Custom Search

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Gallup: More U.S. Small Businesses Cutting Workers Than Hiring

By Susan Duclos

The Obama so-called recovery has been taking some serious hits with GDP growth going negative, Obamacare causing healthcare costs to rise, and news that Obama's regulatory spending has cost more than nearly double the cost of 16 years under Bush and Clinton.

Now Gallup reports, "More U.S. Small Businesses Cutting Workers Than Hiring "

The devil is in the details though, meaning their reasoning:

When owners who are not looking for new employees were asked to evaluate eight potential reasons they are not doing so, overall business conditions headed the list as usual, including not needing new employees at this time (with 81% indicating this as a reason), worries that revenues or sales won't justify adding more employees (74%), and worries about the current status of the U.S. economy (66%).

However, 61% of owners pointed to worries about the potential cost of healthcare, 56% to worries about new government regulations, and 55% to worries about cash flow or the ability to make payroll. Thirty-two percent point to it being hard to find qualified employees.

Reminder from a previous post:

The Hill, just three days ago, headlined with "Washington and business brace for an Obama wave of regulation."

Two more headline to round off the economic news.

First one by the AP, report via Fox News Insider: "Weekly Jobless Claims Rise at Higher Rate than Expected."

Second, via Gallup: " U.S. Payroll to Population Rate Drops in January"

No worries, Harry Reid has an idea........ We horrible Republicans have got to stop reporting Obama's failed recovery and the news showing it be worse that we thought.

Liberal's new motto- "The Obama economy, ignore it and it will go away. "

Reid must be going senile.

Pew: 53% View Government As Threat To Personal Rights

By Susan Duclos

Via Pew Research: As Barack Obama begins his second term in office, trust in the federal government remains mired near a historic low, while frustration with government remains high. And for the first time, a majority of the public says that the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms.

53 percent of Americans feel the federal government are a threat to personal rights and 43 percent do not.

Up until 2010, it was 50/47 on the flip side, so within the last nearly three years of Obama being president, those opinions have changed.

In March 2010, opinions were divided over whether the government represented a threat to personal freedom; 47% said it did while 50% disagreed. In surveys between 1995 and 2003, majorities rejected the idea that the government threatened people’s rights and freedoms.
 Also a direct quote from Pew: As Barack Obama begins his second term in office, trust in federal government remains mired near a historic low and frustration with government remains high.

Since liberal gun grabbers and Obama are just starting with their push for gun bans and gun laws, which many see as an attempt to violate their constitutional Second Amendment right to bear arms, these numbers have the potential to rise over the course of the next few months.

Unions Loved Obamacare..... Until They Found Out What It Costs

By Susan Duclos

Oh that Nancy Pelosi quote on passing obamacare just keeps on giving.... to conservatives.

Remember, "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It." (Video, here, for those that forgot)

One of the major things in the Obamacare bill was the outright lie that it would lower healthcare costs and Unions, who help push that monster through, back it and Obama the whole way, are now whining about the costs.

Labor unions enthusiastically backed the Obama administration’s health-care overhaul when it was up for debate. Now that the law is rolling out, some are turning sour.
Union leaders say many of the law’s requirements will drive up the costs for their health-care plans and make unionized workers less competitive. Among other things, the law eliminates the caps on medical benefits and prescription drugs used as cost-containment measures in many health-care plans. It also allows children to stay on their parents’ plans until they turn 26.
To offset that, the nation’s largest labor groups want their lower-paid members to be able to get federal insurance subsidies while remaining on their plans. In the law, these subsidies were designed only for low-income workers without employer coverage as a way to help them buy private insurance.
In early talks, the Obama administration dismissed the idea of applying the subsidies to people in union-sponsored plans, according to officials from the trade group, the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans, that represents these insurance plans.

There was a reason conservatives refused to sign on to the Obamacare bill, it was a bad bill, with 21 new taxes included into it and areas that simply couldn't work to bring down healthcare costs.

Yet another example of that was in the news on Wednesday.

Headline: "Some families to be priced out of health overhaul ."

Some families could get priced out of health insurance due to what's being called a glitch in President Barack Obama's overhaul law. IRS regulations issued Wednesday failed to fix the problem as liberal backers of the president's plan had hoped.

As a result, some families that can't afford the employer coverage that they are offered on the job will not be able to get financial assistance from the government to buy private health insurance on their own. How many people will be affected is unclear.

The irony is that Obamacare was passed by Democrats who at the time controlled both the Senate and House, against the opposition to the bill as a whole by Americans in every poll conducted before, during and after, without any Republican support and signed by Barack obama, a Democrat, yet it is not his fault, accoring to the Obama administration.

 The Obama administration says its hands were tied by the way Congress wrote the law.
 Somehow, being the one to sign this badly written mammoth of a bill into law, is not Obama's fault. Then again, to Obama, nothing every is.

Quote and exit question of the day goes to Erika Johnson over at Hot Air:

Nutshell version: Big Labor worked tirelessly to help President Obama get his ACA passed, and then helped him get reelected, and they’re finally figuring out that they’re stuck with his notoriously ill-thought-out plan. The heart bleeds.

Exit quotation: “If you like your plan, you can keep it.”

Obama Regulatory Spending Costs More Than 16 Years Under Bush and Clinton

By Susan Duclos

With Private Domestic Income, meaning the private business sector, being one of the only areas showing growth as of the latest report by the St. Louis fed, and nearly three quarters of small businesses say government regulations are taking a toll on their bottom lines, it is noteworthy to mention that according to figures published by the Obama White House, the spending on regulations issued by this administration is nearly double the costs of 16 years under Clinton and Bush.

