Why Obama is focusing on Immigration

Bill Kristol makes this point:

This is the first major speech he has given on immigration 18 months into his administration.

He promised to introduce legislation in the first year of this two-year congressional session and there is still no legislation and no specifics in this speech. So it is a political speech, not a legislative speech. Nobody expects there to be immigration legislation this year.

The reason for the speech, the Gallup poll did an interesting breakdown. If you look at President Obama's approval rating at the beginning of the year and the end of last month, beginning of June, 2010, among African-American he has been absolutely steady 91 percent approval and 91 percent approval. Among white Americans he's been steady -- 41 percent approval, 41 percent approval.

His drop came last year. Among Hispanic-Americans this year he has dropped from 69 percent approval to 57 percent approval. He promised improvement on immigration. A lot of Hispanic-Americans care an awful lot about that. There was no movement, and he's trying to buck up his support and the Democratic Party's support among Hispanics. . . .

"Democrats push for new Internet sales taxes"

Don't we have enough new taxes coming this next year?

The halcyon days of tax-free Internet shopping will, if Rep. Bill Delahunt gets his way, soon be coming to an abrupt end.
Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat, introduced a bill on Thursday that would rewrite the ground rules for Internet and mail order sales by eliminating the option for many Americans to shop over the Internet without paying state sales taxes.
At the moment, Americans who shop over the Internet from out-of-state vendors usually aren't required to pay sales taxes. Californians buying books from Amazon.com or cameras from Manhattan's B&H; Photo, for example, won't be required to cough up the sales taxes that they would if shopping at a local mall. . . .

842,000 Americans left the labor force in June

A truly massive number of people left the labor force in June. The unemployment rate fell 0.2 percentage points in June because even though the number employed fell by 301,000, the number unemployed fell by 350,000 since so many people had left the labor force and where no longer looking for work.

UPDATE: Here is a discussion from The Economist magazine.

THE best that can be said about the June jobs report is that it doesn't signal a return to recession. Total employment fell 125,000, but this was because of an end to some temporary jobs conducting the federal census. Private payrolls rose by 83,000. That's soft, and less than expected, though better than May's revised increase of 33,000.

Unfortunately, the guts of the report aren't much more uplifting. The private work week, after rising to 34.2 hours in May, fell back to 34.1 in June. In terms of the amount of labour being used throughout the economy, that's the same as a drop of 300,000 in payrolls. Average hourly earnings actually fell, by 0.1%. That may fan fears of deflation given the already low readings on inflation. I think that's premature. Hourly earnings have been generally rising, albeit sluggishly, and the June drop could be a one-time move.

Finally, while the unemployment rate did drop, to 9.5%, an 11-month low from 9.7%, it dropped for the wrong reason: a lot of people stopped looking for work. This might be because a Senate impasse led to the expiration of extended unemployment insurance benefits early in June. The number of recipients has been falling by about 200,000 per week since. Some of these people may have stopped looking for work (a requirement to qualify for benefits), and thus are no longer counted as unemployed. Census layoffs may have also played a part.

For what it's worth, the household survey (used to calculate the unemployment rate) showed a much bigger drop in employment, of 301,000, than the payroll survey. The rule of thumb is that when the two differ, go with the payroll survey. . . .

Even Dems don't believe that Obama will keep deficit promise

A new National Journal poll indicates that even most Democrats don't believe that Obama will keep his promise on the deficit.

Q. Do you think that President Obama will fulfill his pledge to cut the budget deficit in half by 2013?

Democrats (39 votes)

Yes 44%
No 49%
Maybe* 8%

* Volunteered.

Republicans (33 votes)

Yes 0%
No 100%

So what will be in the new Chicago Gun Regulations

From CBS2 Chicago.

The ordinance also requires a two-step process to own and register a handgun. It would require both a city firearms permit and a valid Illinois Firearm Owners' registration Identification Card, as well as registration with the Chicago Police Department.

The application fee would $15 for each firearm registered. The annual reporting fee would be $10 per firearm. . .

