Y. Times Puts the Story on Page A-18 (Behind Organic Golf Courses)

2 – Ronnie Earle, the Texas prosecutor in the case, has a long history of partisan proprietorial misconduct. For example: Earle went after Kay Baily Hutchinson with bogus charges filing indictments against Hutchinson three times all of which failed. One judge was so disgusted by Ronnie Earle’s behavior that he empaneled a new jury in one indictment and directed them to return with an ruling of not guilty.

3 – Ronnie Earle spoke at partisan fund raising events bragging about how he was going to “Take Tom Delay down.” Before the charges were even announced Prosecutor Earle had a film crew follow him around so they could document on how to take down a member of Congress. Earle brought the charges in the county with the highest Democrat vote registration.  Earle also had big press conferences filled with accusations in what were obvious attempts by the prosecution to further taint any possible jury pool. It is precisely for this reason, press tainting of the public, that “a change of venue” is often granted in cases involving high profile people and cases. The defense motion for a change of venue was denied, which again, is a rather obvious constitutional violation in light of the circumstances; especially when considering that none of the acts Delay was accused of happened in that district. Remember Prosecutor Nifong and the Duke rape case? Similar reasoning applies.

The appellate case for getting the conviction overturned for lack of a fair trial is a pretty fat one which is why the defense, as well as other lawyers are pessimistic that the conviction can withstand appellate review.

4 – The conviction also stands four square in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause”. In areas where state law and federal law conflict the federal law applies. Keep this in mind as we go to reason five.

5 – Delay is accused of money laundering for the following reasons. Texas law forbids corporations from donating to directly to candidates for Texas state legislative office. Corporations, PACS, and other interests from around the country  donate to the Republican National Committee (RNC). The RNC donates to the campaigns of candidates for state office all around the country including Texas. This is nothing new and has been done for ages. Ronnie Earle managed to convince a likely tainted jury that since some of those interests were close to Delay’s interests that it was all a scam to get around Texas Law.  Federal law allows those types of donations.

Political Action Committee’s (PACS) do this all the time as well for both parties. The PACs hold fund raisers, take donations, rune events, sell merchandise etc and take that money and “bundle” it and give it to candidates and other partisan groups. “Bundling” is perfectly legal and is done by interests who support both political parties. When I took a political science class on federal election law we were shown that this is how it is done.

6 – Both parties have done this before and have continued to do this to this day in Texas and everywhere else. The American Spectator reports some examples of this same thing being done by Democrats repeatedly:

At stake in 2002 was control of the Texas legislature, which was to redraw congressional district lines. Corporate contributions to legislative candidates are illegal in Texas. The DeLay aides stand accused of violating that prohibition, along with eight companies like Sears Roebuck that provided the funds. The corporate money, however, never went to the candidates. Instead, it went to a much larger fund for state elections controlled by the Republican National Committee in Washington. That committee made contributions to Texas legislative candidates, constituting what Earle now charges is “money laundering.”

The only problem is that similar transactions are conducted by both parties in many states, including Texas. In fact, on October 31, 2002, the Texas Democratic Party sent the Democratic National Committee (DNC) $75,000, and on the same day, the DNC sent the Texas Democratic Party $75,000. On July 19, 2001, the Texas Democratic Party sent the DNC $50,000 and, again on the same day, the DNC sent the Texas Democratic Party $60,000. On June 8, 2001, the Texas Democratic Party sent the DNC $50,000. That very same day, the DNC sent the Texas Democratic Party $60,000.

In essence this conviction, if it is allowed to stand, could serve to prohibit any corporation in Texas from giving money to PAC’s or the Republican National Committee, and would endanger any candidate who took money from the Republican National Committee. It is preposterous. It would also set precedent to allow a similarly minded local Republican prosecutor to do the same to any Democrat legislative candidate in the state and their fund raisers.

It is important to keep in mind that political donations are covered under the 1st Amendment (political speech), which is why the Supreme Court favors fewer restrictions on donations and has shot down many campaign finance restrictions. The 14th Amendment binds the First Amendment and the Court’s rulings on it to the states (this is called incorporation of the Bill of Rights). It is because of “incorporation” that state laws in areas covered by incorporation are as restricted as the federal laws.

These are going to be other reasons that the appellate court will have to overturn the conviction as well; as these glaring constitutional violations are merely the most obvious ones. I am confident that the defense team will recognize others. Even the AP says in it’s report that the odds will turn in Delay’s favor in the appeals round, which was so obvious even they felt compelled to state it prominently in the article.

