Americans Want Next President to Prioritize Jobs, Corruption

Lowest priorities are taxing wealthy and environmental problems by Jeffrey M. JonesPRINCETON, NJ -- Creating good jobs, reducing corruption in the federal government, and reducing the federal budget deficit score highest when Americans rate 12 issues as priorities for the next president to address. Americans assign much less importance to increasing taxes on wealthy Americans and dealing with environmental concerns. READ MORE

Must Read: Screw Obama, Why Work at Home Businesses Will Thrive

This article has an answer to anyone that is disgruntled, unemployed or downright concerned about their families furtute and the future of this country. The article I'm sharing below does have a political twist to it, but just read it and contact me if you want to know a simple solution to your current economic plite. I read his blog everyday and I just believe all my readers should read it. It's a nice break from the negativity that is so prevalent on TV and in the news. There is so much concern, negativity, worry amongst everyone I talk to everyday. Obama wants to control every facet of our lives. But I say screw him. There is a better life. I am delighted to share an article from a gentlemen that keeps me going every day, not only in my political life, but my personal life as well. I was also thrilled to be a part of his company invovling the sale of graded Gold and Silver Coins. Check it out: By Ray Higdon If you have ever considered a better lifestyle, one that has you spending more time with your family and less time at the office or with your boss, this post will help you see that work at home businesses are a great idea and exactly why the timing is perfect. Who Would Even Consider a Work From Home Business? I think there are several categories in todays world. Here are a few: 1. The person that has finally realized that the higher you go up the corporate ladder the more they will pay you but also the more they will demand of you. In most cases, it’s paid servitude. 2. The person that realizes that work at home businesses allow YOU to be in control AND with todays tools (social media, blogging, etc) they CAN be successful without being an amazing presenter or trainer. 3. The person that does not have time. This may sound weird as a lot of times that is the biggest objection people have about work at home businesses is they don’t have time, well, if you understand that good work at home businesses pay you RESIDUAL INCOME and your job doesn’t, the person with no time all of a sudden realizes that they will NEVER have time in their life UNLESS they create something that does pay them passive income. Any other categories of people that you think should be looking at a work at home business opportunity? Be sure to comment below. READ FURTHER:

What you will never hear from Obama or Romney, this will shock you!!

 Money supply explosion will lead to accelerating inflation!!!

This is the time of year when City pundits produce their forecasts for the forthcoming year. Historically there has been little point to this exercise. Instead, here is the one chart which defines the background to all events in the coming years. It is the Mises Institute's True Money Supply (TMS) for the US dollar. TMS consists of cash, checking accounts and no-notice deposit accounts, as well as a few other minor cash balances. It represents the actual cash and electronic cash in the system that is instantly available for purchases of goods and services, and the chart goes back to 1959.


The dotted line is the exponential growth trend, in other words the maximum rate of growth that can continue for ever. This trend was valid until mid-2002, since when TMS has accelerated at a faster rate, telling us that TMS growth entered a hyperbolic phase when the Fed eased rates in the wake of the dot-com collapse. Put another way TMS is already hyperinflationary.

Bear in mind that economists are now telling central banks to accelerate monetary growth even faster to offset the tendency for bank credit to contract. They see no other way to avoid a bank balance sheet implosion with all the deflationary consequences that implies. So the prospects for 2012 and thereafter are for TMS to continue its hyperbolic trend, and incidentally supply funds for a government deficit completely out of control. Also bear in mind that when such a trend becomes established it becomes almost impossible to stop, since the whole debt-based economy and the banking system would collapse.

The second chart shows gold’s established hyperbolic course. This chart was put together by Armand Koolen, a Dutch physicist, after reading James Turk’s and my writings on gold and economics. In Koolen’s words, the hyperbola fits in with the official gold price in the early 1900s, the revaluation to $35 in 1934, the onset of the secular bull market in 2001, the bottom in October 2008 and its approximate track since then.


His discovery is interesting. Singularity for this curve, or the point where the gold price goes to theoretical infinity, is in February 2014, only 26 months away. Unless this long-term trend is somehow broken, gold is also telling us the dollar is heading for hyperinflation.

It would be a mistake to vest magical powers in such an extraordinary discovery, but given TMS itself is showing signs of going hyperbolic we must sit up and take notice. And we know how difficult it is to stop printing money at an accelerating rate: after all, the ECB’s reluctance to do so is threatening to collapse the eurozone. Will the Fed pull the trigger on the US economy or chicken out? The answer is clear.

So in 2012 we can expect a further escalation of money-printing. This being so, it will be followed by unexpected and accelerating price inflation. Nominal interest rates will then rise at the market’s behest, bringing a sovereign debt crisis for the dollar with it as the cost of borrowing for the government escalates.
And the world is on a dollar standard, which is why the chart of TMS tells us all we need to know about 2012.

Cell Phone Corporations Help Government and Law Enforcement Spy On You

By Susanne Posel
theintelhub.com
July 12, 2012
Your wireless company is tracking you with GPS, recording your phone calls and text messages . . . and they are selling the information they collect to other corporations, nations, governments – anyone willing to pay for the data.
The US government is one of the wireless corporation’s biggest clients. They are collecting yotabytes of data from multiple sources on all American citizens.
Congressman Ed Markey complied a report wherein information from numerous cell phone corporations that showed just how much data law enforcement receives from prominent cell phone carriers.
AT&T, Sprint, Verizon and T-Mobile were requested to hand over personal client data to federal agencies and local law enforcement at an alarming rate.

• 1.3 million = total number of law enforcement requests for “text messages, caller locations and other information in the course of investigations.”
• 116 = average number of requests the tiny Cricket fields each day.
• 700 = average number of requests AT&T fields each day.
• 1,500 = average number of requests Sprint fields each day.
• $8.3 million = the total amount in bills that AT&T sent to law enforcement and government agencies to comply with their requests. (That was up from $2.8 million in 2007.)

READ MORE

From PJ Media: Is Obama a Socialist? An Answer to Milos Forman

Just when I thought I had made a convincing argument that Obama was a politician whose outlook is akin to that of Europe’s left-wing social democrats and that the modern Democratic Party is the equivalent of Europe’s social-democratic parties, along comes director Milos Forman to argue the opposite in the op-ed pages of the New York Times.

Forman, most well-known in this country as the director of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and Amadeus, is a Czech émigré who lived in Czechoslovakia from 1932 until 1968, thereby gaining first-hand experience of both Nazi and communist totalitarianism’s opposition to freedom. He presents vivid anecdotes of what it was like to experience the jackboot of the secret police in his native land. He knows first-hand its horrors. Even TV interviews, he learned, had to be scripted, when one was interviewing a leader of the Communist Party or the state.

Read More from PJ Media

Campaign roundup for Marion County Florida

Staff report

Published: Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 8:46 p.m.

Last Modified: Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 8:46 p.m.