Via TWS:

In fact, as the chart below shows, the costs of “major” regulations — those estimated to cost at least $100 million in any one year (in 2001 dollars) — issued by the Obama administration in its first three years nearly tripled the cost of those issued by the Clinton administration in its first three years, nearly quintupled the cost of those issued by the George W. Bush administration in its first three years, and nearly doubled the cost of those issued by Bush and Clinton combined.  Again, that’s according to the Obama White House’s own tallies.

With the Obama recovery now officially the worst recovery effort ever in US History and yesterday's government report showing the economic GDP growth not only screeching to a halt, but going negative, one would think that anything and everything should be done to induce the private sector, the only sector keeping us afloat, to grow and expand by reducing government regulations, as Obama's own jobs council recommended.

But no.

The Hill, just three days ago, headlined with "Washington and business brace for an Obama wave of regulation."

Lawmakers, lobbyists and policy groups say they are expecting a deluge of new rules from agencies across the federal government.

“They’re going to try to do with regulation what they cannot do with legislation,” said Mike House of Hogan & Lovells, a law and lobbying firm whose clients include businesses and trade groups.

Advocacy groups and liberal lawmakers are drawing up wish lists of new regulations that would cover everything from air pollution to vehicle safety to labor protections. And that doesn’t include a torrent of forthcoming rules required by the healthcare law and the Dodd-Frank financial reform act.
Congressional Republicans and industry groups, meanwhile, are marshaling forces to oppose a regulatory onslaught that they fear will bring the private sector to its knees.

“When you consider all the new rules now pouring through the regulatory pipeline, and those still to come, it is staggering,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue said this month during a speech on the state of American business.

Hold on to your "ass(ets)" folks, the next four years are going to be uglier than the last four have been.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Two More Missouri Sheriffs Say The Will Not Enforce Federal Gun Bans

By Susan Duclos

We can now add Ralls County Sheriff Gerry Dinwiddie, Marion County Sheriff Jimmy Shinn to the list of the other  120 Sheriff's around the country, who have now said they will not enforce any new gun laws that violate their citizens constitutional Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The president of the Missouri Sheriff's Association has also issued a letter to MO. Governor Jay Nixon, that says in part "We don't need the architect (federal government) handing us a set of blueprints that will build the best system to protect our children, we need local government to come to the table to develop a plan that we in turn hand to the architect and say, this is what we need, help us build it."

Letter found here.

This makes three Sheriff's Associations, Utah, New Mexico and now Missouri's that want the federal government to stay out of their business.

H/T Todd- @Chickenfoot99

Poll: American's Priorities Not Washington's, Immigration/Gun Control Single Digit Support

By Susan Duclos

Reason-Rupe polled Americans and confirms other polling organization's findings that American's priorities are not the priorities being expressed by Barack Obama.

Recently Obama has been pushing for gun control and also spent $1.5 million plus on his latest push for immigration reform, but according to yet another poll, Immigration reform is thought to be a priority by just two percent and gun control/violence by only three percent.

As with other polls from a variety of organizations, the economy; jobs; and Federal Deficit/Cut Spending/Balance Budget are the only issues that hit double digits, 29 percent, 19 percent and 13 percent, respectively, in the Reason-Rupe poll.

 Other findings:

• 75 percent of Americans believe the federal budget deficit should be addressed now.

• 64 percent feel Congress should not allow Obama to raise the debt ceiling, with 29 percent believing they should

• 40 percent believe that federal government spending has reduced the quality of life, 39 percent say it hasn't made much of a difference and only 17 percent believe it has helped.

• 49 percent say it would help the economy if federal government spending were down to the levels of the 1990's, 12 percent think that would hurt the economy and  31 percent do not think it would make a difference.

Gun Control and Second Amendment Issues

• 52 percent of Americans believe that elected officials are exploiting the  Sandy Hook tragedy for political gain, while 41 percent feel elected officials are acting responsibly.

• 51 percent, of Americans say people “should be allowed to own assault weapons,” while 44 percent say people “should be prohibited from owning assault weapons.

 • The public is split on what might have helped prevent the Newtown tragedy. When asked what might have helped prevent the shooting, 24 percent proposed better mental health treatment, 19 percent said stricter gun laws, 18 percent stressed better parenting and 17 percent suggested armed guards.

Poll break down by political affiliation:

Democrats- 36%
Independent- 32%
Republican- 22%
Other- 9%

The disconnect between what Washington politicians are focusing on, and what Americans find to be priorities and want to see addressed, is astounding in it's scope, and why Americans do not think their elected officials are listening to them.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Day of Resistance Rallies On .223 (February 23, 2013)

By Susan Duclos

Day of Resistance Rallies On .223 (February 23, 2013)

In response to the unconstitutional actions by Obama, on .223, February 23, 2013 the American people will stand together in defiance to protect the right that protects ALL of our rights, the 2nd Amendment! They will organize locally so that they may band together neighbor to neighbor and reassert their community's right to determine their own destiny!

The Day of Resistance website is here. Go sign up if you want to participate.

The Day of Resistance Volunteer Facebook page, found here. Instruction page, found here.

Dustin Stockton has put together a list of rallies across the country, found here.

H/T Rex @Rmueting

Obama Already Spends Every Dollar Of New Tax Hikes, Plus $10 Billion

By Susan Duclos

All the very public battles over taxes with Barack Obama constantly saying taxes had to be raised on the wealthy in order increase revenue to pay down the deficit, and now we see, via Andrew Malcolm at Investors Business Daily, that Obama has already spent every dime of those taxes... and they haven't even been collected yet!!

It's a good thing our federal government is going on a strict spending diet to curb its out-of-control borrowing. Otherwise, the latest piece of spending legislation passed Monday worth more than $50 billion might have been substantial.