AP:

AUSTIN, Texas – Former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay argued throughout his trial that the deck was stacked against him by a politically motivated prosecutor and a jury from the most Democratic city in one of the most Republican states.

But following DeLay’s conviction Wednesday on money laundering and conspiracy charges, some legal experts say the edge may now shift to the Republican who represented a conservative Houston suburb for 22 years.

Before DeLay’s inevitable appeal, which his lawyers predict will be a far friendlier process than his trial, he faces sentencing next month from Senior Judge Pat Priest. While technically the money laundering charge carries a punishment of up to life in prison, the judge has wide latitude and could end up just giving him probation.

“It is absolutely impossible he would get anywhere near life,” said Philip Hilder, a Houston criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor. “It would be a period of a few years, if he gets prison.”

Barry Pollack, a Washington-based lawyer who represents clients in white-collar and government corruption cases, said the judge may not feel the need to throw the book at DeLay, figuring the conviction itself is severe punishment for someone who once ascended to the No. 2 post in the House of Representatives.

For example, as a convicted felon, DeLay won’t be able to run again for public office or even be able to cast a vote until he completes his sentence.

“I think in a lot of cases a judge wants to make an example, but I don’t see that happening here,” Pollack said. [For obvious reasons – Editor]

Prosecutors accused DeLay of conspiring with two associates to use his Texas-based political action committee to send $190,000 in corporate money to an arm of the Washington-based Republican National Committee. The RNC then sent the same amount to seven Texas statehouse candidates. Under Texas law, corporate money can’t go directly to political campaigns.

The money helped Republicans take control of the Texas House in 2002, and once there, they were able to push through a DeLay-engineered congressional redistricting plan that sent more Texas Republicans to Congress in 2004, strengthening DeLay’s political power.

While the string of alleged events may have been difficult for jurors to follow, outside legal observers said prosecutors were able to prove that DeLay had an undeniable motive for breaking the law. [The motive was to win elections using the same process that both parties have used and still continue to use. By that reasoning everyone elected official stands guilty of money laundering – Editor]

Phillip Turner, a Chicago attorney who focused on criminal tax and public corruption cases as a federal prosecutor in the 1980s, said jurors always want clear evidence that the defendant stood to personally gain through his alleged misdeeds.

Turner contrasts the DeLay case with the federal corruption trial of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who was convicted only on a lesser charge of lying to the FBI, with the jury deadlocking on 23 other charges — including the most serious ones.

Although prosecutors argued Blagojevich wanted to enrich himself by trying to sell the Senate seat that once belonged to President Barack Obama, Turner said a “corrupt motive” was tougher to prove in that case. Blagojevich didn’t seem to receive any reward, either in money or power, and it was unclear whether he ever really intended to, Turner said.

“Those are the sorts of facts that make a difference in a jury’s mind and lead to a conviction in one case and a hung jury in another,” Turner said.

DeLay opted to be sentenced by Priest, a Democrat, rather than a jury in heavily Democratic Austin. Hilder said that was a wise move, particularly if DeLay thinks he might be able to get by with just a probation sentence.

“The judge may be more receptive than a jury,” Hilder said. “He obviously thinks he will get a fairer shake with the judge. The jury more likely would sentence him to prison time.”

The sentencing hearing, which is set to begin Dec. 20, will feature “numerous witnesses who will talk about the other acts of corruption that Tom DeLay has committed,” lead prosecutor Gary Cobb said. The defense, which called only five witnesses during the trial compared to 30 for the prosecution, also could present testimony in the penalty phase.

But even with sentencing nearly a month away, DeLay’s lawyers expressed confidence they could overturn the conviction rather than just minimize the punishment.

Although they haven’t named the specific areas of the case they intend to appeal, their denied change of venue request is almost certainly to be among them. DeLay also long contended the charges against him were a political vendetta by Ronnie Earle, the former Democratic Travis County district attorney who originally brought the case and is now retired.

“This is a terrible miscarriage of justice,” said Dick DeGuerin, DeLay’s lead attorney. “… This will never stand up on appeal.”

Eliana Sutherland: TSA Agents Singled Me Out For My Breasts

Channel 6 Orlando:

ORLANDO, Fla. — The head of the Transportation Security Administration said the agency will look further into allegations that two male TSA workers picked a woman for additional screening because of her breasts.Eliana Sutherland recently flew from Orlando International Airport and told Local 6 she felt the two male TSA workers were staring at her breasts and chose her for additional screening because of their size.”It was pretty obvious. One of the guys that was staring me up and down was the one who pulled me over,” said Sutherland. “Not a comfortable feeling.”Experiences like Sutherland’s have been reported across the country, leaving many people to join a group planning to boycott the TSA’s new full body scan in an effort to clog security lines on the day before Thanksgiving. Whether it’s pat-downs or full-body scans, the changes are making some people question who gets chosen and why.

