How to Read a Legal Opinion

I frequently discuss legal opinions on this blog. I assume that most of my readers are non-lawyers.

Believe it or not there is an art, of sorts, to reading and understanding legal opinions. It is not difficult, really. Most modern court decisions lack the stilted jargon of days gone by. Still, there are some things that are important that may not be obvious at first blush.

I am pleased to link you to "How to Read a Legal Opinion," which is intended for first year law students (they are not lawyers, either). This readable paper can help anyone understand better what is important in a court opinion and I commend it to your attention.

Democrats Reject Balanced Budget

The Congressional Democrats are going home on recess after having refused to consider a balanced budget offered by the Republicans. Who is the party of "No," now?

Here is the situation explained by Jim Jordan R-OH:



Who would ever believe that all the Democrats want to do is spend, spend, spend? [Heavy sarcasm.]

SEC Helps Investors by Hurting Their Investment

The Wall Street Journal headline reads "Citi Pays for Subprime Feint." So what happened?

The SEC accused Citi Bank of failing to disclose to investors and potential investors that Citi how Citi had risky mortgage assets. The SEC makes civil fraud charges and extracts a settlement of $75 million.

Wait a minute.

Investors got bad deals because Citi failed to disclose its risky investments. So investors bought presumably overpriced-stock, because Citi's assets were worth less than disclosed.

What happens to the investors now? The SEC burns the investors by taking $75 million of assets from Citi's bottom line, hurting the value of investors' stock even more.

Is this a great government, or what?!

Michigan v. Dupree: Self Defense and Felony Gun Possession

Normally, a convicted felon may not possess a gun. To do so is a felony. That is because under Federal and many state laws, the felon is said to be under a firearms disability. On July 23, 2010, the Michigan Supreme Court in Michigan v. Dupree, Case No. 139396, found that a felon is permitted to possess a gun temporarily while the gun is used in self defense.

Here are the facts as presented to and apparently believed by the jury who acquitted Mr. Dupree of assault, but convicted him of the felony of possession of a firearm while under a disability:

By contrast, defendant and two other bystanders testified that the altercation began when Reeves shoved Adrian Dupree off the porch. Defendant told Reeves not to disrespect his sister-in-law and asked him to leave. Reeves then pushed defendant. The two men fell off the porch and began wrestling. Reeves’s shirt was pulled up, exposing a gun in the waistband of his pants. Defendant testified that he feared for his life because Reeves was larger than defendant, inebriated, and armed. Defendant stated that Reeves went for his gun and that defendant grabbed it to protect himself. As the two men struggled over the gun, defendant shot Reeves three times. Defendant kept the gun until he left with his female companion in her vehicle, throwing the gun out the window after he was some distance from the house.

Under Michigan law, if the defendant assert the affirmative defense of self defense, the prosecution must prove a lack of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Some states put the burden of proving self defense on the defendant.

As to how long after using the gun the felon may continue in possession, the court recited the following as to the facts in this case:

Additionally, defendant testified that he retained possession of the gun after he and Reeves separated and that he threw the gun from the window of his female companion’s vehicle once they had driven some distance from the house. However, the testimony is unclear whether Reeves remained in the vicinity of the house before defendant left the scene with his female companion. The record is similarly unclear concerning at what point Reeves no longer posed a threat to defendant, particularly because the testimony suggests that Reeves continued to challenge defendant for possession of the gun even after he had been shot three times.

As I interpret the decision, the case was sent back to the trial court for a new trial that would allow a jury to decide if Mr. Dupree retained the gun too long after its necessity for self defense. Also, the court made the decision under the Michigan weapons disability law. I have not researched whether any such defense has been or would be recognized under the Federal firearms disability law.

I want to make two points here. First, the Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago cases affirming the Second amendment rights could both be read to support a future finding of constitutional right to self defense under the Ninth Amendment (which says that the rights enumerated in the bill of right are not all the rights that citizens possess).

Second, the blanket disability for felons possessing firearms is wrong. Not all felonies are violent crimes. If a bookkeeper embezzles $501 to pay a medical bill, should that bookkeeper be forever barred from being able to possess a firearm for defense of home and family? Legislatures, such as Ohio, have ratcheted nonsupport of children to the ranks of felonies. but nothing about that crime suggests that the offender who is merely a deadbeat is any sort of risk with a firearm. As the nanny-statists turn more and more minor wrongs into serious crimes. the unfair affect of firearms disability laws only get worse.