Candidate forum set for sheriff, County Commission

Marion County Farm Bureau will host a candidate forum for all County Commission and sheriff candidates at 6:30 p.m. on July 26 at the Marion County Extension Auditorium, 2232 NE Jacksonville Road, Ocala.

All Marion County residents are invited. Questions will focus primarily on agricultural issues.

Firefighters union, FOP endorse Blair for sheriff

The Florida State Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police and the Florida Professional Firefighters have both endorsed Chris Blair for Marion County sheriff.

Citing Blair’s 35 years of law enforcement experience, the Fraternal Order of Police expressed confidence in a statement that Blair will lead the Marion County Sheriff’s Office “with confidence and integrity.

“He will bring focus and solid leadership for all the citizens of Marion County who demand quality law enforcement services,” said the statement, penned by James W. Preston, president of the FOP.

Blair also picked up the endorsement of the Florida Professional Firefighters union.

“We believe that you will honorably serve the citizens of Marion County and the interests of the men and women employed in the Fire and Emergency Medical Services, who have made the protection of life and property their life’s work,” wrote Gary Rainey, president and CEO of the organization.

Family group, Bachmann, Paul Ryan endorse Stearns

The Family Research Council Action PAC endorsed Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Ocala, for Florida’s 3rd Congressional District on July 3. 

Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council Action, issued the following statement about Stearns:

“Congressman Cliff Stearns is a leading advocate for the family and the unborn in Congress. We are particularly encouraged by Representative Stearns’ willingness to fight for the unborn by opening a congressional investigation into the illicit activities of Planned Parenthood. We will continue to work with Congressman Stearns as he exposes the truth about this organization.”

Stearns also picked up the endorsements of two high-profile members of Congress, Michelle Bachmann, R-Minnesota, and Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin.

“Cliff Stearns was one of the first members from Florida to embrace the tea party, speaking at our rallies in D.C. and in Florida,” Bachmann said in a statement. “He is steadfast in supporting the tea party agenda and I endorse his election in Congressional District 3.”

Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, was equally enthusiastic in his support of Stearns.

“Cliff Stearns supported my budget in every session of Congress and believes in balancing our budget and restoring fiscal responsibility in Washington. I’m proud to endorse Cliff Stearns for election in Congressional District 3.”

Sept. 11 support group comes out for Jett

Third Congressional District candidate James Jett recently received the endorsement of a foundation that supports police, firefighters and other first responders who were injured as a direct result of their rescue, recovery and cleanup efforts at the World Trade Center site following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

John Feal, who runs the Fealgood Foundation, made the endorsement in a YouTube video saying, “Jett is a far better choice than Rep. Cliff Stearns,” another candidate for the newly drawn, open seat. While throwing his support to Jett, Feal also delivered a strong rebuke to Stearns of Ocala, who crafted legislation that requires the names of police officers, construction workers, firefighters and other personnel who are eligible for the health benefits be run through a terrorism watch list.

The greatest Roller Coaster ride I ever saw: Casey Batchelor Zoo girl

Room for Debate: Fixing the U.S. Constitution

by Mike Rappaport

Over at the New York Times Room for Debate feature, the topic is: If the U.S. Constitution were being written today, what would you omit, add or clarify?  My own contribution is to end Congress's monopoly on proposing constitutional amendments by fixing the convention method of amending the Constitution.  It currently does not work, because state legislatures fear a runaway convention.  I wrote about this issue at the Liberty Law Forum, which also included a couple of responses.

The Room for Debate topic included a variety of interesting answers.  One was by Randy Barnett, who proposed to amend Congress's Commerce Clause authority so that it "shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state."  This is definitely a good start, but I would want to add some checks on Congress using other powers (such as the Taxing Power and the Power to Enforce the Law of Nations).

Jamal Greene also proposed 18 year term limits for Supreme Court Justices, which I also support.

David Cohen: State Restrictions on Non-Citizens' Gun Rights

by Michael Ramsey

David S. Cohen (Drexel University -- Earle Mack School of Law) has posted McDonald's Paradoxical Legacy: State Restrictions on Non-Citizens' Gun Rights (Maryland Law Review, vol. 71, p. 1219, 2012) on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

Relying on the Supreme Court's recent decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts recently ruled that the Second Amendment's individual right to possess a gun for self-defense, which the Supreme Court found in Heller and incorporated against the states in McDonald, protected a lawful permanent resident's right to bear arms and that the Massachusetts statutory scheme with respect to non-citizens violated that right. The district court found that the Second Amendment applies to non-citizens because the court read McDonald as incorporating the Second Amendment through the Due Process Clause, which protects against states infringing on the rights of "persons." However, the court erred when it ignored the voting paradox within the McDonald decision. This Essay attempts to resolve McDonald's paradox in the context of non-citizens by applying a modification of the familiar rule for dealing with fragmented Supreme Court opinions. Under that modified rule, there is no basis for finding that the Second Amendment, applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects non-citizens from gun restrictions. There may be other reasons to find that states cannot restrict non-citizens from owning or possessing firearms, but based on Supreme Court precedent, incorporation of a fundamental right is not one of them.

In case it isn't clear from the abstract, the problem is that only four Justices in McDonald thought the right to bear arms was incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause; four thought it was not incorporated at all, and Justice Thomas, on originalist grounds, thought it was incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment's privileges or immunities clause.  But the privileges or immunties clause, unlike the due process clause, applies only to "citizens of the United States" -- hence the difficulty identified in the article.
For originalists who agree with Justice Thomas that the privileges or immunities clause is the best source of incorporation this issue may be a broader problem than just the paradox of McDonald.  Does that position commit one to the proposition that non-citizens have very few rights against the states (e.g., no free speech rights, no right against cruel and unusual punishment)?  And is there Fourteenth-Amendment-era evidence that this is how the Amendment was understood?

Did you know Vice President Joe Biden sat in Rev. Wright church just like Obama? (Video)

Adler on Constitutional Avoidance, the Chief Justice, and Justice Ginsburg

Posted on July 12, 2012 7:25 pm by Rick Hasen

Jonathan Adler:

As I noted in this post, I think the pattern of the Chief Justice’s behavior is a product of multiple elements within his jurisprudence. First, I think he genuinely believes in constitutional avoidance as an important principle. He also believes that the Court should strive to bring clarity and concreteness. As a consequence he dislikes splintered holdings. Thus, in NAMUDNO he was willing to adopt a strained reading of the statute on avoidance grounds because other justices were willing to go along. Similarly in FIB, while other justices did not join the portion of his opinion on avoidance, a majority did embrace his conclusion that the mandate could be viewed as a valid exercise of the taxing power. In Citizens United, on the other hand, embracing constitutional avoidance would have required the Chief to adopt a statutory interpretation that was rejected by all eight other justices. Thus, he would have written a controlling opinion based on a premise that every other justice rejected. Yet, according to Jeffrey Toobin’s reporting, he was prepared to go the narrow, avoidance-based route when it appeared other justices would agree.
While Prof. Hasen puzzles over the behavior of the Chief, I think it is the approach to avoidance taken by other justices that is harder to explain. Chief Justice Roberts appears ready to rely on avoidance quite aggressively to avoid invalidating statutes, but not at the expense of fracturing the Court. But what about, say, Justice Ginsburg? She wouldn’t join the Chief to adopt a narrow holding in Citizens United that would have saved the statute, at the expense of a holding with which she would have disagreed, but was in NAMUDNO. Is there a theory to explain this?

