Phyrfight Intel

Harvard Professor Jeff Miron explains:

Oregon State Representative Mitch Greenlick wants to ban the direct sale of cigarettes and cigars. He would like everyone to get a prescription first.
From Oregon Catalyst.com:

HB 2233 places the crime of possessing an illegal cigar at $6,000 and one year in jail. This is coming from the same State Representative who has been voting to release violent criminals early and at the same time wants to fill our jails with Oregonians who happen to have a grocery store product in the back pocket.

If you are a friend of liberty living in the great state of Oregon you can contact Rep. Greenlick and voice your opposition here:

Capitol Phone: 503-986-1433
District Phone: 503-297-2416
Capitol Address: 900 Court St NE, H-492, Salem, OR, 97301
District Office Address: 712 NW Spring Avenue, Portland, OR, 97229
Email: rep.mitchgreenlick@state.or.us
Website: http://www.leg.state.or.us/greenlick

“The head of the Greenlining Institute is in the film warning against subprime loans???

…This short post not only posits the exact opposite theory than does Inside Job, but it actually points the finger of blame at Robert Gnaizda’s Greenlining Institute as the ultimate cause of the problem, rather than as the heroes who tried to prevent the crisis…

Everything shown in the film pretty much did happen as depicted. But here’s the key point: It may be true, but it’s irrelevant. The filmmakers are focusing on the glorious gory details of the financial explosion caused by the subprime loan crisis, but they aren’t showing you who lit the fuse…

Why did banks start making countless risky untenable loans to unqualified customers?

And the answer is: Because they were afraid of being called racists by the legal bullies at the Greenlining Institute and other similar “community organizers.”

…How does this connect to the presidential election? According to this 2007 article in the Chicago Sun-Times, Barack Obama’s mysterious years as a “community organizer” were spent doing this exact thing: Accusing banks of racism for not giving loans to underqualified minority borrowers:

Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods.

(A case which, by the way, Obama won. Add another risky loan to the pile.)

…using the bullying tactics described above (and in the original article which first inspired my post), the Greenlining Institute (and similar groups) twisted the banks’ arms to make risky loans, for the purpose of “social justice,” to use the activists’ own terminology.”

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2011/03/01/outside-job-using-the-oscars-to-legitimize-a-political-theory/?singlepage=true

Jay Sekulow
ACLJ Chief Counsel

“Yesterday, President Obama unilaterally declared the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional, instructing the Department of Justice not to defend the statute in court.

One of the problems with this: The President doesn’t get to decide what laws are constitutional in our system of government.

The idea that the President of the United States can order the Department of Justice not to defend a law, duly passed by Congress and signed into law by a former President, then-President Clinton, should send shockwaves through anyone who is concerned with civil rights and civil liberties.

The President isn’t a king. He doesn’t get to make decrees. He is the chief executive with the responsibility to enforce existing laws – even laws he may not like.

President Obama – a former constitutional law professor – needs a refresher course in constitutional law.

He seems to have forgotten that the United States is a constitutional republic … not a monarchy.”

https://www.aclj.org/petition/Default.aspx?AC=DNE1102070&SC=3738&email=danielgmiller@mac.com&guid=48172B5F-2BD0-4EC1-929F-D6A026CA1645

If you disagree with the law, change it – but the President doesn’t get to just dismiss it.

From Michelle Malkin

…Yes, the so-called progressives truly believe that bringing American union workers into the 21st century in line with the rest of the workforce is tantamount to dictatorship.

Yes, the so-called progressives truly believe that by walking off their jobs and out of their classrooms, they are “putting children first.”

If ever there were proof that public unions no longer work in the public interest, this is it. Big Labor dragoons workers into exclusive representation agreements, forces them to pay compulsory dues that fatten Democratic political coffers and then has the chutzpah to cast itself as an Egyptian-style “freedom” and “human rights” movement.

more

From: Erick Erickson

There’s war in Wisconsin. Voters, disgusted with big spending Democrats and out of control unions, handled the whole state over to Republicans. Seizing the voter mandate, Republican Governor Scott Walker is intent on pushing through legislation to end the ability of public sector unions to have collective bargaining rights on behalf of public employees.
Democrat lawmakers in the State Senate have fled Wisconsin for Illinois to ensure there is no quorum in the Senate. While only 17 votes are needed, 20 of the 33 senators must be present for the body to conduct business.
Public sector union members have stormed the state capitol. Teachers have staged a ‘sick in’ putting their union privileges ahead of educating children — bolstering Gov. Walker’s point that union abuse needs to be reined in.
Naturally, Barack Obama has sided with the union goons. His Organizing for America is sending protestors to astroturf Wisconsin in favor of more bloat and corruption. This is as much about saving him politically in 2012 as it is actually defending unionization.
Democrats and unions are comparing what is happening to Wisconsin to the Alamo. It puts me in the unusual position of backing the Mexicans.
— Erick Erickson

“The House voted Monday to extend to December three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act spy legislation.

The measure’s passage, by a 275-144 vote, was expected. The three provisions are expiring at month’s end. Rather than seriously debate or alter them, the House punted — the third failure by Congress in more than a year to address the law’s controversial issues.

The measure now goes before the Senate, which is likely to follow the House’s course on legislation that was hastily adopted following the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.”

Here are the expiring provisions the House adopted:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/02/patriot-act-extended/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29

January 26, 2011 (12:31)
A video response to the 2011 State of the Union

Regarding President Obama’s speech on Guantanamo detainees in 2009: “One of the most radical proposals for defying  the constitution that we have ever heard made to the American people.”

No, Glenn Beck didn’t say it, Rush Limbaugh didn’t say it either, not even that acidic harpy Ann Coulter.