Good grief! Remember -- how can any of us forget? -- that long, hard fight President Obama just staged to squeeze more taxes out of wealthy Americans?

The top 2% wealthiest already pay 45% of the taxes. But Democrat Obama felt they needed to pay their "fair share," despite the risks that new taxation presents to creating real jobs for the rest of us, Obama already being employed for the next 1,452 days. But who's counting?

The Real Big Spender is off to Las Vegas this morning for a $1.5 million-plus photo op day-trip to sell his immigration reform ideas to a select audience that already likes it.

For weeks Obama traveled the country telling anyone who would listen and some who'd rather not that he's so absolutely positively determined to cut America's $16.4 trillion national debt that he did so much to grow. And he was insistent on milking money from the rich to do just that.

Well, guess what? That $50.4 billion spending bill for, among other things Hurricane Sandy aid, just ate up every single penny of that tax hike for this year, plus another $10 billion. That will go on the debt tab that the $40 billion in new taxes were supposed to start trimming slightly this fiscal year.

Read the rest.

It has never been about cutting spending or paying down the $16 trillion debt, after all Obama doesn't think Washington has a spending problem.

What Did Obama Get From Hillary In Return For Helping Pay Off Her Debts?

By Susan Duclos

The headline is the obvious question after reading about major Barack Obama donors rewarding Hillary Clinton for her loyal service to Obama by paying off her 2008 presidential campaign debts last year.

Last week campaign disclosure reports revealed that Hillary Clinton had finally retired the debt from her 2008 presidential campaign—with a little help from the guy who beat her, Barack Obama. Clinton’s debt once totaled more than $20 million, although it had dwindled to about $250,000 by last year. That’s when a team of top Obama donors decided to surprise Clinton, and thank her for her loyal service, by raising enough money to pay off her bills. As secretary of state, she was forbidden from political fundraising.

The effort was apparently launched by Steve Spinner, a California finance chairman for the Obama campaign; Jane Stetson, the former Democratic National Committee finance chairwoman; and Henry Munoz, the incoming DNC finance chairman.


The team found them by assigning an intern to comb through the records at and see who still had room to give. In the end, it took the checkbooks of about 120 people and several months to retire the debt—I’m told the last check arrived in early July. And as it turned out, the Obama folks substantially overshot the mark. Clinton’s campaign, which has not yet formally been shut down, now shows a surplus of about $205,000.

 Then we have the warm and fuzzy "60 Minutes" soft-ball interview with Obama and Clinton, according to CBS' Steve Kroft, was suggested by the White House.

Is everybody "Ready for Hillary" to run in 2016? From 2009 to November 2012, Hillary had completely ruled out the option in multiple interviews, yet in the 60 Minutes interview, the answer has changed considerably to " I think that, you know, look, obviously the president and I care deeply about what’s going to happen for our country in the future. And I don’t think, you know, either he or I can make predictions about what’s going to happen tomorrow or the next year."

 In politics, nothing is free and done out of the goodness of a politican's heart, so exactly what did Hillary do or what has she agreed to do for Obama?

Would she have agreed not to run against his record, despite the data from the latest quarterly reports from the St. Louis fed, showing that the Obama recovery is now officially the worst recovery in US history?

If so, it was a very bad deal.

Monday, January 28, 2013

Video- Father of Sandy Hook Murdered Child: Gun Laws Are Not The Problem

By Susan Duclos

Mark Mattioli, father of the one of the Newtown Sandy Hook shooting victims, testifies before a gun violence task force in Hartford, Connecticut on 1/28/2013.

Heartbreaking excerpts.


Via The Blaze:

Mark Mattioli, whose six-year-old son James perished inside of the school, testified that a plethora of new gun laws isn’t the answer and that, instead, personal responsibility, accountability and civility are the best path forward. He made his comments as intense debate surrounding gun control and the causal factors behind the shooting continue to be at the forefront of public discussion.

The grieving father, who ended up receiving a standing ovation, said that he believes in “simple, few gun laws” and that there are already “more than enough on the books.” Mattioli contends that “the problem is not gun laws” and that these regulations simply need to be enforced.

“How do we expect to have any impact on a society and say, ‘We’re going to pass a law. Hey this is inexcusable. We can’t allow any more of this. Let’s pass a law that will change the course of the future’  when we don’t enforce the laws that we have on the books — the most important laws?,” he asked.


At one point Mattioli got so emotional during the the testimony that he had to move onto a new topic. He eventually went on to say that “we need common decency to prevail,” dismissing calls for greater gun control. Mattioli gave the specific example of Chicago, a city with tough gun laws, but one that continues to experience intense violence. He noted that gun laws did not protect the hundreds of people who died in that city last year.

Milwaukee County Sheriff Urges Citizens Learn To Use Guns, Waiting On Police Not 'Best Option'

By Susan Duclos

Milwaukee County Sheriff as a message for his citizens, via an ad released earlier this month:

"I’m Sheriff David Clarke, and I want to talk to you about something personal…your safety. It’s no longer a spectator sport; I need you in the game, but are you ready? With officers laid-off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option."

You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back; but are you prepared? Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family. We’re partners now. Can I count on you?”

He has reiterated his message in follow up interviews, via Politico:

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke Jr. said on Monday a radio ad in which he urges residents to take a safety course in handling firearms because “calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option.”

Clarke doubled down on CNN’s “Starting Point,” saying that there are certain instances where calling the police would be “of no use.”

There are certain situations — and I think most people get that — where 911 is going to be of no use. For instance, once the wolf is at the door, once the intruder is inside your home, once you’re on the street and someone sticks a gun in your face to take your car or your wallet, you don’t have the option of calling 911,” Clarke said.