TSA Protests: Man wears speedo to airport, girl wears bikini.

Man wears speedo with the words on his back “Screw Big Sis”.

Women comes to airport in a Bikini – LINK

KABC:

Thousands of passengers were expected Wednesday at LAX, but only one left little to the imagination.

“I’m wearing my bikini,” Corinne Theile said as she unbuttoned her overcoat outside the terminal to reveal a black two-piece. “It’s not that I’m concerned, it’s that I feel like the TSA is making travelers feel uncomfortable, and I feel like we can have security measures that don’t make people feel uncomfortable.

“Every time I go through security I always say, ‘I don’t even know why I got dressed this morning.’ I end up taking off belts, jewelry and everything else off anyway,” Theile said.

TSA pulls pants off 71 y/o man with knee implant. TSA Supervisor yells at man “I have the power”

TSA Computer Screen: Cartoon of six year old boy about to get cavity search

Via a commenter at The Blaze:

As I was walking to baggage claim at IND, I passed by the TSA booth near security check-in. I was surprised to see what was the desktop/background image on this TSA computer: It is a cover for a fake children’s book called “My First Cavity Search”.

[Click to Enlarge]

TSA Cavity Search - Click to Enlarge

 

You can see a bigger version of the cover here: i26.tinypic.com/1zpkwle.jpg

My First Cavity Search

 

 

It is time to dismantle the TSA – UPDATED!

I have avoided posting on this issue for the simple reason that the media and countless bloggers have done a good job in covering this story.

The TSA tells us that they do not do pat downs in kids under 13, they tell us that they are not exposing or touching private parts and yet, we know that they took the top off of a woman, exposed her breasts while some made fun of her, we saw the video of the tiny little girl being groped by a TSA, we saw the famed video of the “crotch check”, we have seen other pictures of  of hard crotch checks, we know how the TSA made one person remove her breast prosthetic (mastectomy), we know how former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura has to go through the “enhanced pat down” every time because the metal in his hip sets off the metal detector.

We know how disabled lady was picked up off the ground by her crotch by a TSA. We are aware that the pilots union and flight attendants union are up in arms, and now we know that one pilot is suing the TSA because they wanted him to show his penis. Again all of this has been well reported. Citizens are posting Youtube of incidents daily, complaints are rising daily.

Well that rule about not doing “enhanced” pat downs on little kids that the head of the TSA said in sworn testimony to Congress a few days ago… someone forgot to tell this group of agents as the shirt was removed from this child during the enhanced pat down to prove that the little boy wasn’t hiding any bombs.

UPDATE – The TSA and many in the elite media have stated that it was the boys father who took the boys short off to show that he wasn’t carrying a bomb, nut what the TSA didn’t volunteer is that the boy is autistic and they told the father that the child’s short would have to be removed or the autistic child would have to go through the aggressive pat down process. Then TSA agents tried to intimidate the person recording the video into erasing it, but obviously the victim held his ground. Via The Blaze. [redlasso id=”cfc16f68-7de9-4c32-86c5-dd2364b9aedd”]

1 – It is now clear that TSA is simply incapable of following its own rules.

2 – The Secret Service does not even do this kind of groping and they are second to none when it comes to security.

3 – The full body nude scan machines cannot detect many kinds of explosives.

4 – These enhanced searches have stopped no terrorists or found any bomb making materials.

5 – Better equipment such as bomb sniffing dogs and electronic sniffers are not being used in favor of what is going on now.

6 – No court has ever allowed these kind of invasive searches without a warrant or probable cause.

7 – It is the job of the government to protect and safeguard our rights, not look for excuses to violate them.

8 – Doing these searches on old women, nuns and little children actually makes us less safe. By spending resources on people who are clearly innocent that is less resources used going after terrorists.

9 – As the Israelis have told us, looking for objects is a waste of resources, looking for people who are out to cause trouble is much more effective.

Milford Connecticut Police Destroy Cruiser Tapes in Vehicular Manslaughter Cover Up

We do report police misconduct here, but not because we are anti-police. On the contrary good policing is vital to any civil society.