I agree that if the Chief Justice offered to use the avoidance canon in Citizens United and the liberals refused to go along, that would indeed be puzzling.  But for this reason I am unconvinced that on this point Toobin’s description is accurate.

The Mosaic Theory of the Fourth Amendment

Orin S. Kerr

George Washington University - Law School

April 1, 2012

Michigan Law Review, Vol. 110, Forthcoming 2012
GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2012-47
GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-47

Abstract:     
In the Supreme Court’s recent decision on GPS surveillance, United States v. Jones (2012), five Justices authored or joined concurring opinions that applied a new approach to interpreting Fourth Amendment protection. Before Jones, Fourth Amendment decisions have always evaluated each step of an investigation individually. Jones introduced what we might call a “mosaic theory” of the Fourth Amendment, by which courts evaluate a collective sequence of government activity as an aggregated whole to consider whether the sequence amounts to a search.

This article considers the implications of a mosaic theory of the Fourth Amendment. It explores the choices and puzzles that a mosaic theory would raise, and it analyzes the merits of the proposed new method of Fourth Amendment analysis. The article makes three major points. First, the mosaic theory represents a dramatic departure from the basic building block of existing Fourth Amendment doctrine. Second, adopting the mosaic theory would require courts to answer a long list of novel and challenging questions. Third, courts should reject the theory and retain the traditional sequential approach to Fourth Amendment analysis. The mosaic approach reflects legitimate concerns, but implementing it would be exceedingly difficult in light of rapid technological change. Courts can better respond to the concerns animating the mosaic theory within the traditional parameters of the sequential approach to Fourth Amendment analysis.

Download Here:

60 Days In Prison And A $12,180 Fine For Hosting A Home Bible Study In Arizona

Michael Snyder
The American Dream
Monday, July 9, 2012
The war on home Bible studies and house churches is heating up again. Down in Phoenix, Arizona a man has been sentenced to 60 days in prison and has been fined $12,180 for hosting a Bible study in his home.

Since 2005, Michael Salman and his wife have been hosting gatherings of about 15 or 20 people where they share food, fellowship and discuss the Bible. Unfortunately, that kind of thing is against the law in Phoenix, Arizona apparently. At one point, nearly a dozen armed police officers raided their home and “evidence” of their “crimes” was gathered. Michael Salman was found guilty of 67 “code violations”, and now he is going to be ripped away from his family and put in prison for two months. In addition, the assistant city prosecutor is asking the court to “revoke his probation and convert it into a 2 1/2 year jail sentence since he continues to hold worship gatherings on his property despite court orders.” This kind of case has the potential to have a huge “chilling effect” on home gatherings of all kinds all over the United States.

Read More

Opposition Research News 7.12.12

Here are today's news events for opposition research:

On Citizens United's true impact in 2012
By Sam Wang
Each race could get $2 million to set up a mini-think tank, opposition
research, and a viral campaign. That would buy a lot of local messaging and
mudslinging. And a lot of robocalls. By modern standards, $25 million is
not a lot of money.
<http://election.princeton.edu/2012/07/11/on-citizens-uniteds-true-impact-in-2012/>

 COMPROMISED INTEL: Secret Democratic Political Research Files for ...
RedState
Media Trackers, a conservative investigative watchdog group, discovered
nearly three-dozen Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee opposition
research ...
<http://www.redstate.com/briansikma/2012/07/12/compromised-intel-secret-democratic-political-research-files-for-twelve-2012-match-ups-found-via-google/>

 Curmudgeon Central: Today's lesson at a public high school ...
By manjushri924
... criticizing specific liberals): the teacher in Virginia who enlisted
his 8th-grade class to do opposition research for Obama, the North Carolina
teacher who went ballistic in an incoherent pro-Obama rant, the Montana
principal who disinvited ...
<http://manjushri924.blogspot.com/2012/07/todays-lesson-at-public-high-school.html>

Florida Chamber of Commerce Unveils Legislative Endorsements

By: Kevin Derby | Posted: July 12, 2012 3:55 AM

Florida Chamber Executive VP David HartHide

The Florida Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday unveiled its endorsements in legislative races across the Sunshine State, backing candidates based on their positions on how to bring

jobs to the state and improve a continuing sluggish economy.

"To create a stable and predictable business climate that helps to create private-sector jobs and grow our state’s economy, we need a Legislature that focuses on free-enterprise principles and solutions,” said David Hart, the executive vice president of the Florida Chamber, on Wednesday. “We are pleased to support these pro-jobs, pro-business candidates and look forward to mobilizing our employer members and local Chamber of Commerce partners as well as their more than 3 million employees with far-reaching grassroots advocacy efforts.”

 

READ MORE

USDA Uses Spanish ‘Soaps’ To Push Food Stamps

From the Daily Caller:

USDA uses Spanish soap operas to push food stamps among non-citizens, citizens
By Caroline May | 07/12/2012
The government has been targeting Spanish speakers with radio “novelas” promoting food stamp usage as part of a stated mission to increase participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps.
Each novela, comprising a 10-part series called “PARQUE ALEGRIA,” or “HOPE PARK,” presents a semi-dramatic scenario involving characters convincing others to get on food stamps, or explaining how much healthier it is to be on food stamps.
The majority of the episodes end with the announcer encouraging the listener to tune in again to see if the skeptic applies for benefits or learns to understand the importance of food stamps to their health.
“Will Claudia convince Ramon to apply for SNAP?” the announcer exclaims at the end of a standard episode titled “The Poet,” “Don’t miss our next episode of ‘HOPE PARK.’”…
While the United States Department of Agriculture encourages its outreach partners not to stereotype SNAP applicants, the agency’s use of novelas is notable. The USDA is not promoting an equivalent English-language drama series and telenovelas are a popular form of entertainment in Latin American countries and a culturally relevant way to appeal to potential applicants.

For the record, Spanish soap operas are wildly popular. Far more so than ‘Anglo’ soaps ever were.