Obama's consistent Economics Failure

From an op-ed in the Forbes written by Warren Meyer:

My training is not in economics, but in business and management. Perhaps I am biased by my background, which includes 15 years of strategy and planning at large corporations and 10 years running my own business. But my framework for economic growth is a simple one: For growth to occur, someone has to make an investment.

When I use the term “investment,” I am using it rather broadly. Clearly building a new steel mill is an investment. But hiring an additional employee and paying his or her salary ahead of any new revenues is an investment too. Quitting one's job and giving up a regular salary with a large company to start a new business represents an investment as well.

Here is my first law of economic growth: When we encourage more investment, and ensure this investment is being channeled to the most productive uses, growth will follow.

For all the talk about fiscal stimulus and jobs creation at the federal and state level, almost no one in government is doing anything about reducing the roadblocks to investment. For example, millions of people are newly unemployed, and in past recessions a large number of these folks have eschewed looking for a new corporate job and have started businesses of their own. Unfortunately, such prospective entrepreneurs will face a tangle of registration, regulatory and licensing hurdles, many of which have been backed by established businesses that want to avoid just this kind of new competition. Even steps like the extension of unemployment benefits tend to discourage such entrepreneurship by increasing the opportunity cost of working for oneself.

No one in government, that I have heard, has even suggested any sort of regulation holiday as a potential economic stimulus program. In fact, most of the legislative moves at the national level have made private investment less attractive. Business people making investments today have to plan for higher labor, energy and borrowing costs due to a series of 2,000-page pieces of legislation that few if anyone fully understand (or have even read). Capital gains tax reductions will almost certainly expire next year, and most business people who look at looming government deficits have to assume these shortfalls will be closed the same way they always have been closed: With new taxes on the backs of the most productive.

Rather than attempting to make investment easier, almost all government stimulus efforts to date have focused on trying to better optimize how and where investment capital is deployed. The core assumption behind all of these programs is that a few people in government can invest money more productively than the private entities from whom the government took the money.

This is frankly an absurd assumption, something I know from my own experience of trying to make just these sorts of capital allocation decisions, though on a much smaller scale. In various corporate strategic planning and marketing roles, I was in the position for years of helping to make investment decisions in some of America's largest and best-managed corporations.

Read it all.

I think Mr. Meyer is exactly right. The elites in government think they are smarter than a free market, even if they have never actually run a business.

Government needs to get out of the way of business. Regulation is best at stifling innovation, but it is also pretty efficient at stifling the entrepreneurial spirit we need to new business start ups.

Basil Marceaux: The New Political Activism

Isn't America great? We tell our children that when they grow up, they too can run for president or any public office. This candidate for the governorship of Tenessee shows us all that in this digital age, anyone really can run a home grown campaign:



Be sure to check out his he-did-it-himself website Basilmarceaux.com that bares everything for the world to see. He begins his website presentation with the following:

WHAT IS A GOOD SENATOR or GOVERNOR
1. FOLLOWS THE OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION
2. HAS WELL-BEING FOR THE CITIZENS RIGHTS AND SAFETY
3. PEOPLE PERSON
4. HONEST AND SMART
5. A GOOD LISTENER

Clearly, his heart is in the right place.

I do not criticize the sincerity of Mr. Marceaux and wish him Godspeed in his campaign and it is not my intent to make fun at his expense. Whatever happens in the actual vote, he will learn a great deal from the experience. We need more people like him to get out and do something positive to change whatever is wrong in the system.

I am not predicting a win, though. Nor should you take this post as an endorsement of the candidate. We all have something to learn from his enthusiasm.

Rush to Judgment On BP's Oil Spill Fault?

Here is an important story from the Center for Public Integrity raising questions about the government's role in contributing to the oil spill disaster earlier this year.

Coast Guard officials told the Center for Public Integrity that the service does not have the expertise to fight an oil rig fire and that its response to the April 20 explosion may have broken the service’s own rules by failing to ensure a firefighting expert supervised the half-dozen private boats that answered the Deepwater Horizon’s distress call to fight the blaze.