He continued: “In those situations, there are certain things you can do to protect yourself. It’s a public safety message, and I’m just here to let the people know, give them the information as to what’s going on, and to give them options, if you will, as to how to defend themselves in those situations.”

[Update] Case in point from Georgia, listen to the 911 call of the woman who shot an intruder to protect her children and herself and how long it took the police to arrive. (Hint- long after she was forced to defend her family)


List of 90 Sheriffs And Two Sheriff's Association Vowing To Ignore Obama Gun Control

How 2nd Amendment Supporters Beat Obama's Bully Pulpit: Lesson For Republicans

By Susan Duclos

Republican leadership could learn a lesson or two from Second Amendment supporters, on how to overcome Barack Obama's bully pulpit and his media cohorts in the mainstream news.

Politico reports that "gun control doesn't survive Christmas" in a piece that is breathtaking in their total disregard for objectivity, as the whole tone is one of disappointment, even quoting ABC News personality, Z. Byron Wolf, as saying "It is hard to believe this will not be a watershed moment when we start to talk about, deal with and even perhaps legislate on guns."

The Politico writer Dylan Byers, shows his own bias and disappointment after writing "In the immediate aftermath of a shooting, such as the one that took place in Aurora, Colo., mentions of the term "gun control" spike in the news media. In a matter of days, that discussion all but disappears," by then stating "This time was supposed to be different."

What Mr. Byers doesn't report, is while gun control mentions might have all but disappeared by early January, terms such as "gun rights", "Second Amendment" and "2nd Amendment" completely dominates the discussion, which explains exactly why Obama, his media friends and liberal gun grabbers have already lost the gun control vs Second Amendment battle.

Via the search feature at News Library for the last three months (numbers change as more articles are written), as of January 28, 2013, 12 pm ET, the results from more than 182 million newspaper articles from thousands of credible U.S. publications, shows the following numbers for the search terms mentioned above.

Gun Control: 49,420
Gun Rights: 64,151
Second Amendment: 32,970
2nd Amendment: 4,244

By more than two-to-one, guns rights and the Second Amendment dominated the discussion, versus gun control, despite Obama using his pulpit to push his gun grabbing agenda and the media not even bothering to pretend they are not behind him every step of the way.

Glen Reynolds aka Instapundit , wrote a book titled "An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths, which explains how the new media via today's technology, has the power to change the national conversation, even overcoming the influence of the mainstream media.

Second Amendment supporters have just provided evidence of that type of power, "we the people," now have.

Imagine how differently the whole fiscal cliff fiasco would have turned out had the Republican leadership utilized the same "Army of Davids"  and conservative supporters had not allowed Obama to dominate the fiscal cliff discussion with talk of taxes, but had instead spoken to "spending cuts" twice as often as "taxes", consistently.

Republican leadership and conservative supporters should all take the lesson Second Amendment supporters have just taught us and use it in every political battle going forward.

List Of 90 Sheriffs By Name and Two Sheriff's Associations Vowing To Ignore Obama Gun Control

By Susan Duclos

UPDATED LIST FOUND HERE- Now 347 Sheriffs and 14 Sheriff's Associations.

[Updated List of 283 Sheriffs and 8 Sheriff's Associations, found HERE]

(Updating the list as more Sheriffs stand up and speak out)

[Update 1/30/13] two more, totaling 122 Sheriffs now- names added at the bottom of the list.

90 Sheriffs and two Sheriff's Associations (totaling 120 Sheriffs so far) disagree with Barack Obama, gun control and standing up for their citizen's Second Amendment constitutional right to bear arms, isn't politics, it is upholding their oath of office to defend their citizens' rights.

CNN reports Barack Obama plans to "talk guns" with police chiefs and Sheriffs, and in that piece Obama asserts " So much of the challenge that we have in our politics right now is that people feel as if the game here in Washington is completely detached from their day-to-day realities. And that's not an unjustifiable view," he said.

Obama also said that those on the other side “have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes.”

Obama is the one that believes gun control, and Second Amendment supporters' willingness to fight for their rights as do the 90 Sheriffs and two Sheriff's Associations, each of which includes dozens of other sheriffs, is all about politics, because gun control is part of Obama's political agenda.

Public statements and open letters sent to the Obama administration from Sheriffs across the country, show exactly what they believe the issue is and it certainly isn't "politics" when they state clearly they will not enforce or allow to be enforced in their territories, any gun grabbing policies coming out of Washington or by presidential decree that violates their citizen's constitutional rights.

A few examples:

 The Utah Sheriff's Association's letter to Obama states "We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights-in particular Amendment II-has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation."

Madison County Alabama Sheriff Blake Dorning states "The federal authorities can try to enforce it. I’m the Sheriff of Madison County. I took a constitutional oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, to defend the Constitution of the State of Alabama, even if it takes my life. That is my position."

MO Sheriff Charles M. Heiss in an open letter to the Obama administration says "As the duly elected Sheriff of Johnson County, Missouri, it is my sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitutions of the United States of America, and the State of Missouri against all enemies both foreign and domestic. This means I not only have the duty to protect my constituents from incidents of crime, but I also have a duty and responsibility to protect and preserve the individual rights and liberties afforded and guaranteed to every citizen by our constitutions. This, Mr. President is a duty I fully understand, appreciate, and will carry out with great vigor and conviction. I will most certainly urge my fellow Sheriffs in the State of Missouri and across this great nation to rise to the defense and aid of all Americans should the federal government attempt to enact any legislation, or executive order that impedes, erodes, or otherwise diminishes their constitutional right to keep and bear arms."