The radio novelas are available on USDA’s website for state and local outreach partners to use as public service announcements…
In addition to the Spanish-language outreach, the USDA is also pushing to get non-citizens enrolled in the program. The radio novelas overcome one of the hurdles the agency has identified as hampering participation: “lack of knowledge” about the program.
“Although many non-citizens are now eligible for SNAP, SNAP participation has been historically low among eligible non-citizen households,” reads a 2011 Guidance on Non-Citizen Eligibility. “In 2008, the participation rate for non-citizens was 51% and the rate for citizen children living with non-citizen adults was 55% as compared to the national participation rate of 67% among all eligible individuals.”
While USDA is targeting non-citizens for SNAP participation, the agency stresses that illegals are not eligible for benefits…

How would anyone know whether the applicants are legal or not. The USDA can’t ask for photo IDs. That would be racist.

Robert Rector, the Heritage Foundation’s senior research fellow on welfare and family issues, noted that while illegals are officially barred from participation, the legal children of illegals are eligible for benefits, creating mixed households with the potential to be intertwined with benefit programs.
Rector added that promotions such the radio novelas are part of the current process of assimilation into American culture. “The culture [non-citizens] are assimilating into is the culture of welfare dependence,” Rector explained to TheDC…

Which, of course, is the plan. The Democrats figure that once they get someone dependent on welfare, they are theirs for life.

In the 1970s, one in 50 Americans were on food stamps – today that figure is one in seven. SNAP spending has doubled since 2008 and quadrupled since 2001.

There is no denying that Democrats; plan is working. In a sane world, they would be universally castigated.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Shocking Video: What are we in Nazi Germany?? This government is out of Control!!!

Thanks to Drink Your Koolaid for the video


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
-The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

With local, state and DHS checkpoints randomly popping up all over America many of our citizens believe that we must comply with what more often than not amounts to unlawful requests and orders from law enforcement officials.

While driving through California, Steven Anderson came upon three such checkpoints and he chose not to play ball with officers who asked him, among other things, to prove his citizenship, prove his identity and pull over for further inspection and questioning.

Read the rest of the story

Great Article: Rick Hasen of The Election Law Blog discusses 3 major Scotus rulings

Professor Hasen asks: 

Was Chief Justice Roberts Most Unprincipled in Applying the Doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance in the Health Care Case, in NAMUDNO (the Voting Rights Act Case) or in Citizens United?

 

Posted on July 11, 2012 9:57 pm by Rick Hasen

In my initial post on the health care decision, I stated “Once again, the Chief has manipulated the doctrine of constitutional avoidance to do what he wanted to do in a high profile, important case.”
I hadn’t had a chance to go back and expand on this issue since I wrote that, but Nicholas Rosenkranz’s very smart post has prompted me to do so.  Rosenkranz persuasively argues that Roberts’ use of the avoidance canon in the health care case is not your typical application of the canon: rather than apply it, as is typically done, to a textual ambiguity (such as to the question whether a ban on “vehicles” in the park covers bicycles), the Chief applies to to alternative “constitutional characterizations” of an unambiguous law (the health care mandate is either an unconstitutional “penalty” or a constitutional “tax”).

As poor as this analysis is as an application of the avoidance canon, CJ Roberts engaged in two worse applications of the canon in recent years.  In the NAMUDNO case, considering the constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the Court read the Voting Rights Act to allow for a utility district to “bail out” from coverage under the  Act, an interpretation that the Chief Justice advanced to avoid the constitutional question whether section 5 was unconstitutional.  Unlike the health care case, in NAMUDNO the Court did confront a question about textual meaning (did the Voting Rights Act give the utility district a chance to “bail out” from coverage of the act?).  But the unprincipled part of the decision was that the textual meaning advanced by the Chief Justice was wholly unsupported by the text or the legislative history of the Act.  I devote about half of my article, Constitutional Avoidance and Anti-Avoidance by the Roberts Court, 2009 Supreme Court Review 181, to demonstrating the truth of this assertion. Below the fold, I’ve included an excerpt from my article explaining why the district court so thoroughly rejected the argument that it should avoid the constitutional question by interpreting the Act to allow the utility district to bail out.

 READ THE REST OF THE POST AT THE ELECTION BLOG

Obama Sinks to Historic Lows Among Blue-Collar Men

By Ronald Brownstein July 11, 2012 | 6:00 p.m. The new Quinnipiac University and ABC/Washington Post national surveys out this week converge on one key conclusion: as the election nears, President Obama is sinking to historic lows among the group most consistently hostile to him. Throughout his career on the national stage, Obama has struggled among white men without a college education. But in these latest surveys, he has fallen to a level of support among them lower than any Democratic nominee has attracted in any election since 1980, according to an upcoming National Journal analysis of exit polls from presidential elections. Though pollsters at each organization caution that the margins of error are substantial when looking at subgroups such as this, each poll shows erosion within that margin of error for Obama with these working-class white men. The new Quinnipiac poll shows Obama attracting just 29 percent of non-college white men, down from 32 percent in their most recent national survey in April, according to figures provided by Douglas Schwartz, April Radocchio and Ralph Hansen of Quinnipiac. The ABC/Washington Post survey found Obama drawing just 28 percent of non-college white men, down from 34 percent in their May survey, according to figures provided by ABC Pollster Gary Langer. Romney drew 56 percent of the non-college white men in Quinnipiac and 65 percent in the ABC/Washington Post survey. READ MORE

A Politician’s Guide to Social Media (VIDEO)

Video: The Supreme Court year in Review 2011-2012

 I watched this great video today on CSPAN reviewing the Supreme Courts' major rulings over the past year.  The panel gave an outstanding review on perhaps one of the most important SCOTUS terms in history.

Watch it below:

 http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Court2011

THE HERITAGE

FOUNDATION
Scholars & Scribes Review the Rulings: The Supreme Court's 2011-2012 Term

Panel I (10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.) Hon. Donald Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General of the United States Richard ..  Solicitor General of the United States Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University Law School Michael Carvin, Partner, Jones Day and Oral Advocate for NFIB in the ObamaCare Case Edwin Meese III, Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow, The Heritage Foundation (Moderator)

Florida v. Jardines: How is the Supreme Court going to clean up its drug sniffing dog mess?

posted by Erica Goldberg

Briefs and amicus briefs are being filed in a Supreme Court case that could have a major impact on Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in order to resolve a major mess. The question in Florida v. Jardines is whether a police officer can use a drug sniffing dog at someone’s door to determine if there is contraband inside the home. The mess is a result of the tension between the Supreme Court’s holdings, the reality of using drug sniffing dogs, and our intuitions about privacy.

First, the Supreme Court has held that, when performed in a minimally invasive way, like at an airport or outside one’s car, the use of a drug detection dog is not considered a “search” that implicates the Fourth Amendment or requires any suspicion. This is largely due to the fact that the use of drug sniffing dogs is considered a “binary search,” which either detects or fails to detect the presence of contraband. Because the Court has held in no uncertain terms that we have no legitimate expectation of privacy in contraband (I’m not as certain about this proposition when considering the history and purpose of the Fourth Amendment), a device or dog that detects only whether contraband is present or absent does not invade any expectations of privacy.