An official maritime investigation led by Coast Guard Capt. Hung M. Nguyen in New Orleans is examining whether the salt water that was sprayed across the burning platform overran the ballast system that kept the rig upright, changing its weight distribution, and causing it to list.

“The joint investigation is absolutely looking into that, and whether it contributed to the sinking,” Capt. Ronald A. LaBrec, the Coast Guard’s chief spokesman, told the Center.

Read it all here.

As a society, we want instant answers. We have instant access to information via the Internet and (slower usually) television and radio. The lessons we should learn from the Shirley Sherrod incident and the beer summit incident and others is that all the facts are usually not instantly available.

Butt-Ugly Style Updated

Here is may favorite commentary on the saggy pants style:

Butt Ugly Style No Police Matter

From The New York Post:

You have the right to look ridiculous.

A Bronx judge has thrown out a summons issued against a Bronx man for wearing saggy pants, finding that "the Constitution still leaves some opportunity for people to be foolish if they so desire."

Judge Ruben Franco said that although Julio Martinez may have offended the fashion police with his low-hanging and underwear-exposing pants, his manner of dress didn't deserve a ticket from a cop.

"While most of us may consider it distasteful, and indeed foolish, to wear one's pants so low as to expose the underwear . . . people can dress as they please, wear anything, so long as they do not offend public order and decency," the judge wrote.

Read it all.

I am told by a reliable source that shi particular style originated in prison. It is this style by which receptive males advertised their availability, so to speak.

Butt-ugly, without doubt.

Erik Scott, Las Vegas Costco Shooting. Updated

What is the truth behind the shooting of Erik Scott at a Costco in Las Vegas on July 10, 2010?. So far, the best that can be said is that witness accounts differ wildly.

Reportedly, Erik Scott was in Costco looking at water bottles. He apparently was sitting on the floor of an aisle opening water bottle cartons or shrink wraps and trying the water bottles in his back pack. When confronted by a Costco employee, the employee noticed Erik's gun, for which he had a concealed carry permit. The Costco employee called the police saying that a customer with a gun was behaving erratically. All customers were ordered out of the store. Erik was part of the crowd leaving the store. Fast forward: the police shot and killed Erik.

As to what happened the moments before the shooting, the stories diverge.

First, let's look at Erik's background. The following is from the obituary of Erik Scott:

ERIK SCOTT Erik B. Scott was born at Mather Air Force Base, Sacramento, Calif., April 23, 1972. He was killed in Las Vegas, July 10, 2010. Erik attended the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, graduated in the top 10 percent of his class, and was commissioned a U.S. Army officer in May 1994. He subsequently served as an M1A1 tank platoon leader with the 1st Cavalry. He left active duty, during the post-Cold War military drawdown, and embarked on a successful career in medical and real estate sales. He was transferred to Las Vegas in 1999, working in cardio-vascular sales for Boston Scientific. While working full-time, he obtained a masters in business administration from Duke University's Fuqua School of Business, then branched into real estate sales. Erik was the sales director for One Queensridge Place in Summerlin; and, with partners, was involved in a number of major projects in Las Vegas. He returned to Boston Scientific in recent years, serving as a sales representative in the company's Cardio Response Management unit until his untimely death. Erik is survived by his parents, William and Linda Scott of Colorado Springs, Colo.; brother, Kevin Scott; sister-in-law, Allison; and nephew, Charles, of Huntington Beach, Calif. A myriad of aunts, uncles and other relatives grieve his loss. There will be a memorial service for Erik at 3 p.m. Saturday, July 17, at the Las Vegas Country Club, 3000 Joe W. Brown Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89109.

This seems like a pretty solid guy.

Now back to the story. Here is the police version of events according to the Metro police news release: An officer approached the man, 39-year-old West Point graduate Erik Scott, observed a weapon in his waistband and ordered him to raise his hands and lie on the ground. With two other officers joining in, police said, Scott “drew his pistol and pointed it” at the officer who had commanded Scott to lie down. The three officers then shot at Scott, striking him numerous times at close range without hitting anyone else, and he died a short time later.

Some news reports have suggested that the officers were waiting for Scott with their guns drawn.

According to one 72 year old male witness who heard police say:

"Get on the ground. Get on the ground."

He saw Scott facing the officers. The officers were between Scott and the store entrance.