With that said, we always have to keep in mind that as society has a spiritual, philosophical and educational break down, these problems manifest themselves everywhere. They especially manifest themselves with politicians and judges who do not respect the limits of their office or the idea of limited government.

CT Post:

MILFORD — If the dashboard video from city police cars was erased after a Freedom of Information Act request was filed for it, the city could face a big legal headache, experts said Tuesday.

The video was being sought by Bart Halloran, the lawyer for the family of one of teens killed when their car was broadsided by a Milford police cruiser last year. Halloran said that he hoped to use it to establish a pattern of Milford police officers using excessive speed on routine business.

New Haven attorney John Williams said that the claim by Milford police that a records clerk was “inadvertently” ordered to destroy thousands of hours of video files that were the subject of Halloran’s FOI request, “sounds like espoiliation of evidence. All he has to show is that it was there, that he asked for it, and that it was relevant to his case.”

Tom Hennick, spokesman for the state Freedom of Information Commission, agreed that if the video files existed when Halloran requested them but were later destroyed, “that could be a problem for the city. On the other hand, if they were gone when the complaint came in, we can’t order the creation of records.”

Mayor James L. Richetelli Jr. said that he couldn’t comment on the situation because it involves pending litigation. “Really, all I can say is that I believe that the chief has handled this matter properly. Now it is up to the FOI (Commission) to decide.”

Chief Keith Mello said Monday that the video files that were destroyed were being reviewed in relation to the FOI request, and that he had ordered that they be preserved until the matter was resolved. Mello said that he suspended Lt. Dan Bothwell, who oversees the records division, for one day without pay over the incident.

The chief did not respond Tuesday to a reporter’s questions, and it isn’t known exactly when the erasure was discovered or whether any more video files that Halloran is seeking still exist. The lawyer said that he received about seven hours of video several months ago.

An FOI hearing officer is scheduled to meet with Halloran, Mello and attorney James Tallberg, who represents the city, on Oct. 18 in Hartford to discuss whether the video files must be turned over. It is far from a moot point; the commission can levy fines of up to $1,000 per violation for noncompliance — and if the relevant files were destroyed the city can’t comply.

Halloran represents the parents of David Servin, who was killed June 13, 2009, along with his girlfriend, Ashlie Krakowski. The couple, both 19, were returning to Servin’s home in Orange when their car was T-boned by a Milford police cruiser being driven by Officer Jason Anderson.

 

So one man was suspended for one day and the city may have to pay a few thousands dollars in fines, but this much cheaper than defending against civil lawsuits stemming from in speeding and other violations that would/could have been found on those deleted tapes. The case could have been made that there was a pattern of reckless/bad behavior in the department so therefore the city is liable. As a result of such a suit some in the brass would have been the “fall guys” and heads would have rolled.

The brass won’t be paying the FOIA fines, the taxpayers of Connecticut will.

This is another example of why sovereign immunity laws need to be reformed so that public officials (and yes even college administrators) who violate the law can be held personally liable.

Soros Funded Group to Obama: Enact New Progressive Policy by Executive Order

RWB:

George Soros and his Center are upset that the American people placed a roadblock in their plans when we rose up and painted the nation red. The Center now is providing a blueprint of ways Barack Obama can do an end run around the people’s will by resorting to methods that will strike many of us as being improper-to say the least. Relying on executive orders, interpretation of regulations, rule -making and the like they are collectively a recipe for even more power being assumed by President Obama.

From Tuesday’s Politico Playbook:

[The] Center for American Progress today is releasing a report, “Power of the President,” proposing 30 executive actions the president can take to advance progressive change in the areas of energy, the economy, health care, education, foreign policy, and national security. “The following authorities can be used to ensure progress on key issues facing the country today: Executive orders, Rulemaking, Agency management, Convening and creating public-private partnerships , Commanding the armed forces, Diplomacy.

The New York Times fleshes out these proposals with some suggestions about policy changes across the board. The ideology of George Soros shines through the Center’s report as it justifies this forceful approach to circumvent Congress when it states that:

[The] legislative battles that Mr. Obama waged during his first two years – notably on health care and financial regulatory reform – have created a weariness among the general public with the process of making laws. And it hints it has not helped Mr. Obama politically in the process.

In other words, when Congress passed a variety of laws Americans became dismayed by the horse-trading and bribes that were resorted to by Democrats to impose these policies on us. Instead of compromise and listening to the American people, Soros counsels that more forceful measures should be used to override the will of the American people.

And this is the man the Democratic Party has as their sugar daddy and who various Democratic leaders over the years have defended and praised (for example, as shown by this letter from 11 Democratic lawmakers).