However, as Professor Leslie Shoebotham’s amici curiae brief (detailed on EvidenceProf blog) argues, drug sniffing dogs often detect the presence of  molecular compounds found in both contraband and innocent items, such as vinegar or soap.  Another way of framing this is that drug sniffing dogs are not binary because of their tendency to false positive. And there we have Mess Number 1: the Supreme Court’s drug sniffing dog jurisprudence is based on the false idea that the use of a drug sniffing dog is not a search because it detects only the presence or absence of contraband. It is unlikely that the Supreme Court in Jardines will reverse its firmly established position that the use of drug sniffing dogs is not a search. Instead, the Court will likely rely on the holding that a dog binarily alerts or does not alert to the presence of contraband, but will treat as a separate question whether a dog is accurate enough in its alert to give the police probable cause to obtain a warrant and conduct a full search of the home.

Thus, Mess Number 1 is more easily resolved than Mess Number 2, which concerns our intuition. It FEELS wrong for the police to march up to random homes and sniff doors with a drug detection dog. Yet, if the use of a drug detection dog does not actually infringe upon privacy rights or require any suspicion, that’s exactly what could happen. How is the Supreme Court going to distinguish a car or a suitcase from a house if the use of a dog is not a search at all?

Read the rest of this post »

PIC of the day: I love the 2nd Amendment

Great list: House ratings for all 435 seats are available here

If you aren't following Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball you are missing out on the foremost experts in Politics.  I actually read a lot of his books while I was studying Political Science at The University of Florida.  He has compiled a wonderful list of all 435 House seats and charts how each seat leans Deocratic or Republican.  This is a must have for Campaigns and political consultants:

CHECK OUT THE LIST HERE!!!

Marion County Florida Commission race: 4 of 5 candidates for District 5 would have to move if they won

By Bill Thompson
Staff writer

Published: Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 9:17 p.m.

Last Modified: Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 9:17 p.m.

Some local moving company might pick up a new customer in November.

Four of the five candidates for Marion County Commission District 5 do not live in the district at the moment.

That list includes Republicans Earl Arnett, Pat Gabriel, Francine Johannesen and Democrat Jessica Hadley.

Should one of them ultimately prevail, that person would have to move into District 5 to accommodate the legal requirements for residency.

On the other hand, the one candidate who already lives in the district, Republican Butch Verrando, believes his vantage point makes him better versed in the issues, and he hopes the voters will save all of them the relocation expense.

Marion County’s commissioners are elected at large by all the voters. Yet under state law they must live in the district they represent “upon election,” which is generally considered the day the votes are certified.

A few months ago, a citizen pressed the current board to at least ask the voters in a November referendum if they wanted to switch to a system of single-member districts, as used by Congress, the Legislature and many other communities.

The board answered with a resounding no.

Current commissioners said they had no interest in revising Marion County’s system because they believe they represent all citizens equally and are committed to avoiding parochial bickering over providing services.

The current crop of would-be successors to District 5 Commissioner Charlie Stone largely share that philosophy.

READ MORE

Cool Story: Baseball cards in Ohio attic might fetch millions

Karl Kissner poses for a photo in front of the door to an attic in his grandfather's old home on Tuesday, July 10, 2012, where he and a cousin found a collection of century-old baseball cards in Defiance, Ohio. The cards are from an extremely rare series issued around 1910 and the best of the bunch Ñ 37 cards Ñ are expected to bring a total of $500,000 when they are sold at auction in August during the National Sports Collectors Convention in Baltimore. There are about 700 cards in all that could be worth up to $3 million, experts say. (AP Photo/John Seewer)

 DEFIANCE, Ohio — Karl Kissner picked up a soot-covered cardboard box that had been under a wooden dollhouse in his grandfather's attic. Taking a look inside, he saw hundreds of baseball cards bundled with twine. They were smaller than the ones he was used to seeing.

But some of the names were familiar: Hall of Famers Ty Cobb, Cy Young and Honus Wagner.

Then he put the box on a dresser and went back to digging through the attic.

It wasn't until two weeks later that he learned that his family had come across what experts say is one of the biggest, most exciting finds in the history of sports card collecting, a discovery worth perhaps millions.

The cards are from an extremely rare series issued around 1910. Up to now, the few known to exist were in so-so condition at best, with faded images and worn edges. But the ones from the attic in the town of Defiance are nearly pristine, untouched for more than a century. The colors are vibrant, the borders crisp and white.

"It's like finding the Mona Lisa in the attic," Kissner said.

Sports card experts who authenticated the find say they may never again see something this impressive.

"Every future find will ultimately be compared to this," said Joe Orlando, president of Professional Sports Authenticator.

The best of the bunch — 37 cards — are expected to bring a total of $500,000 when they are sold at auction in August during the National Sports Collectors Convention in Baltimore. There are about 700 cards in all that could be worth up to $3 million, experts say. They include such legends as Christy Mathewson and Connie Mack.

READ MORE HERE

Excellent book on Legal Research for Opposition researchers

Being an opposition researcher is more than just surfing the internet to find the "juice" on your opponent or when performing background research on a witness for a law firm.  Knowing how to navigate through legal documents and Lexis/Westlaw on-line sources is vital for setting you apart from the average oppo.  Many vital "campaign finance violations" will be discovered if one has a basic knowledge of legal research.  Of course, an oppo can never assume a violation occurred without first consulting a good election lawyer.

The Book The Process of Legal Research, Seventh Edition is a great starting point:

 

Democrats Leak Opposition Research On Ribble, Duffy

By: Brian Sikma

In a move that defies traditional campaign tactics, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has released notebooks containing allegedly negative facts on two of Wisconsin’s targeted Republican members of Congress. The thick manuals are a treasure trove tipping readers off to nearly everything Democrats have to use against targeted Republican congressional candidates this cycle. In the middle of June a source informed Media Trackers that the manuals were likely available as direct downloads from DCCC web-servers if the right search terms were used on Google.

Read more via Media Trackers!