The man said he saw Scott's right hand pull out "what appeared to be a gun in a zippered holster" like a holster owned by the witness. The officers fired. The witness saw the gun fall from Scott's hand. He did not see Scott point the gun at officers. Here is my question: The witness saw Scott pull out a zippered holster? Not the gun itself? Hmm. Yet, he saw the gun fall from Scott's hand?

Another witness was standing near the entrance when he heard the officers yell, "Get down on the ground. Get down now." He turned to see why police were yelling and saw Scott reaching for what appeared to be a pistol in his waistband. "He was definitely reaching for the gun." The witness immediately turned toward his wife and covered her as they dropped to the ground.

This witness did not see whether Scott fully removed a gun from his waistband and did not see the actual shooting. He denied that Scott was trying to "quick-draw" the weapon on the officers. This witness's account differs from the previous one. A pistol in the waistband? No zippered holster?

The newspaper also reports:

Several witnesses interviewed by the Review-Journal have said they did not see a gun and did not see Scott reach for a gun when police confronted him outside the store.

Not seeing a gun, of course is different from seeing that there was no gun. What do these inconsistent accounts say about the reliability of eyewitness testimony?

It is probably that the official version is wrong, at least to some extent. There is so much public pressure for immediate statements, that the officials yield and make statements before all the facts are gathered.

There may be a security tape that will show what really happened. As matters stand, it is too early to make a judgment. If Erik pulled a gun on officer, the shooting was probably justified. The tape will tell the true tale, we hope. It is nineteen days later. So why no word?

Sources: Las Vegas Review Journal
Las Vegas Sun
8 News Now

Update. A new witness has come forward, still no word in the security tape:

Until now, Robert Garcia has remained silent. He says he can’t erase the incident from his mind.

“But I was close enough to see this guy’s face… and to see his hands and to see his body go down…”

Police told News 3 that Erik Scott drew a gun on officers and that’s when the officers opened fire. Garcia says he remembers exiting the Costco about 10 feet in front of Scott and immediately noticing an officer with a gun drawn. He says that officer yelled “Put it down! Get down!” He recalls four shots then being fired and that he immediately turned toward the victim.

“After hearing the shots, I see the guy going down. I saw his hands… his hands had no gun in it. I looked on the ground. I just did that… looked down. I didn’t see a gun. I saw what I thought were sunglasses and a pen.”

Police, meantime, have been reluctant to release any information about the investigation until the coroner’s inquest. It’s an inquest which currently has no date.

Further update: Here.

For more updates on this blog, search "Erik Scott" in the search box, upper left on the page.
9/24/2010: For inquest coverage and comment, see the enries on September 23 and 24, 2010.

2012 Update:  Follow up posts may be found:

8/4/2010
8/10/2010
8/19/2010
9/8/2010
9/16/2010
9/17/2010
9/21/2010
9/23/2010
9/24/2010
9/27/2010
9/28/2010
9/29/2010
7/11/2012

The Laws of Economics Simplified, Explaining the Stimulus

And it is a campaign ad. I wish there were all this informative.

Law of Economics Trump Government Schools

The laws of economics always win. That is why politicians should be required to understand economics.

Too Many Bureaucrats

Economics of the Deficit and Unfunded Liabilities

Once again here is a Center for Freedom and Prosperity discussing a topic particularly relevant in light of the White House economic report released on Friday.

Report Card: Obamanomics = F

It has been pointed out that the White House released its most recent report on the economy on Friday, apparenlty in an attempt to let it be drowned out by other news. The Wall Street Journal, however, notes that the report is clear: lower tax revenues and higher spending leading to bigger deficits.

Democrats have been running Congress for nearly four years, and President Obama has been at the White House for 18 months, so it's not too soon to ask: How's that working out? One devastating scorecard came out Friday from the White House, in the form of its own semi-annual budget review.

The message: Tax revenues are smaller, spending is greater, and the deficits are thus larger than the White House has been saying. No wonder it dumped the news on the eve of a sweltering mid-July weekend.

Mr. Obama inherited a recession, so let's give him a pass on the budget numbers for 2009. Clearly the deficit would have been large no matter who was President, even if the David Obey-Nancy Pelosi $862 billion stimulus made it larger than it otherwise would have been. What's striking about the latest budget estimates, however, is that the White House is predicting the numbers won't improve much through 2011, the third year of the President's term.