Josephine County, Oregon Sheriff Gil Gilbertson, said in a letter to Biden: (Full letter here) states "As such, any rule, regulation, or executive order repugnant to the constitutional rights of the citizens of this County will be ignored by this Office, nor will this office, or the citizens, allow enforcement of unconstitutional activities by federal officers.

We refuse to participate, or allow our law-abiding citizens to be criminalized through constitutionally repugnant actions by misguided intentions or politicians."

Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller and Crook County Sheriff Jim Hensley have both sent the same letter, with their respective locations and names, stating "Any federal regulation enacted by Congress or by executive order of the President offending the constitutional rights of my citizens shall not be enforced  by me or by my deputies, nor will I permit the enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by federal officers within the borders of Linn County Oregon.

In summary, it is the position of this Sheriff that I refuse to participate, or stand idly by, while my citizens are turned into criminals due to the unconstitutional actions of misguided politicians.

Walton County Sheriff Michael Adkinson states "As Sheriff of Walton County, I am charged to act as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the county. The authority of this office is not subject to the submission of any other state or federal law enforcement agencies. I as Sheriff of Walton County will support, protect, and defend the liberties and rights of the people of Walton County. In regard specifically to the second amendment, neither I nor my deputies will support any attempt to circumvent the constitution of the United States by executive order or unlawful legislation."

 Those are just a few example showing that the position of the 90 Sheriffs and two Sheriff's Associations , are not political, but are constitutional.

As was noted yesterday, Virginia's Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety voted overwhelmingly on a bill to prevent state officials from helping to enforce any new federal gun-control laws that might be passed.

There are also thirteen states, to date, introducing Second Amendment preservation  and firearm protection legislation.

Reason's Hit And Run has compiled the list of 90 Sheriffs and the two Sheriff's Associations that have spoken up so far.

PS- With the 30 from the NM Sheriffs Association not named individually, the amount of Sheriff totals 120, so far.


1. Utah Sheriff’s Association
2. New Mexico Sheriff’s Association (30 out of 33 sheriffs)


1. Sheriff Glenn E. Palmer - Grant County, Oregon

2. Sheriff Gil Gilbertson – Josephine County, Oregon
3. Sheriff Tim Mueller – Linn County, Oregon
4. Sheriff Adam Christianson – Stanislaus County, California
5. Sheriff Brad A. DeLay – Lawrence County, Missouri
6. Sheriff Charles M. Heiss – Johnson County, Missouri
7. Sheriff Steve Cox - Livingston County, Missouri
8. Sheriff Jon Lopey – Siskiyou County, California
9. Sheriff Craig Zanni – Coos County, Oregon
10. Sheriff John Hanlin - Douglas County, Oregon
11. Sheriff John Bishop – Curry County, Oregon
12. Sheriff Larry Blanton - Deschutes County, Oregon
13. Sheriff Jim Hensley – Crook County, Oregon
14. Sheriff Denny Peyman – Jackson County, Kentucky
15. Sheriff Roy Klingler – Madison County, Idaho
16. Sheriff Blake Dorning – Madison County, Alabama
17. Sheriff Justin Smith – Larimer County, Colorado
18. Sheriff Al Cannon – Charleston County, South Carolina
19. Sheriff Ana Franklin – Morgan County, Alabama
20. Sheriff Andy Hughes – Houston County, Alabama
21. Sheriff Stacy Nicholson – Gilmer County, Georgia
22. Sheriff Robin Cole – Pine County, Minnesota
23. Sheriff Bill Snyder – Martin County, Florida
24. Sheriff Ed Kilgpore – Humboldt County, Nevada
25. Sheriff Tom Bosenko – Shasta County, California
26. Sheriff John D’Agostini – El Dorado County, California
27. Sheriff David Hencraft – Tehama County, California
28. Sheriff Dean Growden – Lassen County, California
29. Sheriff Dean Wilson – Del Norte County, California
30. Sheriff Mike Poindexter – Modoc County, California
31. Sheriff Thomas Allman - Mendocino County, California
32. Sheriff Mike Downey - Humboldt County, California
33. Sheriff Larry Smith - Smith County, Texas
34. Sheriff Kieran Donahue - Canyon County, Idaho
35. Sheriff Margaret Mims – Fresno County, California
36. Sheriff Pat Garrett – Washington County, Oregon
37. Sheriff Dan Staton – Multnomah County, Oregon
38. Sheriff Scott Mascher - Yavapai County, Arizona
39. Sheriff Micahel A. Helmig - Boone County, Ohio
40. Sheriff A.J. Rodenberg - Clermont County, Ohio
41. Sheriff Terry Maketa - El Paso County, Colorado
42. Sheriff John Cooke - Weld County, Colorado
43. Sheriff Scott Berry - Oconee County, Georgia
44. Sheriff Frank Denning – Johnson County, Kansas
45. Sheriff Stan Hilkey – Mesa County, Colorado
46. Sheriff Terry Box – Collin County, Texas
47. Sheriff Chuck Wright  - Spartanburg County, South Carolina
48. Sheriff Greg Hagwood - Plumas County, California
49. Sheriff Frank McKeithen - Bay County, Florida
50. Sheriff Roger Garrison - Cherokee County, Georgia
51. Sheriff Tony Desmond - Schoharie County, New York
52. Sheriff Richard Devlin Jr. – Otsego County, New York
53. Sheriff Bruce Haney – Trinity County, California
54. Sheriff Wayne DeWitt - Berkeley County, South Carolina
55. Sheriff Bob ‘Big Block’ Colbert – Wagoner County, Oklahoma
56. Sheriff Joel W. Richardson – Randall County, Texas
57. Sheriff Mike Scott – Lee County, Florida
58. Sheriff Mike Winters – Jackson County, Oregon
59. Sheriff Brian Wolfe – Malheur County, Oregon
60. Sheriff Cameron M. Noel – Beaver County, Utah
61. Sheriff Tom Rummel – Sanders County, Montana 
62. Sheriff Jeff Christopher – Sussex County, Delaware
63. Sheriff Brad Rogers, Elkhart County, Indiana
64. Sheriff David Edmunds – Summit County, Utah
65. Sheriff James Tracy – Utah County, Utah
66. Sheriff Robert Dekker – Millard County, Utah
67. Sheriff Frank Park – Tooele County, Utah
68. Sheriff J. Lynn Yeates – Box Elder County, Utah
69. Sheriff G. Lynn Nelson – Chache County, Utah
70. Sheriff James Cordova – Carbon County, Utah
71. Sheriff Jerry Jorgensen – Daggett County, Utah
72. Sheriff Todd Richardson – Davis County, Utah
73. Sheriff Travis Mitchell – Duchesne County – Utah
74. Sheriff Greg Funk – Emery County, Utah
75. Sheriff James D. Perkins – Garfield County, Utah
76. Sheriff Steven White – Grand County, Utah
77. Sheriff Mark Gower – Iron County, Utah
78. Sheriff Alden Orme – Juab County, Utah
79. Sheriff Lamont Smith – Kane County, Utah
80. Sheriff Blaine Breshears – Morgan County, Utah
81. Sheriff Marty Gleave – Puite County, Utah
82. Sheriff Dale Stacey – Rich County, Utah
83. Sheriff Rick Eldredge – San Juan County, Utah
84. Sheriff Brian Nielson – Sanpete County, Utah
85. Sheriff Nathan Curtis – Sevier County, Utah
86. Sheriff Jeff Merrell – Uintah County, Utah
87. Sheriff Todd Bonner – Wasatch County, Utah
88. Sheriff Cory Pulsipher – Washington County, Utah
89. Sheriff Kurt Taylor – Wayne County, Utah
90. Sheriff Terry Thompson – Weber County, Utah