Rocky Balboa: The Pursuit of Happiness

The great individual vs. the “committee”. How many small businessman have faced a scenario much like this one.

Combined with the property rights argument this is exactly what the Founders had in mind when they chained government and forced it to stop chaining us, but something happened along the way and once again the American People are pushing back. This is one of the most prescient scenes in modern movie history.

Video: Sarah Palin shows off her expertise in monetary policy and commodities markets

Those of you who think that Sarah Palin is stupid are going to get her elected by “misunderestimating” her.

Palin was a city councilman, a mayor, an energy regulator, a journalist and a governor. She held elected office for five years before Barack Obama ran for anything. She also owns a commercial fishing business. Her husband Todd is a champion racer and an oil worker on the North Slope.  The dollar is the world reserve currency and the dollar is what is used in international oil transactions. Fish are also a commodity. Palin knows these businesses backwards and forwards so what you are about to see in this interview is Palin where she is the most comfortable and where very few in politics can  match her expertise.

These are also the subjects that elite media journalists will never ask her about.

Planned Parenthood Got $349.6 Million in Tax Dollars, Performed 324,008 Abortions, Paid Its President $385,163

Your tax dollars at work….how revolting.

 

CNS News:

Planned Parenthood received $349.6 million in tax dollars in the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2008, and it paid its president, Cecile Richards, $385,163, plus another $11,876 in benefits and deferred compensation.

According to a “fact sheet” published by the organization, Planned Parenthood Affiliate Health Centers performed 324,008 abortions in 2008.

Planned Parenthood’s fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2008 is the latest year for which the organization has publicly released an annual report and published the annual sum of grants and contracts it received from the government.

The $385,163 in pay Planned Parenthood President Richards received in the organization’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2008 was recorded in the group’s publicly available Internal Revenue Service Form 990 filed for that year.

Richards also received $346,285 in total compensation from Planned Parenthood and $38,476 in total compensation from related groups in the organization’s fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2009, according to the organization’s Form 990 for that year.

Planned Parenthood did not respond to repeated inquiries from CNSNews.com about Cecile Richards’ compensation.

Federal Workers’ Earnings Soaring!

18 Reporters Killed in Russia Since 2000

Dick Morris once gave a speech about how Putin was shutting down democracy (real democracy not communists who call themselves democratic) groups in Russia.

The reporters talked about in this video covered politics of course. With this big of a problem the government should pay the papers to hire armed guards to protect journalists.

Gov. Chris Christie names names: Rips “Poster Boy” Of Greedy Education Public Sector

As you will be seeing in my upcoming book, many school boards and administrators run our schools as if their primary purpose is to pay them a six figure salary.

Most education spending never gets to benefiting the kids, this is a prime example of why. We need serious education reform now and this includes taking on corrupt public sector unions.

“Let me tell you about the new poster boy for all that’s wrong with the public school system that is being dictated by greed,” Christie said. “This contract is the definition of greed and arrogance.”

“I suspect that the executive county superintendent is going to look very poorly upon someone who is trying to game the system and take from the taxpayers of Parsippany, and by extension, the taxpayers of New Jersey,” the governor added. “If Lee Seitz wants to try to put his greed and his arrogance ahead of the taxpayers of New Jersey, you elected me to stand up to people like Lee Seitz and others across the state, and I will.”

9th Circuit: All of your money belongs to the government & donating your own money to religious schools violates the 1st Amendment…

This case alone is justification for Congress using it’s Article III powers and eliminating the 9th circuit altogether.

Adam B. Schaeffer:

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments in an appeal of a 9th Circuit decision, Winn v Garriott, a challenge to one of Arizona’s education tax credit programs. It’s been getting more press than I’d expected, in the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today. That’s great news, because the case is far more important than just saving a program that improves education and expands educational freedom.

The 9th Circuit’s reasoning arrogates to the state all property , dissolving the distinction between public and private funds as well as public and private choices. It is a disturbing, dangerous decision.

They assert that tax cuts are the equivalent of government funds, a conclusion possible only if one assumes that all personal income belongs by default to the state rather than to the individual who earned the money. It asserts as well that when taxpayers and parents privately choose to support religious educational organizations, they are in violation of the First Amendment. This reasoning blatantly ignores the logic and plain meaning of the 2002 Zelman decision upholding school vouchers, among others.

Here is a prediction; the court will have their absurd ruling on an Arizona education tax credit program posted on the wall of judicial shame like so many others issued from their Circuit.