Other provisions:

• Limit the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.
• Require residents in homes with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.
• Require prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.
• Prohibit people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Residents convicted of a gun offense would have to register with the police department.
• Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

Other requirements include:

• It allows for registration of no more than one handgun per month in the home per adult or applicant and generally prohibits the possession of a handgun by any person except in the person’s home.
• It establishes a two-step process to own and register a handgun. First, the applicant must obtain a city firearms permit, which requires having a valid State of Illinois Firearm Owners’ Identification Card, and then the applicant must register the gun with the Chicago Police Department.
• Handgun ownership is prohibited for anyone who has been convicted of any violent crime, has two or more offenses for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and under state law has been convicted of domestic violence.
• It bans assault weapons and provides for mandatory jail time beginning in 2011 for anyone who is caught with one.
• It requires firearms safety training, both in a classroom and on a firing range.
• It bans gun shops.
• It includes severe penalties for violating the ordinance, including hefty fines and jail time.

Banning gun shops seems like a sure challenge. I also assume that only allowing one gun in operation is also a possible challenge.

Pelosi doesn't understand economics

Here is a transcript of part of Pelosi's statement.

This is one of the biggest stimuluses to our economy. Economists will tell you this money is spent quickly. it injects demand into the economy and is job creating. It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name. Because again it is money that is needed for families to survive and it is spent. So it has a double benefit. It helps those who have lost their jobs, but it is also a job creator.

Copy of Obama's immigration speech

It is amazing how many false statements Obama can make in one speech. From describing the Arizona immigration law to claiming that his enforcement has reduced the number of illegals, it is really amazing.

Laws like Arizona’s put huge pressures on local law enforcement to enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable. It puts pressure on already hard-strapped state and local budgets. . . .

I don't know where to start, but this above statement is amazing because it ignores that Arizona is doing what it is doing in part because of the cost of illegals. Why this simple law is unenforceable is very strange. The Obama administration is promising not to take the illegals caught by Arizona and that will make it very costly for the state, but that is the Obama administration's decision.

General Electric President attacks Obama

GE has gotten a lot of subsidies from the Obama administration. So this is a pretty remarkable attack.

Mr Immelt also had harsh words for Barack Obama, US president, lamenting what he called a “terrible” national mood and expressing concern that over-regulation in response to the global financial crisis would damp a “tepid” US economic recovery. Business did not like the US president, and the president did not like business, he said, making a point of praising Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, for her defence of German industry. . . .

Former Justice Department Lawyer Accuses Obama administration of improper behavior in Black Panther case

From Fox News:

"I mean we were told, 'Drop the charges against the New Black Panther Party,'" Adams told Fox News, adding that political appointees Loretta King, acting head of the civil rights division, and Steve Rosenbaum, an attorney with the division since 2003, ordered the dismissal.

Asked about the Justice Department's claim that they are career attorneys, not political appointees, Adams said "obviously, that's false."

"Under the vacancy reform act, they were serving in a political capacity," he said. "This is one of the examples of Congress not being told the truth, the American people not being told the truth about this case. It's one of the other examples in this case where the truth simply is becoming another victim of the process."

Adams claimed an unnamed political appointee said if somebody wants to bring these kinds of cases, "that' not going to de done out of the civil rights division."

Adams also accused Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez of lying under oath to a federal commission about the circumstances surrounding the decision to drop the probe.

The Justice Department has defended its move to drop the case, saying it obtained an injunction against one member to keep him away from polling stations while dismissing charges against the others "based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law." . . .

Obama administration misled reporters about his involvement in picking the Senator from Illinois

John Fund has this at the WSJ's Political Diary.

In sworn testimony, Illinois SEIU chief Tom Balanoff reveals that just after Mr. Obama was elected president, he sought to have Mr. Blagojevich appoint his close friend Valerie Jarrett to replace him in the Senate. Mr. Balanoff quotes Mr. Obama as saying the night before the 2008 election: "I would much prefer she [serve in the White House] but she does want to be Senator and she does meet those criteria." . . .

it's clear the White House tried to mislead reporters on the president's role. An official report by incoming White House Counsel Greg Craig insisted the President-elect and his team were not involved in efforts to fill his former Senate seat. "Our office had no involvement in any deal-making around my Senate seat. That I'm absolutely certain of. And the -- that is -- that would be a violation of everything that this campaign has been about. And that's not how we do business," Mr. Obama said at the time.