[Update]  Two more in MO.

91. Sheriff Gerry Dinwiddie- Ralls County, Missouri
92. Sheriff Jimmy Shinn- Marion County, Missouri

[Update] Also president of the Missouri Sheriff's Association has also issued a letter to MO. Governor Jay Nixon

Obamas 'Recovery' Now Officially The Worst In US History

By Susan Duclos

This is one historical landmark the mainstream media hasn't been touting for Barack Obama because previously Obama's so-called economic "recovery" has been called the weakest and feeblest since the Great Depression, but now GDP growth, as of the just completed quarter,  is officially the slowest recovery in US history, according to the charts from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. (H/T Zero Hedge)

The charts will be embedded below the post, they show the highest (best), the lowest (worst) average and the dark green line is the current recovery.

Real Gross Domestic Product,  Real Personal Consumption Expenditures, and Real Government Consumption Expenditures and Gross Investment, Obama's so-called recovery has fallen below the worst recovery in history. Real Imports Good and Services is shown to be below average.

There are only two areas in which growth is above average, one of which is Real Gross Private Domestic Investment.

Gross private domestic investment is the official government measure of investment expenditures undertaken by the business sector. It seeks to quantify that portion of gross domestic product that is purchased by the business sector and which is used, in theory at least, for investment and the acquisition of capital goods. These expenditures purchase a wide range of capital goods, from factories to socket wrenches, from delivery trucks to nuclear power plants, from office buildings to copy machines.

The business sector is one of the only two areas showing above average growth, keeping the economy afloat. The very same people targeted by the Obama administration for higher taxes. The same people  who say, as of January 25, 2013, that healthcare costs (54%) and taxes on small businesses (53%) are hurting their operating environment "a lot," making these the top two concerns among eight issues tested in a January Wells Fargo/Gallup Small Business survey. They are followed by the price of energy, government regulations, and the federal debt ceiling.

U.S. small-business owners are clearly concerned about how healthcare costs are affecting their companies. These worries are likely tied -- at least in part -- to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and its potential impact. Small-business owners are trying to keep their workforces under 50 employees so they are exempted from key parts of the act and in this regard are reducing employee hours so they are not counted as full time.

More, reported by The Hill:

Nearly three quarters of small businesses say government regulations are taking a toll on their bottom lines, a new poll shows.

The Wells Fargo/Gallup survey found 72 percent of small businesses reported that regulations were hurting their “operating environment." Broken down further, 46 percent said regulations were hurting “a lot” and another 26 percent said they were hurting “a little,” according to the poll.

Note- Obama's own job council, which has now met it's demise, recommended reducing government regulation to stimulate job growth:

Among the council’s recommendations were to reduce government regulations. But in his second term, Obama is expected to pursue a slew of mandates via regulations, most notably on climate change.

The only other area the charts show as above average is Real Exports of Goods and Services:

Exports of goods and services represent the value of all goods and other market services provided to the rest of the world. They include the value of merchandise, freight, insurance, transport, travel, royalties, license fees, and other services, such as communication, construction, financial, information, business, personal, and government services. They exclude compensation of employees and investment income (formerly called factor services) and transfer payments.

Charts embedded below:

Sunday, January 27, 2013

Aliens Get Healthcare, Citizens Do Not - A Quirk - Unintended Consequences? No It's the Obama Agenda: Impeach John Roberts

 By Maggie's Notebook

The AP calls it an ObamaCare "quirk...unintended consequences." I call it the Obama agenda of grinding down America. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer recently made news when she opted-in for a greatly expanded Medicaid under ObamaCare (which will eventually bankrupt the state - my words, not hers).