As a share of the economy, the White House now says the deficit in fiscal 2010, which ends on September 30, will be even larger than in 2009: 10%. That's after a full year of economic growth, given that the recovery began last summer. More remarkable still, the deficit will barely fall in fiscal 2011, declining only to 9.2% of GDP in the second year of a recovery that ought to be gaining steam.

Read all about the Obama administration's dismal economic performance.

Impeach Obama? Updated

Jeffery Kuhner's opinion in the Washington Times only scratches the surface:

President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.

He is slowly - piece by painful piece - erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there - yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism. Like Venezuela's leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above - one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are Balkanizing the country. It's time for him to go.

Read it all.

If the Republicans win a majority in November,, let the investigations begin. I don't think there is enough time to investigate and impeach, even if an impeachment resolution could get through the House.

Update:

Speaks for itself.



Investigations that couldn't happen to a nicer group of ... socialists.

Comic Obama Commentary

Why we need real leadership in America:



Gotta love it!

Journolist: Vast Left Wing Conspiracy Revealed

I don't generally believe in vast conspiracies. They are too fragile. Some member seems bound to squeal if the conspiracy membership gets large enough.

On the Daily Caller, a conspiracy has been cracked. Journolist: a listerv list on which so-called mainstream left wing "journalists" conspired (uh, discussed) how to rip Sarah Palin, Obama opponents, Fox News, and conservatives in general.

With the light of day revealed, the journolist has been discontinued. And the members have migrated to cabalist. Nice name.

A consiracy by any other name....

Apologies

From Legal Insurrection:

Still Waiting For Apologies

Now that the left-wing blogosphere and Democratic media operatives Media Matters and Think Progress have found the Religion of Context when it comes to Shirley Sherrod ...

how about finally apologizing for the months long smear in 2009 that Census worker Bill Sparkman was killed by anti-government, Tea Party-affiliated, right-wing talk show inspired extremists. Think Progress, which is leading the charge on Sherrod, linked the Sparkman killing to Michele Bachmann's concerns that the Census was too intrusive, and numerous left-wing bloggers did the same.

There never was a shred of evidence to support the allegations, and it turned out that Sparkman committed suicide.

And while we're at it, how about some apologies for all the false allegations by Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Charles Blow and numerous left-wing bloggers claiming that health care protesters were violent, and falsely linking the Tea Parties to the Amy Bishop shooting, the IRS Plane Crasher, the Fort Hood attack, and the Pentagon shooter.

And while we're at it, all the left-wing bloggers who called health care protesters thugs and a mob and astroturf and terrorists and Birthers and harassers and manufactured and frightening and vicious and "Karl Rove's wet dream."

And while we're at it, the Democratic Party and left-wing bloggers who have seized on a strategy of painting all political opponents as crazy.

And while we're at it, how about Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer apologizing for calling health care protesters "un-American"; and Harry Reid for comparing opposition to Obamacare to opposition to ending slavery; and Sheldon Whitehouse for invoking Kristallnacht and comparing health care opponents to white supremacists; and Alan Grayson and his groupies for saying Republicans wanted patients to die; and the Southern Poverty Law Center for serving as a tool of the Democratic Party by branding legitimate political opposition as racist.

And while we're at it, how about all those who have elevated the use of the race card to the central tool in the Democratic Party arsenal, thereby tearing at the fabric of this country (and ruining my Saturday nights).

And while we're at it, the Democratic base which thinks it's a riot to make fun of Trig Palin.

There are so many apologies needed. Shirley Sherrod is the least of them.

Still, two ... uh, multiple ... wrongs do not make a right.

Shirley Sherrod deserved an apology even though lefies who are wrong NEVER apologize. The willingness to apologize when wrong is one of those many things that demonstrates that the right to be more honorable than the left.

Minimum Wage Kills Jobs, Explained

The Center for Freedom and Prosperity does it again:

I apologize to Shirley Sherrod

While there are things in the full video that give me pause, I apologize to Shirley Sherrod for calling her a bigot. She admits in the beginning of her story that she was a bigot, but she was telling the story to stop bigotry by blacks. Good for her.

Congress Masters Orwellian Speech

I came across the following article today:

The Obama administration is backing legislation that includes regulations requiring U.S. businesses to provide to the government data about employee pay as it relates to the sex, race and national origin of employees.