The White House isn't denying the substance of Mr. Balanoff's testimony, but isn't answering any questions about it either. When asked by ABC News this week if Mr. Obama had phoned Mr. Balanoff about his replacement in the Senate, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded: "You're telling me about this testimony; I'm not going to get into commenting on, obviously, an ongoing -- an ongoing trial. And I -- I've -- have not had an opportunity to see that." . . .

Overheated Democrat rhetoric?

Has a senior Republican ever compared Democrats to Nazis? Here is the discussion in the New York Daily News.

Comparing GOP tactics to the fast-striking forces of Nazi Germany, Biden warns in a message sent by the DCCC today: “As things heat up, you can expect House Democrats will be hit with a GOP blitzkrieg of vicious Swift-Boat-style attack ads, Karl Rove-inspired knockout tactics, thinly veiled attempts at character assassination and tea party disruptions.”

And while the GOP is mounting a blitzkrieg, Democrats are the allies.

“Our Democratic allies in the House need your help, and the President and I hope we can count on you to come to their defense so we can hold onto our Democratic Majority and continue moving American forward in a new direction,” Biden writes in the appeal. . . .

Remember when Pelosi claimed that those opposed to the Obama health care plan were Nazis because she pointed to one sign with a line through a Swastikas.

Why Obamanomics failed

From Allan Meltzer in the WSJ:

The administration's stimulus program has failed. Growth is slow and unemployment remains high. The president, his friends and advisers talk endlessly about the circumstances they inherited as a way of avoiding responsibility for the 18 months for which they are responsible. . . .

Mr. Obama has denied the cost burden on business from his health-care program, but business is aware that it is likely to be large. How large? That's part of the uncertainty that employers face if they hire additional labor.

The president asks for cap and trade. That's more cost and more uncertainty. Who will be forced to pay? What will it do to costs here compared to foreign producers? We should not expect businesses to invest in new, export-led growth when uncertainty about future costs is so large.

Then there is Medicaid, the medical program for those with lower incomes. In the past, states paid about half of the cost, and they are responsible for 20% of the additional cost imposed by the program's expansion. But almost all the states must balance their budgets, and the new Medicaid spending mandated by ObamaCare comes at a time when states face large deficits and even larger unfunded liabilities for pensions. All this only adds to uncertainty about taxes and spending.

Other aspects of the Obama economic program are equally problematic. The auto bailouts ran roughshod over the rule of law. Chrysler bondholders were given short shrift in order to benefit the auto workers union. By weakening the rule of law, the president opened the way to great mischief and increased investors' and producers' uncertainty. That's not the way to get more investment and employment.

Almost daily, Mr. Obama uses his rhetorical skill to castigate businessmen who have the audacity to hope for profitable opportunities. No president since Franklin Roosevelt has taken that route. President Roosevelt slowed recovery in 1938-40 until the war by creating uncertainty about his objectives. It was harmful then, and it's harmful now. . . .

Some critiques of the Dodd-Frank Regulation bill

From John Taylor in the WSJ:

The sheer complexity of the 2,319-page Dodd-Frank financial reform bill is certainly a threat to future economic growth. But if you sift through the many sections and subsections, you find much more than complexity to worry about.

The main problem with the bill is that it is based on a misdiagnosis of the causes of the financial crisis, which is not surprising since the bill was rolled out before the congressionally mandated Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission finished its diagnosis. . . .

Even some liberals are upset: "how the Dodd-Frank bill maintains the status quo"

Dodd-Frank effectively anoints the existing banking elite. The bill makes it likely that they will be the future giants of banking as well. Legislators touted changes that would restrict proprietary trading by banks and force them to spin off their swaps desks into separately capitalized operations. . . .

And a discussion of the lobbying that went on to create this sausage is here.

Obama administration won't let world's largest oil skimmer help in Gulf

This is unbelievable. The largest skimmer in the world can't be used because the EPA won't give approval. And the reason the EPA won't give approval is because some of the water put back into the gulf still has some oil in it.