But I want more from the Court. This ruling is so awful that I can only pray SCOTUS rules beyond the questionable standing of the plaintiffs and comprehensively dismembers this most egregious 9th Circuit decision.

Schaeffer received his Ph.D. in American politics, with a focus in political behavior, media effects, and coalitional politics, from the University of Virginia and his MA in Social Science from the University of Chicago.

Orange County Authorities Doing “Miami Vice” Style Raids on Barber Shops

You would think that a priority of the police would be to help enhance the public trust. It would seem that someone forgot to let Orange County authorities in on the secret.

It does not please me to have to report stories like this, but without restraint and a little common sense there can be no freedom.

Orlando Sentinel:

As many as 14 armed Orange County deputies, including narcotics agents, stormed Strictly Skillz barbershop during business hours on a Saturday in August, handcuffing barbers in front of customers during a busy back-to-school weekend.

It was just one of a series of unprecedented raid-style inspections the Orange County Sheriff’s Office recently conducted with a state regulating agency, targeting several predominantly black- and Hispanic-owned barbershops in the Pine Hills area.

In “sweeps” on Aug. 21 and Sept. 17 targeting at least nine shops, deputies arrested 37 people — the majority charged with “barbering without a license,” a misdemeanor that state records show only three other people have been jailed in Florida in the past 10 years.

The operations were conducted without warrants, under the authority of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation inspectors, who can enter salons at will. Deputies said they found evidence of illegal activity, including guns, drugs and gambling. However, records show that during the two sweeps, and a smaller one in October, just three people were charged with anything other than a licensing violation.

Orange County sheriff’s Capt. Dave Ogden, who commands the area that includes Pine Hills, described the operations as a “minuscule” part of a larger effort to snuff out crime in one of Central Florida’s notorious hot spots.

Asked why his unit made arrests for licensing violations, Ogden said: “It was a misdemeanor crime being committed in our presence. We decided to make arrests.”

But many of the barbers who were swept up in the operations are still angry months later.

They made a big charade about it,” barber Jason Abrams said, “like we were selling drugs or something.”

Ok so if they found all these illegal guns and drugs etc, where are all the big charges and impending prosecutions? What was that….no big felony charges…. Oh so you just said that to the press to justify playing Miami Vice against people of color who cut someone’s hair… thanks that’s what I thought.

How could they be so stupid?

Is this what we hire police and SWAT teams for? I have a crazy idea, when you see someone cutting hair without a license, how about you send them a nice letter telling them to get a license in such a period of time or pay a fine? Maybe the local government in Orange County ran out of stamps or maybe they ran out of violent criminals to arrest.

The damage done to relations in the community by Orange County authorities is not worth the few dollars in fines they are hoping to glean from these raids. Did anyone internally dare to speak up and say, “You know this might not be a good idea.”

Alaska Division of Elections flagrantly violating Alaska law in Miller/Murkowski ballot count?

Joe Miller:

Division of Elections Fails to Notify Miller Campaign of Absentee Ballot Validation

Anchorage, Alaska. November 6, 2010 — The Joe Miller for U.S. Senate Campaign is concerned that the Absentee Ballot validation process began yesterday at 10 a.m without notification to the campaign. The Miller Campaign was told of the news from a Republican Party member approximately 11am yesterday who was informed of the decision that morning. In an e-mail to the Miller campaign, the Director of the Division of Elections, Gail Fenumiai, stated, “It is not the practice of the division to contact candidates or parties to notify them of the review dates,” even though the DOE’s “Election Observers’ Handbook” [version B14 (Rev 11/07), page 8] provides that the Division must “notify” the campaign “24 hours in advance the time of ballot review….”

[IUSB Vision Editor’s Note – This is preposterous,  of course it is the policy to contact the candidates, they have a right to inspect the process and that IS the whole point of having judges and inspectors from both parties to observe the count. Anyone who has worked elections before knows that any such policy would be so fabulously ridiculous that it is impossible. To claim that they have a policy that directly contradicts the published rules and goes against there very notion of having all parties involved to observe, which every state sets up a process to accomplish, is beyond unbelievable. I am calling out Gail Fenumiai as a liar as her statement is equal to saying that the state can hold a recount and not tell a candidate that it is happening. It cannot be understated how outrageous this is. – Chuck Norton]

In response to this news, Joe Miller said, “Our goal is to uphold the integrity of the voting process. Every vote that is cast correctly should be counted. All Alaskans deserve a free, open and fair election. Unfortunately, the State Division of Elections has decided to call that process into question with the constant maneuvering of dates and procedures.” Since the election Tuesday, the Miller Campaign has vowed to oversee the process to its conclusion, to ensure that the voters of Alaska have their rights protected.