In an orchestrated effort that included a statement by President Barack Obama and an event at the White House featuring Vice President Joe Biden, Attorney General Eric Holder and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, the president and his cabinet endorsed the Paycheck Fairness Act.

One think any Congress-watcher should soon learn, if a bill has the word "fairness" in the titel be certain that the bill is unfair to someone. If the bill has "justice" in its title, be certain that injustice will inevitably follow.

"Don't Talk To Police" Lectures

The following lectures are by a law professor, former criminal defense attorney James Duane and by police officer and law student George Bruch:





These lectures are about two years old. I have been meaning to post them for quite some time.

Bear in mind that the United States Supreme Court recently held that you must speak up to assert your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Berghuis v. Thomkins. No kidding.

More Guns Helps DC Crime Rate

From John R. Lott concerning Washington DC since the Heller decision:

Washington’s murder rate has plummeted -- falling by 25 percent in 2009 alone. This compares with a national drop of only 7 percent last year. And D.C.'s drop has continued this year.

Comparing Washington’s crime rates from January 1 to June 17 of this year to the same period in 2008, shows a 34 percent drop in murder. This drop puts D.C.'s murder rate back to where it was before the 1977 handgun ban. Indeed, the murder rate is as low as was before 1967.

Other gun crimes have also fallen in Washington. While robberies without guns fell by 7 percent, robberies with gun fell by over 14 percent. Assaults with weapons other than guns fell by 7, but assaults using guns fell by over 20 percent.

Read his entire June 28, 2010 op-ed.

Somebody needs to tell Chicago's mayor Daley. Funny, liberals always seem to think that the logic invented inside their pointy little heads is more reliable than actual experience. News flash to gun banners: experience is more reliable than your elitist (il)logic.

BS Removal Kit

Act now. These should sell out fast!

Tea Party Resolution; Updated; Further Updated

Since the Tea Party is a movement and not an organization (although some may try to make it one), it seems to me that any member of the movement has as much authority as any other to propose a resolution. Here is my modest attempt:

The Tea Party hereby resolves that it calls upon the NAACP to repudiate the racist elements of its organization and the organizations that it expressly or impliedly supports, and make elimination bigotry from all side and sources a top priority.

Let's face it, discrimination on the basis of race is wrong. Bigotry on the basis of race is wrong. You can't define away black bigotry by claiming that only whites can be racist. Such a definition is bigotry per se.

Update: Below is a video of Shirley Sherrod, a federal employee, bragging about discriminating against a white man based on his race (i.e., doing the minimum so she won't get a complaint) speaking to an appreciative NAACP audience. Bigot.



Further update: The lady bigot on the clip resigned today.

Even further update: The speaker winds up the speech saying that even though she initially responded in a bigoted way (not her words), she learned she need to help all poor people regardless of race.



Oddly, the NAACP had a copy of the full video (I did not). The NAACP without looking at the full video condemned the speech. Her supervisor at the Department of Agriculture forced her to resign.

And here is the commentary by Riehl World View on the entire tape in context:

Several disputes have broken out on Twitter over the full-length, 45 minute version of Shirley Sherrod addressing an NAACP gathering. Sherrod spends 15 - 20 minutes recounting tales of racism in the South, including the murder of her Father. On a personal level that is tragic. But the fact remains, she uses it as a device to provide her with absolute moral authority to speak on issues pertinent to today. And if you listen carefully to Sherrod, I believe she reveals herself to be both a racist, who sees things in terms of color, as well as a latter day Marxist. She uses race, in part, to justify those views.

In Sherrod's view, there is no one world, or even two. There are three. The elite, or wealthy, the whites, propped up over blacks, and then there are blacks. Far from the post-racial America some of her rhetoric would lead you be believe she embraces as a vision, this is a woman trapped by views of race and class that make her a poor public servant at best. Listen to these three minutes and decide for yourself.

In her world, any racism that existed in the past very much exists today. She hasn't truly grown at all based upon her own words.

Nonetheless, the selective editing and presentation of the video should give us all pause ... and caution about selective editing. Others have noted that the NAACP release appears to have some editing as well.

White Liberal Racists

Hilarious. From the Dallas Tea Party, Janine Garafalo explains racism:



The woman is a mental case, of course, and she was actually referring to anyone who criticizes President Obama, then only Republicans, tea partiers and other regular folks. She did not anticipate that her wrong-headed words would also apply to liberals.