With no assurances it will be allowed to join the Gulf oil cleanup, a Taiwanese-owned ship billed as the world's largest skimming vessel was preparing to sail Friday evening to the scene of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.The ship - the length of 3 1/2 football fields and 10 stories high - is designed to collect up to 500,000 barrels of oily water a day through 12 vents on either side of its bow. It docked in Norfolk en route to the Gulf from Portugal, where it was retrofitted to skim the seas. The ship and its crew of 32 were to leave Virginia waters Friday evening.
The owners of the "A Whale" said the ship features a new skimming approach that has never been attempted on such a large scale. They are anxious to put it to its first test in the Gulf.
"We really have to start showing people what we can do," said Bob Grantham, project coordinator for TMT Group, a Taiwan-based shipping company.
The company is still negotiating with the Coast Guard to join the cleanup and does not have a contract with BP to perform cleanup work. The company also needs environmental approval and waiver of a nearly century-old law aimed at protecting U.S. shipping interests.
Environmental Protection Agency approval is required because some of the seawater returned to the Gulf would have traces of oil. . . .

Jacob Sullum takes apart Justice Stevens' reasoning in Chicago Gun Ban case

This argument by Stevens is actually fairly similar to arguments that Richard Posner made. The core of Sullum's argument is here:

In their dissenting opinions, Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer (joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor) worry that overturning gun control laws undermines democracy. If "the people" want to ban handguns, they say, "the people" should be allowed to implement that desire through their elected representatives.

What if the people want to ban books that offend them, establish an official church, or authorize police to conduct warrantless searches at will? Those options are also foreclosed by constitutional provisions that apply to the states by way of the 14th Amendment. The crucial difference between a pure democracy and a constitutional democracy like ours is that sometimes the majority does not decide.

Likewise, Stevens defends "state and local legislatures' right to experiment," while Breyer is loath to interfere with "the ability of States to reflect local preferences and conditions—both key virtues of federalism." Coming from justices who think Congress can disregard state decisions about the medical use of marijuana because a plant on the windowsill of a cancer patient qualifies as interstate commerce, this sudden concern about federalism is hard to take seriously.

Another reason to doubt the dissenters' sincerity: They would never accept federalism as a rationale for letting states "experiment" with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or due process protections. Much of their job, as they themselves see it, involves overriding "local preferences" that give short shrift to constitutional rights.

Second Amendment rights are different, Breyer says, because "determining the constitutionality of a particular state gun law requires finding answers to complex empirically based questions." So does weighing the claims in favor of banning child pornography or depictions of animal cruelty, relaxing the Miranda rule, admitting illegally obtained evidence, or allowing warrantless pat-downs, dog sniffs, or infrared surveillance. . . .

Discussion about Kagan's nomination on CBS News' Unplugged

A copy of my appearance today on CBS News' Unplugged can be seen here.


Watch CBS News Videos Online

Watch Washington Unplugged's special coverage of Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings above. It also features a roundtable panel of guests including Jack Quinn, White House Counsel to President Clinton; Rachel Brand, Former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy under President George W. Bush; Politico's Josh Gerstein; Dr. John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime And Gun Control Laws"; and CBS News' Kaylee Hartung.

Roger Lott's: Review of 'How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes' Peter D. Schiff and Andrew J. Schiff

Roger's latest book review in the Washington Times is available here.

Best-selling author and 2010 U.S. Senate candidate Peter D. Schiff and his brother Andrew J. Schiff, communications director of Euro Pacific Capital, convey the often intuitive ideas of economics through an engaging, fictitious story richly illustrated with amusing cartoons.

The current economic path of the United States, some argue, is unsustainable. Americans understand this, yet many have been misled into believing that economics is hopelessly complex and the country would be at sea without a paddle if the government weren't around to sort through the mess.

The Schiffs seek to provide readers with a "basic tool kit for cutting through the economic clutter" by sharing a revised and updated version of "The Fish Story" that their father, Irwin A. Schiff, presented in the well-known illustrated book "How an Economy Grows and Why It Doesn't." . . .

New Fox News piece: Illegal Alien Legal Challenge

My newest piece has this discussion:

With those words in mind, alarm bells should have gone off during Elena Kagan’s confirmation testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. Here’s what Kagan told Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa):

It has long been thought, starting from the “Miller” case, that the Second Amendment did not protect such a right. . . . Now the Heller decision has marked a very fundamental moment in the court's jurisprudence with respect to the Second Amendment. And as I suggested to Senator Feinstein there is not question going forward that ‘Heller’ is the law, that it is entitled to all the precedent that any decision is entitled to and that is true to the ‘McDonald’ case as well...