It was said by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on her May 21st show in 2009.  Watch the video below or click here.

I wonder what that Kool-aid tastes like when it comes back up on you. That’s not really fair I suppose. She is standing behind her convictions and that is more than can be said for most on that network.

Interesting side note:  It appears that many links to YouTube posts of this video have been removed due to claims of “copy right violations”. No guarantee that this one will be up for long so here is a link to MSNBC’s transcript of the show.

In an op-ed piece yesterday on Politico, Representative Jane Harman (D-CA) tries to make a bizarre connection between Al Qaeda and the tragic rampage by the mentally deranged gunman in Tucson. Her conclusion? Enact more gun control legislation before Al Qaeda strikes again.  I know it sounds like something from the Onion but its absolutely true. Read for yourself.

Now for the  really scary part.  According to her website she is  “Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence. “

from Dudley Brown, Executive Director, National Association for Gun Rights:

“I’ve just received word from inside sources in the U.S. Senate.

Senate Democrats are planning to execute a sneak attack on gun rights as soon as TODAY!

Their plan is to sneak Carolyn McCarthy’s Magazine Ban into law as an amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration Bill, a routine piece of generally non-controversial legislation.

And they hope YOU won’t notice.

That’s why you and I need to make our voices heard RIGHT NOW!

We need to let them know we’re watching them like a hawk!”

http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/hostedemail/email.htm?h=019fdf348072f1ef988bc49ffc01f45b&CID=7927217092&ch=B863910850A1AC21D6304EAE6062FCD2

“Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.

Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”

Introduced by Rep. Hal Wick (R-Sioux Falls) this isn’t really a story about 2nd amendment rights. It’s about health care. Wick states up front that he knows the bill will be killed before it ever has a chance to become law and he’s only proposing this to make a point. If the government can force Americans to buy any other product, such as a health insurance policy, what is to stop them from forcing you to buy a gun?

While I see what he’s doing here, and it’s a valid argument to make, I’m still not thrilled with the path he has chosen to make his point.”

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/02/01/is-south-dakota-trying-to-mandate-gun-ownership/

Sen. Rand Paul

By Stephen C. Webster

One of the Senate’s newest members has settled upon an idea to reduce American debt that’s likely to come off as highly controversial in the halls of power: ending all foreign aid, including the tens of billions dedicated to Israel.

Israel has been, by far, the largest recipient of US foreign aid anywhere in the world. Since the inception of Israel’s close diplomatic relationship with the US all the way through 2008, Americans gave Israel over $103 billion, according to the American Educational Trust.

President Barack Obama in late 2009 approved an additional $2.77 billion for Israeli foreign aid in 2010, and another $30 billion over the next decade.

That’s got to stop, according to Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who told CNN host Wolf Blitzer recently that with such a crushing economic picture in the US, “we just can’t do it anymore.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/time-foreign-aid-israel-we-anymore-sen-paul-warns/

ATLANTA, Jan. 18, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that serves to allow judges to void the Constitution in their courtrooms. The decision was issued on January 18, 2011, and the Court did not even explain the decision (Docket No. 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690). One word decisions: DENIED.

Presented with this information and massive proof that was not contested in any manner by the accused judges, at least six of the justices voted to deny the petitions:

“There is no legal or factual basis whatsoever for the decisions of the lower courts in this matter. These rulings were issued for corrupt reasons. Many of the judges in the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit are corrupt and violate laws and rules, as they have done in this case. The Supreme Court must recognize this Petition as one of the most serious matters ever presented to this Court.”

The key questions answered negatively by the U.S. Supreme Court was:

“Whether federal courts must be stopped from operating corruptly and ignoring all laws, rules, and facts.”

By denying the petitions, SCOTUS has chosen to sanction corruption by federal judges and to allow federal judges to void sections of the Constitutional at will.”

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=xprnw.20110118.CL31921&show_article=1

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
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.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Dan Baum over at the Huffington Post has written an article asking liberals to not to be tempted to call for tighter gun laws in the aftermath of the shooting in Tucson. His theme of the article I think is expressed best by this quote:

Gun control not only does no practical good, it actively causes harm. It may be hard to show that it saves lives, but it’s easy to demonstrate that we’ve sacrificed a generation of progress on things like health care, women’s rights, immigration reform, income fairness, and climate change because we keep messing with people’s guns

I am impressed by his honest understanding that this issue is a losing one for Democrats, or any politician. However, from reading the article I get the feeling that he doesn’t truly believe that people should have the right to bear arms. It seems that he has given up the issue in order to pursue other causes which are more important to liberals.

I do have hope for the liberals and Democrats when the author compares gun control to the prohibition of marijuana:

It’s helpful to think of gun control as akin to marijuana prohibition — useless for almost everything except turning otherwise law-abiding people into criminals and fomenting cynicism and resentment.

This statement gives me hope that he is on his way to becoming more libertarian. I heard someone once say, if we can get the gun guys stop worrying about drugs and the drug guys to stop worrying about guns then we would be on our way to a much better country.

From: EFF

Last week’s post about the increasingly draconian and desperate measures the Tunisian government was taking to censor bloggers, journalists, and activists online was rapidly made irrelevant by subsequent events. Over the next few days, Tunisian dictator El Abidine Ben Ali promised not to run for re-election in 2014, then offered widespread reforms, including freedom of expression on the Internet, and finally stepped down from power and fled the country. The steps that EFF called on Facebook, Google, and Yahoo to take in order to protect the privacy and safety of their Tunisian users soon lost their urgency. For now, Tunisians are experiencing unprecedented freedom online after years of extensive government filtering and censorship of websites.

more