DCCC Oppo Books were found via Google and the back-end of the DCCC’s webserver for:
Jeff Denham, CA-10 DCCC2012-JeffDenhamCA-10ResearchBook
Abel Maldonado CA-24 DCCC2012AbelMaldonadoCA-ResearchBook
Allen West FL-22 DCCC2012AllenWestFLResearchBook
Ann Marie Buerkle NY-24 DCCC2012AnnMarieBuerkleNY24-ResearchBook
Bill Johnson OH-6 DCCC2012BillJohnsonOH06-ResearchBook
Bobby Schilling IL-17 DCCC2012BobbySchillingIL-17ResearchBook
Brian Bilbray CA-52 DCCC2012BrianBilbrayCA52-ResearchBook
Jesse Kelly AZ-8 DCCC2012JesseKellyAZ08-ResearchBook
Jim Renacci OH-16 DCCC2012JimRenacciOH16-ResearchBook
Joe Heck NV-3 DCCC2012JoeHeckNV03-ResearchBook
Joe Walsh IL-8 DCCC2012JoeWalshIL-08ResearchBook
Judy Biggert IL-11 DCCC2012JudyBiggertIL11-ResearchBook
Keith Rothfus PA-12 DCCC2012KeithRothfusPA-12Research
Mike Coffman CO-6 DCCC2012MikeCoffmanCO06-ResearchBook
Mike Fitzpatrick PA-8 DCCC2012MikeFitzpatrickPA08-ResearchBook
Bill Young FL-10 DCCC2012OppoBookBillYoung
Randy Altschuler NY-1 DCCC2012RandyAltschulerNY01ResearchBook
Reid Ribble WI-8 DCCC2012ReidRibbleWI-08ResearchBook
Sean Duffy WI-9 WI-07 Sean Duffy Book 2012 05.03 (DCCC) – FOR WEB
Dan Benishek MI-1 DCCC2012RepDanBenishekMI01-ResearchBook
Ricky Gill CA-9 DCCC2012RickyGillCA-09ResearchBook
Scott Tipton CO-3 DCCC2012ScottTiptonCO-03ResearchBook
Tom Latham IA-3 DCCC2012TomLathamIA03-ResearchBook
Brian Whelan CA-16 DCCC2012BrianWhelan-ResearchBook
Dan Lungren CA-7 DCCC2012DANLUNGRENCA-07-ResearchBook
Gary DeLong CA-47 DCCC2012GaryDeLongCA-ResearchBook
Janice Arnold-Jones NM-1 DCCC2012JaniceArnold-JonesNM-ResearchBook
John Tavaglione CA-41 DCCC2012JohnTavaglioneCA-41ResearchBook
Nan Hayworth NY-18 DCCC2012RepNanHayworthNY18-ResearchBook
Matt Doheny NY-21 DCCC2012MattDohenyNY-ResearchBook
Larry Buschon IN-8 DCCC2012OppoBookLarryBucshon
Andy Barr KY-6 DCCC2012AndyBarrKY06-ResearchBook
Tim Wilkes, David Rouzer, Illario Pantano NC-7 DCCC2012NC-07ResearchBook
NC-11 (All GOP candidates) DCCC2012-NC11-ResearchBook
NC-8 (All GOP candidates) DCCC2012OppoBookNC08

Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens

The CATO Institute has released a paper showing how guns thwart crimes and save lives.  This is a must read for any 2nd Amendment advocate.  The 2nd amendment of the constitution gives us the right to bear arms.

Download here it while it's hot!!

Clayton E. Cramer teaches history at the College of Western Idaho and is the author of Armed America: The Remarkable Story of How and Why Guns Became as American as Apple Pie (Nelson Current, 2007). David Burnett is the director of public relations for Students for Concealed Carry.

The ostensible purpose of gun control legislation is to reduce firearm deaths and injuries. The restriction of access to firearms will make criminals unable to use guns to shoot people. Gun control laws will also reduce the number of accidental shootings. Those are the desired effects, at least in theory. It is important, however, for conscientious policymakers to consider not only the stated goals of gun control regulations, but the actual results that they produce.

What would be the effect of depriving ordinary, law-abiding citizens from keeping arms for self-defense? One result seems certain: the law-abiding would be at a distinct disadvantage should criminals acquire guns from underground markets. After all, it is simply not possible for police officers to get to every scene where they are urgently needed.

Wow!! Rules for Radicals: A Practical Guide for Defeating Obama $2.99 in Kindle Version

New Ad Makes Obama’s War on Women Perfectly Clear

Thanks to Merry Poppet: Politicked Off! for the tip!

Breaking News: New Poll Shows Mack with Lead Over Nelson

Big news today in our fight to retire liberal Senator Bill Nelson: A new poll just released from Rasmussen Reports shows Connie beating Bill Nelson!

 

This poll continues to prove that the people of Florida are tired of the Lockstep Liberals -- Bill Nelson and Barack Obama -- and their failed left-wing agenda. And it continues to prove that when Connie wins, Mitt Romney wins, and when Mitt Romney wins, Connie wins. 

 

The momentum is on our side. Rasmussen now considers the Florida Senate race "Leans Republican" for the first time! This is a big moment for both our race, and for Mitt Romney's campaign too.

 

Can you help build on this growing momentum? Make a donation of $5, $10, or $25 today. Let's make sure we have the resources we need to defeat the Lockstep Liberals!

 

Sincerely,

 

Jeff Cohen

Campaign Manager

"Putting law over politics on Supreme Court"

Law professors Douglas W. Kmiec and Barry McDonald have this essay online at Politico.com.

Alicea on Justice Roberts & the Changing Conservative Movement

Check out Chief Justice Roberts and the Changing Conservative Legal Movement by Joel Alicea. Here is a taste:

Judicial restraint used to mean that a judge should bend over backwards to avoid striking down a law, and this view was once widely held within the conservative legal community. But this idea has long since faded from the scene, and judicial restraint is less likely to be thought of by today’s legal conservatives as coinciding with judicial nonintervention. How many statutes the Court strikes down is simply beside the point for today’s legal conservative; the question is why the Court struck down the statutes that it did.

And so we arrive at NFIB v. Sebelius. The chief justice’s opinion displays a clear embrace of the old judicial restraint. He announces that “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” Although the joint dissenters would likely agree with this principle, the key word is “reasonable.” The Justice Harlan conception of judicial restraint leads Roberts to stretch the language of the statute far beyond what the dissenters believe is reasonable—or indeed constitutional

Clinton-era Environmental Rules Increased Wildfire Risks in Colorado

Posted by Aaron Gardner (Diary)


Environmental regulations restricting the construction of forest access roads have limited the ability of the Forest Service to clear combustible brush and trees, adding dangerous fuel to the wildfires that have ravaged Colorado this summer. The so-called “roadless rule,” which was first implemented in 2001 by President Clinton shortly before he left office, restricts and in many cases prohibits local and federal officials from building and maintaining roads that allow firefighters to clear out growth that could instantly become tinder for a new fire.

The Roadless Area Conservation Rule, regularly referred to as the 2001 roadless rule, was adopted in January of 2001 and classified 31 percent of national forest lands in Colorado as Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA’s). Four of the national forests that fell under the IRA classification did so based on inventories from 1979, four more were classified as IRA’s based on inventories from 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2002.

Read More Via Red State

Top 10 most likely GOP Senate pick-ups

By: Human Events
7/7/2012 05:28 PM

Since the GOP is likely to lose Maine (Olympia Snowe’s seat) and have competitive races to defend seats in Massachusetts (Scott Brown) and Nevada (Dean Heller), they better hope to pickup five or six Democratic seats. Here are 10 seats currently held by the opposition that Republicans can win.