There are two big problems with Kagan’s remarks: she inaccurately describes the 1939 "Miller" case and her claims to follow stare decisis are meaningless. . . .

Video of my appearance on C-SPAN's Washington Journal

A copy of the video can be found here.

15 year old uses gun to protect himself and his 12 year old sister

This story should be longer than just 161 words. Given that the media perceives these stories as incredibly rare, doesn't this meet the criteria of newsworthiness?

The teenage son of a Harris County deputy constable shot a burglar this afternoon who tried to break into their home, authorities said.
The boy, 15, and his sister, 12, were alone about 2:45 p.m. when someone tried to kick open the front door then soon after the back door of their home in the 2600 block of Royal Place Court, officials said.
Their father was at work at the time, said officials with the Harris County Precinct 1 Constable's Office.
When one of the suspected burglars kicked open a window, the boy grabbed a rifle and fired. Both burglars then fled, officials said.
Soon after the shooting, a man showed up at Tomball Methodist Hospital with a gunshot wound. He is being questioned by investigators. There was no information about the second suspect, who remains at large, officials said.
The children were not injured during the ordeal, officials said.
Investigators with the Harris County Sheriff's Department have launched an investigation.

Thanks to Brian Shelley and Jeff Yager for the link.

Robbers pull guns and fire at concealed carry permit holder

As this story from St. Louis notes, the permit holder was "glad" that he had his concealed handgun.

Rally's shooting: Robbery victim speaks out
By: Ann Rubin
June 29, 2010

KSDK -- Two would-be robbers picked the wrong victim yesterday, quickly finding out that he was armed too. The shootout that followed happened in the parking lot of a St. Louis Rally's Restaurant. Now the victim is speaking exclusively to NewsChannel 5 about what happened.

The victim says he doesn't like violence, but he has a gun for protection. And he was glad he had it yesterday, when two men tried to rob him.

He says, "It felt like it lasted ten minutes but it was really just a couple seconds."

We're protecting the victim's identity, after what happened.

It was a robbery attempt outside the Rally's on Jefferson. The victim says he and a friend were contemplating their order, when two suspects tried to get in the car.

But when they pulled their guns on him, the victim pulled his gun out too.

He says, "The first shot hit me, then I reached over while I was in the car and I shot two times. That's when, he didn't expect what was going on and he shot again."

The victim was shot twice, once in each leg. But that didn't stop him from getting up and continuing to exchange gunfire with the suspects. In the end, one of them had been shot in the head. The other had been shot in the stomach.

The victim says, "Then after that, after it all ended, I dropped down and I was just sitting in my own puddle of blood."

Now a day later, it's back to business as usual at the Rally's. But the victim says for him, getting back to normal won't be so easy.

He says, "I just got a lot of things on my mind and just replay over and over the situation. "

The victim says he does have a gun permit. And police say he's not facing any charges. He thinks if he hadn't acted, the outcome might have been much different. . . .

Thanks to Blogmeister for this link.

Public High School in Massachusetts won't let students say pledge of allegiance

The reason for this is really stunning.

When Sean Harrington entered his freshman year at Arlington High School, he noticed something peculiar: There were no American flags in the classrooms, and no one recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

So Harrington enlisted the aid of his fellow students, and now, three years later, they have succeeded in getting flags installed in the classrooms. But the pledge still will not be recited.

The Arlington, Mass., school committee has rejected the 17-year-old's request to allow students to voluntarily recite the Pledge of Allegiance, because some educators are concerned that it would be hard to find teachers willing to recite it, according to a report in the Arlington Patch. . . .

Chicago residents "pleased by high court decision on guns"

This is a short but significant article. I would probably warn people about publicly saying that they own a handgun in Chicago.

Residents of a Chicago neighborhood where an 80-year-old man shot and killed a burglar who'd broken into his home are pleased the U.S. Supreme Court supports their right to own guns for self-defense.