Miller went on to say, “The State of Alaska has a statutorily defined election process, anything or anyone that deviates from that process is unsettling. It is fundamental that the public be informed of the ballot review schedule in advance. Our democratic voting process has at its foundation the Constitution and the statutes of this state, and any manipulation of this process for the purposes of expediency or convenience compromises those principles.”

Spokesman Randy DeSoto added that “we don’t know how many ballots were reviewed without fair scrutiny.”

The absentee validation is occurring across the state in various locations. It is unclear why the Miller Campaign was not notified about the decision to begin validation Friday.

Oklahoma Voters Forbid Judges from Using Sharia Law for Rulings – UPDATED!

The measure amends the state constitution to forbid judges from considering Islamic law or international law when making a ruling.

I am all for it. I say we start making amendments that forbid using foreign law as well.

CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, which has been accused of being a happy faced front for violent Islamic extremism, is suiug claiming discrimination.

My first thought was:

And banning communism is discrimination against people of Russian dissent, so under nondiscrimination will will use the 14th Amendment to make the Constitution unconstitutional!!

Sharia is a system of law affiliated with a religion, Islam, just as western law is based on Christian Scholasticism. No one has a right to impose a system of law on you. If a judge is stupid enough to buy the bogus 1st/14th Amendment argument CAIR is certain to use  then Jews will sue saying that we have to enforce Levitical Law or we are antisemitic. Of course under both kinds of law gays could be in serious trouble….

Any judge who tries to turn the Constitution into a pretzel by buying such a preposterous argument is going to get the wrath of the American people and Congress that they so richly deserve. The only place where this ruling would have a chance at the appeals level is the 9th Circus. This will just give the GOP more ammunition to eliminate the 9th with a new Judicial Act in 2013. I hate to say it, but if a lower court activist abandons all law and common sense and upholds CAIR’s argument politically it will do wonders for Republicans and Tea Party candidates.

American Muslim Association praises new Amendment:

PHOENIX (November 5, 2010) – Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim and the president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) issued the following statement regarding the passage of Oklahoma’s State Question 755.

“As Muslims dedicated to modernity, reform and our one law system in the west and in the United States, AIFD applauds the people of Oklahoma for passing State Question 755 and making “the legal precepts of other nations or cultures” off-limits to Oklahoma courts and specifically denying the use of Sharia Law.

The issue is simple. As Americans we believe in the Constitution, the Establishment Clause, and our one law system. SQ755 reaffirms the First amendment to the Constitution and prevents the Establishment or empowerment of a foreign legal system like the specific shariah legal systems implemented in many Muslim majority nations and in western shariah courts seen in places like Britain.

By filing a lawsuit, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has wasted no time in proving once again that they are unable to stand behind public declarations that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and our one law system supersede and are preferable to a sharia law system. They are using the American cover of religious freedom to try and knock down a simple law that prohibits the domination of one religion over others.

SQ755 is not about religious freedom or minority rights. It is about the inviolable sanctity of the U.S. constitution and our country’s foundational belief in a legal system based in one law that is based in reason and individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The law has no impact on the personal practice of Islam or the personal interpretation of “shariah” (God’s law to a Muslim), but rather SQ755 focuses on shariah as a total legal system that the people of Oklahoma wanted to make clear shall not be used or respected systemically in deciding law in Oklahoma. CAIR’s assertion that it is akin to France’s ban of the hijab or personal head covering for women is absurd. There is no evidence that this law prevents any of the personal manifestation of the practice of Islam or the use of personal religious principles in arguing law based in reason in state or federal court. Shariah as a legal system can just not be used as prima facie evidence in court.

SQ755 also thus prevents the establishment of separate shariah or Islamic courts in Oklahoma. As we have seen in Britain, Islamists have transformed the British arbitration system to the point that they are operating upwards of 85 shariah courts now. These courts are mostly operated out of mosques in Britain. While they claim that the courts are voluntary, as Canadians voiced loudly in their rejection of shariah courts, these groups exploit tribal pressures and coercion within Muslim communities in order to circumvent the one law and one legal system of Britain and western nations. It is naïve and ignorant to believe that such courts are purely “voluntary”. Just ask many of the women who get pressured through them and pressured to stay “out of western un-Islamic courts.”