1. Nebraska (Open)
With the retirement of Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson in a solid red state, Nebraska is ripe for a Republican pick-up. The GOP nominated a relatively fresh face in Deb Fischer, a rancher and state senator since 2004, while Democrats reached back to the far past and are recycling former Nebraska governor and senator Bob Kerrey. A Rasmussen poll has Fischer up by 18 points over Kerrey, whose previous service to the state is mostly remembered for his romance with actress Debra Winger in the 1980s.

2. Wisconsin (Open)
Wisconsin broke hard for the Republicans in 2010, with the defeat of incumbent Sen. Russ Feingold by Ron Johnson and Scott Walker winning the governorship. Now with the drama of the Walker recall effort over, Republicans seemed poised to capitalize on a better political climate for conservatives in what was once a fairly reliable state for Democrats. Former Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson should have no trouble dispatching Democratic Rep. Tammy Baldwin in November.

3. Missouri (McCaskill)
Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill says she won’t be attending the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte—and with good cause, as she is in the fight of her political life. Republicans won’t pick her opponent until an August primary but currently three of the candidates running to take on McCaskill are leading her in the latest Rasmussen poll, by margins ranging from 8 to 12 percentage points. Look for State Treasurer Sarah Steelman to win the primary and defeat McCaskill in November.

4. Montana (Tester)
Since defeating incumbent Republican Sen. Conrad Burns in 2006, Rep. Jon Tester has consistently sided with President Obama. He voted for ObamaCare and the stimulus, is pro-choice, and favors global warming legislation—all in a state, which McCain won by 2.2 percentage points. Tester was never that popular in the first place with margin of victory over Burns only 3,562 votes, or 50.4 percent of the total, and now his opponent, Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg, has opened up a modest lead in early polling.

5. North Dakota (Open)
Early polls show a close race between Democrat Heidi Heitkamp, the former state attorney general, and Republican Rep. Rick Berg, to replace retiring five-term Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad. But the state is as red as any, giving John McCain a six-point victory in 2008 over Barack Obama and, in 2010, when North Dakota voted to replace a another long-time retiring Democrat (four-termer Sen. Byron Dorgan), Republican John Hoeven cruised to a 54-point blowout victory.

6. Virginia (Open)
With Democrat Jim Webb stepping down after one term, Republicans have high hopes to retake the Virginia seat and both sides chose political heavyweights to compete. Former governor and former senator Republican George Allen, whose loss to Webb in 2006 was largely due to the Washington Post making a mountain out of macaca, will be facing former governor and former chairman of the Democratic National Committee Tim Kaine.

7. Florida (Nelson)
Likely Republican nominee Rep. Connie Mack IV is taking on two-term Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson and has narrowed Nelson’s early polling lead to a virtual dead heat. Nelson’s support for ObamaCare was highly unpopular among the large senior population, with two-thirds of voters over 65 opposing the measure. It also won’t help Nelson’s support among Jewish voters that a Muslim Brotherhood activist hosted a fundraiser for the senator last year.

8. Connecticut (Open)
The race for the Connecticut Senate seat of retiring Joseph Lieberman will likely shape up to be between Republican Linda McMahon and Democratic Rep. Chris Murphy. McMahon, the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, has a fortune to help finance her campaign, spending over $50 million of her own money on a losing 2010 Senate bid. McMahon has momentum at the moment in the latest polling.

9. New Mexico (Open)
Competing for Sen. Jeff Bingaman’s seat will be former Republican Rep. Heather Wilson and Democratic Rep. Martin Heinrich. Heinrich has a modest lead at the moment but all bets are off following the Supreme Court’s decision on neighboring Arizona’s immigration law, making the issue front and center in this border state.

10. Michigan (Stabenow)
Normally Sen. Debbie Stabenow would be a hard incumbent to defeat, she is up by some 12 points in various poll currently. But these are unusual times as Michigan is suddenly a battleground state in the presidential race. After trailing by double-digits earlier in the campaign, Mitt Romney has essentially pulled even with Obama. It will be an uphill a battle, but Romney coattails could bring former Rep. Peter Hoekstra into the Senate.

UN arms treaty could put U.S. gun owners in foreign sights, say critics

UNITED NATIONS –  A treaty being hammered out this month at the United Nations -- with Iran playing a key role -- could expose the records of America's gun owners to foreign governments -- and, critics warn, eventually put the Second Amendment on global trial.

International talks in New York are going on throughout July on the final wording of the so-called Arms Trade Treaty, which supporters such as Amnesty International USA say would rein in unregulated weapons that kill an estimated 1,500 people daily around the world. But critics, including the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre, warn the treaty would mark a major step toward the eventual erosion of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment gun-ownership rights.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/11/un-arms-treaty-could-put-us-gun-owners-in-foreign-sights-say-critics/#ixzz20KgBMXs2

Updated Book Tour Information for The Voting Wars by Rick Hasen

Here’s the latest version of the schedule (more about the imminent release of the book at thevotingwars.com):

The Voting Wars

• front page
• About the Author
• About the Book
• Book Tour
• Endorsements
• Media Coverage
• Pre-Order the Book
• Reviews

 Book Tour

Times/dates are subject to change
July 2, 630 PM London (H.S. Chapman Society) (details)
September 10, 12 PM New York City (Brennan Center for Justice) (details to come)
September 10, 7 PM Washington D.C. (University of California D.C. Center) (details to come)
September 11, 12 pm Boston (Harvard Law School – American Constitution Society) (details to come)
September 12, 12 pm Chicago (Northwestern University Law School – American Constitution Society) (details to come)
September 20, 7 pm Los Angeles (details to come–part of panel program for LA ALOUD)
October 1, 12 pm, Stanford (Stanford Law School – American Constitution Society) (details to come)
October 1, 5 pm, UC Berkeley (UC Berekely Law School – American Constitution Society) (details to come)
October 2, 12 pm, Sacramento (American Constitution Society (details to come)
October 8, 12 pm, Williamsburg, VA (William & Mary Law School) (details to come)
October 10, 12 pm, Lexington, KY (University of Kentucky Law School) (details to come)
October 18, time TBA, Bakersfield, CA (part of Zocalo panel program) (details to come)

How Romney Can Win

The GOP candidate should stand for free markets—and align himself with the vast majority of Americans.

 

8 July 2012

 

A recent New York Times op-ed by Bill Scher, “How Liberals Win,” must be commended for its honesty. Scher presents a compelling historical narrative of how Democrats are happy to ally themselves with big business in a Faustian pact to foster anti-market policies. From Franklin Roosevelt’s National Recovery Act, which promoted the cartelization of industry, to President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, which bought off big pharmaceutical companies by suppressing free trade in the drug market, Scher describes how Democrats have promoted crony capitalism to foster their liberal agenda. They are pro-business—at least certain businesses—but fundamentally anti-market.

Read More via City Journal

Barack Obama Keeps Campaign Promise – Patriot Coal Corp Files For Bankruptcy

H/T via

Merry Poppet: Politicked Off!

“So if someone wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them.”