Seventy-eight-year-old Herman Wilder of the West Side neighborhood says he keeps a handgun under his pillow for protection. He says he thanks God for the Supreme Court's decision Monday, which eventually may make that gun legal.

Another neighbor, 50-year-old Charlene Figgins, thinks Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is living in a different Chicago than she is and that he doesn't understand the citizens' need for protection.

She says it can take 30 minutes for police to respond to calls for help in her neighborhood. She says the mayor doesn't have that problem.

Dems say that they are happy about the Supreme Court Striking down the Chicago Gun Ban, but . . . .

If Dems feel so strongly about Chicago gun ban case, why are they voting for Kagan?

When the Supreme Court extended the individual right to own a gun Monday, they handed Second Amendment advocates—many of whom are at home in the GOP—one of their most significant legal victories ever.

But who won the day in politics? The Democrats.

For them, the court’s groundbreaking decision couldn’t have been more beneficial to the cause in November. Now, Democratic candidates across the map figure they have one less issue to worry about on the campaign trail. And they won’t have to defend against Republican attacks over gun rights and an angry, energized base of gun owners. . . .

The chorus of responses to Monday’s ruling was a group of normally dissonant voices: It proved the rare occasion when both former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could find common ground. . . .

Radio Appearances this coming week on Chicago gun ruling

American Family Radio, Monday, 6:15 PM EDT

The Alan Colmes Show, Monday, 11 PM

Coast-to-Coast AM with George Noory
Monday 10:10 PM PDT/Tuesday 1:10 AM EDT

WIOD South Florida's at 6:40 AM EDT

The Mancow Show, Tuesday morning sometime during the 7 AM to 7:30 AM segment EDT

Steve Gill Show, Nashville, WLAC-AM, 7:30 AM EDT

John McCaslin, Tuesday, 8:15 AM EDT

Big John and Amy, 560 WIND, Chicago, 8:30 AM EDT

Don and Roma on WLS at 9:05 AM EDT

KMOX, St. Louis, 3;20 to 3:30 PM EDT

John Tory on NewsTalk 1010 Toronto Radio, 4:15 PM EDT

Sandy Rios, WYLL, 5:05 to 5:30 PM EDT

Alan Stock of KXNT in Las Vegas, 6:10 to 6:30 PM EDT

“The Savage Nation”
Tuesday, June 29, 2010, third hour

New Fox News piece: Court's Gun Decision An Important Win for Americans Who Want to Defend Themselves

My newest piece at Fox News starts this way:

With another closely decided 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled today that state governments are not able to ban most Americans from owning most types of handguns. The court ruled that firearms are "essential for self-defense." The court found that if the Second Amendment indeed protects an individual right to own a gun, the notion that the government can't ban all handguns is the minimum protection the Constitution can offer.

Yet, just as with abortion, this is the first of what is likely to be a long string of court decisions.

The decision is an important win for Americans who want the right to self-defense, but the decision also indicates how many questions still must be answered.

When the “Heller” decision was handed down in 2008 striking down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and gunlock regulations, Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley predicted disaster. He said that overturning the gun ban was "a very frightening decision" and predicted more deaths along with Wild West-style shootouts and that people "are going to take a gun and they are going to end their lives in a family dispute." Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty similarly warned: "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence."

Yet, Armageddon never arrived. . . .

A copy of the decision is available here.

Look at what Breyer, joined by Sotomayor and other liberals, wrote:

I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as “fundamental” insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes. . . .

In my view, taking Heller as a given, the Fourteenth Amendment does not incorporate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for purposes of private self- defense. . . .

Amazing. I don't know how they can write what they do with the Alito decision documenting the debate over the 14th Amendment.

See also John Stossel's piece here.



Here is another piece at AOL News.

Obama's misinformation about the deficits

These deficits are not what Obama promised. Indeed, he promised the opposite.

President Obama on controlling the debt: "Somehow people say, why are you doing that, I'm not sure that's good politics. I'm doing it because I said I was going to do it and I think it's the right thing to do. People should learn that lesson about me because next year when I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country, I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficits and debt step-up because I'm calling their bluff. We'll see how much of that, how much of the political arguments that they're making right now are real and how much of it was just politics."