CAIR’s lawsuit proves that they are part of an Islamist establishment in America that do not and will not believe in the separation of mosque and state and that they promote the ideology of political Islam. This ideology is based in a belief in the supremacy of Islamic legal systems and is often a conveyer belt toward radicalization. CAIR shows once again that they are part of the problem not the solution.

UPDATE II – It didn’t take long for a federal Clinton appointee to put the Oklahoma Constitution on hold:

Via our friends at The Daily Caller:

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Monday to block a new amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution that would prohibit state courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases.

U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange handed down the order after an Oklahoma man filed a lawsuit claiming the amendment stigmatized his religion and would invalidate his will, which he said is partially based on Islamic Law, also known as Sharia Law.

“My constitutional rights are being violated through the condemnation of my faith,” said Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. “Islam was the target of this amendment. This amendment does not have a secular purpose.”

The measure, State Question 755, was approved with 70 percent of the vote in the Nov. 2 general election. The judge’s order prevents the state Election Board from certifying the results of that vote, which it had planned to do Tuesday afternoon.

Our take:

Clinton appointee – shocker. It violates his rights because it makes him feel bad. The point here is not discrimination it is Popular Sovereignty. The American people have a right to chose the system of law they live under. We could pass an Amendment preventing judges from using the Russian Constitution as a basis for rulings, does that mean we have to use the Russian Constitution and graft it into our Constitution just so Russians wont feel bad or feel discriminated against?

The problem with too many of these judges is simple, they are not legal minds, they are hacks who make rulings based on politics and personal whims. They do not respect popular sovereignty or the limits of their office.

I am sure there are several leftist judges who would be willing to rule that it is the intent of the Founders and the Constitution for our judges to make case law based on Sharia. Of course this undermines legitimacy. Our system of law should be reasonably predictable, if courts can rule not on the Constitution but rather anything goes, people will have no faith in the law or reason to believe justice can be had in the courts (do women get justice under Sharia?). Those of us political science scholars know where that leads us.

Voters Toss Iowa Justices For Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

This is what happens when judges and others refuse to accept the limits of their office and/or the Constitution. There is simply no way that the Founders intended to create a right to gay marriage with the 14th Amendment or any other. There is no right to heterosexual marraige so how can there be a right to homosexual marraige? To put it simply, if I have a right to get married and no one will marry me my rights are violated under this thinking. This is why rights apply to individuals not groups.

If you support gay marraige or not is not the issue, this is a matter of law and popular sovereignty. If  the states wish to have gay marraige people are just going to have to vote on it.

Notice the absolutely pinheaded comment Drake University Law School Dean Allan Vestal. I hate to put it this way, but some academics are so painfully dumb it makes me cringe at the thought that such a person has access to our kids.

Via Volokh:

Three Iowa Supreme Court Justices were tossed as a result of their votes mandating that same-sex couples be allowed to marry.  They are the first Justices who failed to be retained since 1962, when the current system was implemented.

Although I don’t understand the complaint of Drake University Law School Dean Allan Vestal that this was a “misuse” of the right of voters to vote on judicial retention.  Isn’t this exactly what the retention power is intended to do?

In Federalist 51 Madison defined the fundamental challenge of constitutional government: “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”  There is no solution to this, just a tradeoff.  You can increase the independence of elected officials, which makes it easier for the government to control the governed by insulating them from majoritarian and interest-group pressures.  But if you increase independence you run the risk of increased agency costs when the government is unable to control itself–when politicians (including judges) pursue their own self or ideological interest instead of the purposes for which they are given independence in the first place.  And vice-versa: more democratic control will make politicians more responsive to the governed but also reduce the risk of agency costs.

Iowa has set up one system that tries to balance this.  If the voters of Iowa concluded that the Justices of the state Supreme Court abused their power in creating a right to same-sex marriage, and that this represents the Justices reading their own ideological views into the law, then it is entirely appropriate for them to toss some or all of the offending Justices.  That’s not a “misuse” of the retention power; that’s what it is there for.

Whether Iowa has struck a proper balance between independence and accountability, or should balance it in some other way  is a different question.  And whether any other system has struck the balance correctly (whether more or less democratic) is also a separate question.  But having struck the balance in this manner it seems to me that this was an entirely appropriate use of the voters’ recall power–to get rid of judges who the voters believe are misusing their authority to impose their personal views on the law.

 

And before some pinhead says it in comments, I have gay friends. I absolutely oppose those who wish violence towards gays or anyone else for that matter. The Golden Rule applies people.This is not a hate issue, this is a popular sovereignty issue.