On Monday Patriot Coal Corp filed for bankruptcy.
Barack Obama kept this promise.
Reuters reported:

Patriot Coal Corp filed for bankruptcy on Monday, the first U.S. coal producer to seek court protection since prices began to plummet as electricity producers turned to cheaper natural gas.

The company and nearly 100 affiliates were part of the Chapter 11 filing in the U.S. bankruptcy court in Manhattan. Patriot said it had $3.57 billion of assets and $3.07 billion of debts, and has arranged for $802 million of financing to help it continue mining and shipments during the reorganization.

Coal producers’ shares have plummeted as natural gas prices tumbled to the lowest in a decade this year, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed new rules that would make it nearly impossible to build coal-fired power plants.

Patriot said these factors, weaker economies worldwide and the cancellation of customer contracts led to reduced liquidity and financial flexibility.

While still the largest single fuel for electricity, coal’s share fell to 36 percent in this year’s first quarter from 45 percent a year earlier, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Obama warned us this would happen.

More here.

The Bar Review version of NFIB v. Sebelius

Over at Scotusblog, David Kopel presents the legal rules of NFIB v. Sebelius, as they might appear in a bar review outline, or in a student study aid for a Constitutional Law I class.

BREAKING: Smear Merchant and Top Obama Surrogate Debbie Wasserman Schultz discovered to have her own Swiss bank accounts

Democrats never let a good hypocrisy keep them from casting stones.    

The Weekly Standard reports disclosure forms reveal that Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a member of Congress from Florida, previously held funds with investments in Swiss banks, foreign drug companies, and the state bank of India. This revelation comes mere days after the Democratic chair attacked presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney for holding money in Swiss bank accounts in the past.

"Americans need to ask themselves, why does an American businessman need a Swiss bank account and secretive investments like that?" the DNC chair, a chief surrogate for President Obama's reelection team, said on Fox News Sunday two days ago. "Just something, a thought, that I'd like to leave folks with."

H/T from Randy's Roundtable

 

The Truth about How Obama Shipped the Recovery Overseas

Over his four years in office, Obama promised that he would focus on creating "jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced." However, as he racked up trillions in new debt, billions of dollars did go to create jobs that were outsourced or spent overseas. Whether it is electric cars made in Finland or solar panels in Mexico,

taxpayers would be astonished to learn that their hard earned money went abroad for jobs that weren't created in the United States.

Check Out this website detailing Obama's Outscourcing Track Record

“Has SCOTUS OK’d campaign dirty tricks?”

Rick Hasen has just written this oped for Politico.  It begins:

An obscure procedural order issued the day after the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold President Barack Obama’s health care law got lost in the saturated media coverage of the health ruling and the palace intrigue over whether Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote and alienated his conservative colleagues. Without comment or dissent, the justices declined to hear Minnesota’s appeal of a federal appeals court ruling in 281 Care Committee v. Arneson — holding that Minnesota’s law banning false campaign speech about ballot measures is likely unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The result could be even nastier campaigns and more political dirty tricks.

Minnesota had asked the Supreme Court to hold its petition until the court decided United States v. Alvarez, the so-called “Stolen Valor” case. The court decided Alvarez the same day as health care, striking down as a free speech violation a federal law making it a crime to falsely claim to be a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Alvarez casts considerable doubt over when, if ever, states can take actions to combat false campaign statements and campaign dirty tricks — including lying about the location of a polling place or the voting date. The court could have used the 281 Care Committee case to clear up the muddle next term. But it just denied the petition.

“List of 180,000 suspect Florida voters to be made public”

The Miami Herald reports.

What’s the over/under on the number of false positives being extremely high?

Further Those Signs of Hope Among America’s Political Class

By Roger Kimball Via PJ Media

A week or two ago, I wrote a brief column about some signs of hope among America’s political class — a perverse undertaking, you might think, given the tawdry, preening, grasping character of most American politicians of both parties today. But there are, thank God, some exceptions.
In that earlier column I mentioned in particular Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey and the Indiana senatorial candidate Richard Mourdock. Today I’d like to mention one other: Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.
Thanks to his spectacular victory in Wisconsin’s preposterous recall election, Walker is riding a wave of adulation among the politically mature. He is close to being a household name, at least in households that can spell “socialist depredation.”


Read the rest of the Story

Breyer, Kagan, and the Medicaid Expansion

Scott Lemieux has a good explanation of strategic reasons for Justices Breyer's and Kagan's decision to join the Chief Justice's discussion of the Medicaid expansion. I'd add that during oral argument it was clear that Justice Breyer was interested in exploring the possibility of some sort of limit on the cut-off of pre-existing Medicaid funds. The theory he was toying with, I think, was that as a matter of administrative law the Secretary of HHS's decision to cut off funds would be subject to "arbitrary and capricious" review, with the implication that at least sometimes a total cut-off for failure to expand Medicaid would be arbitrary and capricious. I'm not sure that that theory would have worked, but in any event the Chief Justice's alternative approach wasn't wildly inconsistent with the impulses that lay behind Justice Breyer's questions.

It's worth noting as well that, as a post on Daily Kos pointed out, the Affordable Care Act has a large number of provisions altering Medicaid, other than the expansion of

coverage to those up to 133% of the poverty line. Under the Chief Justice's analysis, it remain open to the Secretary of HHS to take the position that some (many, all?) of those provisions are simply modifications within the existing Medicaid framework, not the substitution of a new program for the older one, and that states therefore must comply with them or risk a cutoff of existing Medicaid funds.

Posted 10:31 PM by Mark Tushnet [link]

Interesting Law Article: The Nature and Purpose of Evidence Theory

Abstract:     
The past few decades have seen an explosion in theoretical and empirical scholarship exploring the law of evidence. From a variety of disciplines and distinct methodological perspectives, this work has illuminated important issues regarding types of evidence, legal rules and doctrine, the reasoning processes of judges and juries, the structure of proof, and the normative considerations underlying these various issues. This Article takes up the theoretical project writ large. Exploring the landscape of evidence scholarship, the Article examines a number of methodological and meta-theoretical questions: What would a successful evidentiary theory look like? By what criteria should assess such a theory? What is the purpose of such theorizing? What is the relationship between the theoretical and empirical projects? In exploring these questions, the Article identifies criteria by which to evaluate theorizing in this area.

To that end, the Article first identifies two considerations that underlie any theoretical account of the evidentiary proof process and its components: factual accuracy and allocating the risk of erroneous decisions. Next, it articulates and defends general criteria by which to evaluate theoretical accounts in evidence scholarship in light of these considerations. Finally, it applies the general criteria to evaluate two theoretical accounts — a probabilistic conception and an explanatory conception — and concludes that the probabilistic conception fails and the explanatory conception succeeds in light of the theoretical criteria. Along with clarifying evidence theory, the Article also clarifies the relationship between theoretical and empirical scholarship in this area.



 Number of Pages in PDF File: 52