"If Arizona does not expand, for poor Arizonans below (the federal poverty line), only legal immigrants, but not citizens, would be eligible for subsidies," the documents said.
Now here is something else we can lay squarely on the shoulders of Supreme Court Justice John Roberts:
Starting Jan. 1, 2014, the health care law will offer health insurance to millions of people now uninsured. Middle-class uninsured people will be able to get taxpayer-subsidized private policies through new markets called exchanges. Low-income uninsured people will be steered to Medicaid, a government program jointly funded by Washington and the states. 
Under previous laws, legal immigrants have to wait five years to qualify for Medicaid. Ng'andu said Hispanic advocacy groups wanted to lift that restriction during the 2009 congressional health care debate, but couldn't get political support. The Medicaid waiting period remained in place, but a compromise was reached that would allow low-income legal immigrants to get subsidized private coverage in the new health insurance exchanges. 
The health care law expanded Medicaid to cover millions of low-income adults who are ineligible under current rules. As written, the law assumed that every state would accept the Medicaid expansion, with Washington paying for most of it. So the law stipulated that people below the federal poverty line — $11, 170 for a single person, $23,050 for a family of four — could not get subsidies for private coverage in the exchanges. Medicaid was to be their only option. 
Legal immigrants here for less than five years remained an exception.  
Along came the Supreme Court. It upheld Obama's law, but ruled that states were free to accept or reject the Medicaid expansion. The court did not touch the issue of coverage for legal immigrants in the health insurance exchanges. That provision remained in place. 
And that's how the immigration glitch came to be. Poor people in a state that turns down Obama's Medicaid expansion can only get government subsidized coverage if they are legal immigrants. U.S. citizens are out of luck. 
America changed forever with Justice John Roberts' decision on the legality of ObamaCare. Today he enjoys the public adoration of Liberals in Washington, D.C. I bet he drinks Cosmos. He should carry the shame to his grave (and no, I'm not wishing him dead).

Virginia House Committee Passes Bill Preventing Enforcement Of Federal Gun Laws

By Susan Duclos

In response to Obama and liberal gun grabbers' push for gun control, gun and certain ammunition clip/magazine bans, Virginia's Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety voted overwhelmingly on a bill to prevent state officials from helping to enforce any new federal gun-control laws that might be passed.

The bill would “Prevent any agency, political subdivision, or employee of Virginia from assisting the Federal government of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, detention, arrest, search, or seizure, under the authority of any federal statute enacted, or Executive Order or regulation issued, after December 31, 2012, infringing the individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms by imposing new restrictions on private ownership or private transfer of firearms, firearm magazines, ammunition, or components thereof,” according to the measure’s official summary.

“This is really an assault on second amendment rights and it has nothing to do with gun safety,” Marshall said of federal legislation.

Recently Beaufort County, NC became the first in the nation to pass a Gun Law Nullification Resolution.

There are thirteen states, to date, introducing Second Amendment preservation  and firearm protection legislation, and Sheriffs across the country standing up and speaking out with some sending the Obama administration letters stating they will not enforce any new gun laws coming out of Washington in their counties, setting up a Tenth Amendment constitutional battle between state sovereignty and the federal government's overreach.

Tenth Amendment: 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.

State Sovereignty:

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.

The individual states of the United States do not possess the powers of external sovereignty, such as the right to deport undesirable persons, but each does have certain attributes of internal sovereignty, such as the power to regulate the acquisition and transfer of property within its borders. The sovereignty of a state is determined with reference to the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

Some states like Mississippi and Utah are specifically proposing legislation to "assert state sovereignty."

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Third Court Ruling Against Obama Administration In One Week

By Susan Duclos

The other two have their own posts, herehere and a followup piece here.

Short recap: First link is where a federal appeals court panel of three ruled that Obama's recess appointments made when the Senate was not in recess last year, were unconstitutional and invalid.

The second was where a federal judge ruled against the Obama administration's arguments and said that 10 ICE agents and officers have standing to challenge in Federal court the so-called Morton Memo on prosecutorial discretion and the DREAM directive on deferred action.

Now, via Bloomberg, we see another ruling against Obama's "EPA Cellulosic Biofuel Regulation Rejected by Court."

An Environmental Protection Agency rule mandating refiners generate or purchase advanced biofuels was overturned by a federal appeals court in Washington, after producers failed to make any commercial supplies last year.

The American Petroleum Institute, an oil and gas trade association, last year asked the court to overturn the EPA standard setting mandates in 2012 for production and sale of the cellulosic fuels, which can be made from materials including wood chips, switchgrass or agricultural waste.

The three-judge panel today rejected that target and sent it back to the EPA to come up with a new mandate. While the EPA set a standard for refiners of 8.65 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol in 2012, the actual U.S. production was 20,000 gallons -- and those were exported to Brazil.

“Apart from their role as captive consumers, the refiners are in no position to ensure, or even contribute to, growth in the cellulosic biofuel industry,” the court said in a 14-page ruling. According to the court, the EPA rule tells producers, “Do a good job, cellulosic fuel producers. If you fail, we’ll fine your customers.”

A very bad week for the Obama administration in Federal Courts around the country.

Another Senate GOP Pickup Opportunity In Iowa As Harkin Retires

By Susan Duclos

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) has announced he will not seek re-election, opening up another Democratically controlled seat in the US Senate, as a prime pick up opportunity for the GOP.

Harkin is the third senator up for re-election to say he is not running again. His decision follows Friday's surprise announcement that Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., would not seek re-election. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., is also retiring.

The current make up of the US Senate is 53 Democrats, giving them control of the chamber, 45 Republicans, and two Independents who caucus with the Democrats on most issues.

Among the senators up for election in 2014, there are currently 20 Democrats and 13 Republicans with South Carolina and Hawaii seats holding special elections.