Take some of the promises that Obama made during the third presidential debate.

OBAMA: And we are now looking at a deficit of well over half a trillion dollars.

So one of the things that I think we have to recognize is pursuing the same kinds of policies that we pursued over the last eight years is not going to bring down the deficit. And, frankly, Senator McCain voted for four out of five of President Bush's budgets.

We've got to take this in a new direction, that's what I propose as president. . . . .

OBAMA: . . . . But there is no doubt that we've been living beyond our means and we're going to have to make some adjustments.

Now, what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut. . . . .

From the second debate.

But I think it's important just to remember a little bit of history. When George Bush came into office, we had surpluses. And now we have half-a-trillion-dollar deficit annually.

When George Bush came into office, our debt -- national debt was around $5 trillion. It's now over $10 trillion. We've almost doubled it.

And so while it's true that nobody's completely innocent here, we have had over the last eight years the biggest increases in deficit spending and national debt in our history. And Sen. McCain voted for four out of five of those George Bush budgets. . . . And what I've proposed, you'll hear Sen. McCain say, well, he's proposing a whole bunch of new spending, but actually I'm cutting more than I'm spending so that it will be a net spending cut.

The key is whether or not we've got priorities that are working for you as opposed to those who have been dictating the policy in Washington lately, and that's mostly lobbyists and special interests. We've got to put an end to that.

From the first debate.

OBAMA: I just want to make this point, Jim. John, it's been your president who you said you agreed with 90 percent of the time who presided over this increase in spending. This orgy of spending and enormous deficits you voted for almost all of his budgets. So to stand here and after eight years and say that you're going to lead on controlling spending and, you know, balancing our tax cuts so that they help middle class families when over the last eight years that hasn't happened I think just is, you know, kind of hard to swallow.

Nutsy EU consumer regulations: EU bans selling eggs by the dozen

Despite the regulator's claims, this is not consumer friendly regulation. If this is the way that consumers wanted to buy their eggs, this is the way grocery stores would sell them.

British shoppers are to be banned from buying eggs by the dozen under new regulations approved by the European Parliament.
For the first time, eggs and other products such as oranges and bread rolls will be sold by weight instead of by the number contained in a packet.
Until now, Britain has been exempt from EU regulations that forbid the selling of goods by number. But last week MEPs voted to end Britain’s deal despite objections from UK members.
The new rules will mean that instead of packaging telling shoppers a box contains six eggs, it will show the weight in grams of the eggs inside, for example 372g. . . .

‘It is important that information is provided in a way that is meaningful and beneficial to consumers. This issue is still being considered by EU member states and it will be some time before the regulation is finalised.’
The move could cost retailers millions of pounds because of changes they will have to make to packaging and labelling, as well as the extra burden of weighing each box of food before it is put on sale. . . .

"Ohio Democratic Party unsuccessfully tries to get gun records"

This isn't too surprising with the NRA endorsing Strickland for governor.

Cleveland, Ohio -- The Ohio Democratic Party tried unsuccessfully this week to get information on all people licensed to carry concealed weapons in the Buckeye State.
The state party sent letters to Ohio's 88 sheriffs requesting the names and addresses of permit holders and the dates the licenses were issued. Ohio has about 211,000 permit holders.
But neither the Democrats nor any other political party can get that information. The records are exempt from the public record laws. The only public access was given to journalists when then-Gov. Bob Taft signed the law in 2004.
Lorain County Sheriff Phil Stammitti, a Democrat, denied the request Friday.
"I must also advise you that the information you are requesting is NOT a public record and CANNOT be released," Stammitti wrote in a letter to the party.
The Democrats intended to target people who support the Second Amendment -- the constitutional right to bear arms -- with campaign information, said party spokesman, Seth Bringman.
The party learned the information was not public and then sent a second letter apologizing to the 88 sheriffs.
"We asked them to rescind our request," Bringman said.
Derek DeBrosse, an attorney for Ohioans for Concealed Carry, a gun-rights group, said the law is clear and political parties are not privy to the information. . . .

Washington Times Editorial: Gun Control Groups distort numbers

Gun grabbers treat criminals as victims: Groups appalled at use of concealed firearms in self-defense