Porkulus Symbol

[Stolen from Michelle Malkin's site's compendium of porkulus sign submissions.]

As far as I can tell, the Porkulus has primarily stimulated government growth. Is there anyone in their right minds that thinks that is a good thing? (Are socialists and communists in their right minds?)

The Corrupt DOJ

Eric Holder's Department of Justice has been exposed as corrupt. It voluntarily reduced in part and dismissed in part the default judgment civil remedies against the black individuals, purportedly representing the New Black Panther Party, who engaged in clear voter intimidation at a Philadelphia polling place in November 2008. Also, DOJ's lawyers were reportedly instructed not to enforce voter intimidation laws against blacks who were accused to voter intimidation, only against whites.

The United States Civil Right Commission issued subpoenas to DOJ lawyers, so it could investigate. Holder's DOJ instructed its lawyers to ignore the subpoenas. Who represented the Civil Rights Commission for enforcement of the subpoenas? Holder's DOJ! That was despite a clear conflict of interest.

Corrupt? You betcha.

More on this here, including a copy of the US Civil Rights Commission letter to the DOJ renewing its request for witness in connection with its investigation. Watch Holder's DOJ blow the request off.

Economics: Repeal of Obamacare, What is Next?

This is another in the Center for Freedom and Prosperity's "Economics 101" series. This is a bit more advanced that the previous efforts, but well worth the time:

Moron of the Day: Brad Sherman (D-CA)

Watch the video first:



How is it possible that the 13 year Congressman is the only person in the room unaware of the awful actions of Eric Holder's Justice Department that deliberately snatched defeat from the jaws of victory ... for racial reasons. How is that possible?

My answer. Sherman believes that the voters sent him on a 13 year vacation to historic Washington DC just because he is such a nice guy. There really is no reason for him to know what is going on of importance in Washington. After all, he is just a Congressman.

A well-deserved Moron of the Day. Congratulations Rep. Sherman.

Free Pass for Criminals in Oakland CA

Criminals get free reign in Oakland, California, as long as they are committing certain crimes, such as burglary, theft, grand theft embezzlement, identity theft and on and on, according to the The Bay Area.

Most of the "free pass" crimes are non-violent. To me, the crime that really sticks out here is burglary. In California's gun-unfriendly environment, unarmed citizens are at risk.

Abuse of Discretion: Gun Permit Denial

From the Des Moines Register:

A federal judge has lambasted an Iowa sheriff for denying a gun permit to an outspoken government watchdog and anti-abortion advocate whom some in the area considered "weird."

It was wrong for Osceola County Sheriff Douglas Weber to deny Paul Dorr of Ocheyedan a permit to carry a concealed weapon three years ago, according to a court ruling issued Wednesday.

Here is the best part:

U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett also ordered Weber to successfully complete a court-approved course on the U.S. Constitution within five months.

"In denying (Dorr) a concealed weapons permit, Sheriff Weber single-handedly hijacked the First Amendment and nullified its freedoms and protections," Bennett wrote in the ruling.

Reading the Constitution should be a prerequisite for running for office.

Excellent Question Ducked

I am not impressed with the merits of the DOJ lawsuit against Arizona. Now, here is an excellent question (unanswered, of course):

Obamacare: Working Hard to Destroy America's Health Care System

Obamacare: The solution to health care problems? Or a massive problem in the making? I think the latter. Here is one small piece:

Obama - Holder Corruption

Don't expect the truth from the Obama administration. Ever.

Watch here.

And here.

Understanding of Economics Eludes Obama Administration

In its article "Why Obamnomics Has Failed," the Wall Street Journal highlights the monumental ignorance that the Obama Administration has about basic economics.

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.

But they want new stimulus measures—which is convincing evidence that they too recognize that the earlier measures failed. And so the U.S. was odd-man out at the G-20 meeting over the weekend, continuing to call for more government spending in the face of European resistance.

Two overarching reasons explain the failure of Obamanomics. First, administration economists and their outside supporters neglected the longer-term costs and consequences of their actions. Second, the administration and Congress have through their deeds and words heightened uncertainty about the economic future. High uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth.

Read it all.

Don't expect the Obamorons to comprehend it, though.