The 13 Republican seats are listed as likely Republican or safe Republican.

Out of the 20 seats currently held by Democrats, the most vulnerable Democratic senators up for re-election in 2014 are (in alphabetical order): Mark Begich of Alaska, Max Baucus of Montana, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. (Source- CNN)

Harkin's Iowa seat was considered safe for Democrats until this retirement announcement, now giving the GOP another opening for an additional seat in the battle to take control of the US Senate in the 2014 midterm elections.

It is noteworthy that  historically a president's party loses congressional seats in midterm elections, especially a president's second term.

Republicans need a net gain of five Senate seats to take control of the Senate in after the 2014 midterm elections.

Now Republicans just need to pick a candidate that does not consistently stick his foot in his mouth.

Obama's Illegal, Invalid And Unconstitutional NLRB Appointee Will Ignore Federal Court Ruling

By Susan Duclos

Friday a federal appeals court panel of three ruled Obama's illegal recess appointments were unconstitutional and invalid.

As Chief Justice Marshall made clear in Marbury v. Madison, “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.” 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) at 177. In Marbury, the Supreme Court established that if the legislative branch has acted in contravention of the Constitution, it is the courts that make that determination. In Youngstown Sheet &Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the Supreme Court made clear that the courts must make the same determination if the executive has acted contrary to the Constitution. 343 U.S. 579 (1952). That is the case here, and we must strike down the unconstitutional act

In short, we hold that “the Recess” is limited to intersession recesses. The Board conceded at oral argument that the appointments at issue were not made during the intersession recess: the President made his three appointments to the Board on January 4, 2012, after Congress began a new session on January 3 and while that new session continued. 158 Cong. Rec.S1 (daily ed. Jan. 3, 2012). Considering the text, history, and structure of the Constitution, these appointments were invalid from their inception. Because the Board lacked a quorum of three members when it issued its decision in this case on February 8, 2012, its decision must be vacated. See 29 U.S.C.§ 153(b); New Process Steel , 130 S. Ct. at 2644–45


Allowing the President to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution's separation of powers," said the judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. "An interpretation of 'the recess' that permits the President to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction. This cannot be the law."

( Ruling embedded here)

It is very clear they ruled Obama's appointments invalid, which nullifies any and all decisions, yet now, the National Labor Relations Board Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce issued a statement saying they will ignore the court's ruling and continue to make illegal decisions.

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a decision finding that the Jan. 4, 2012 recess appointments of three members to the National Labor Relations Board were invalid. In response, Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce issued the following statement:

"The Board respectfully disagrees with today’s decision and believes that the President’s position in the matter will ultimately be upheld. It should be noted that this order applies to only one specific case, Noel Canning, and that similar questions have been raised in more than a dozen cases pending in other courts of appeals.

In the meantime, the Board has important work to do. The parties who come to us seek and expect careful consideration and resolution of their cases, and for that reason, we will continue to perform our statutory duties and issue decisions."

GOP House Speaker John Boehner welcomed the ruling as "a victory for accountability in government."

The question now is what will Boehner, the Republican controlled House and the Democratically controlled Senate  do about  Obama's illegal appointee's  refusal to abide by the Federal Court's ruling?

[Update] Via Washington Examiner:

Obama bragged about the unilateral Cordray appointment yesterday when he re-nominated Cordray to continue in the post.

“[Cordray] wasn’t allowed an up or down vote in the Senate, and as a consequence, I took action to appoint him on my own,” Obama said.  “And over the last year, Richard has proved to be a champion of American consumers.”

The CFPB chief acknowledged in an email last year that his appointment might be overturned.
 “There is a chance (a minor chance in my view, though everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion) that the appointment would be invalidated by a court,” Cordray wrote to staff last February.

State National Bank of Big Spring, Texas, has filed a lawsuit challenging Cordray’s appointment that could eventually be heard by the same court that just overturned the NLRB ‘recess’ appointments, which were made on the same day as the Cordray appointment.

And a reminder:

 In 2007, Harry Reid started holding pro-forma Senate sessions to prevent George Bush from naming recess appointments. (Source- CNN from 2007)

Last year when Republicans did the same, Obama named them anyway. This ruling invalidates Obama's appointments.(Source- The Hill)

Friday, January 25, 2013

Federal Judge Rules ICE Agents Have Standing To Sue Obama Administration

By Susan Duclos

A seriously bad week for the Obama administration in federal courts. Friday a federal appeals court panel of three ruled Obama's  recess appointments were unconstitutional and invalid. (More on that in a previous WuA piece here)

Yesterday a ruling which will lead to a court battle over Obama's amnesty by executive order.

Via Numbers USA:

Federal District Court Judge Reed O'Conner has ruled that 10 ICE agents and officers have standing to challenge in Federal court the so-called Morton Memo on prosecutorial discretion and the DREAM directive on deferred action. The agents filed their complaint in October, charging that unconstitutional and illegal directives from DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and ICE Director John Morton order the agents to violate federal laws or face adverse employment actions. This is a major first step for the ICE agents in their case against the administration.

In his 35-page decision, Judge O'Conner found that the ICE agents and officers have standing, but that the State of Mississippi does not. He has not yet ruled, however, on the agents' motion for a preliminary injunction to halt implementation of the DHS directives.

The primary impetus for the lawsuit came last June, when Secretary Napolitano issued a memo offering deferred action and employment authorization to illegal aliens under age 31 who meet certain criteria similar to those outlined in the DREAM Act, which has failed to pass Congress on three occasions.

Even before that, though, ICE Director Morton essentially gutted immigration enforcement by issuing a memo on prosecutorial discretion that, in effect, prohibits ICE agents and officers from arresting or removing any but the most violent criminal aliens. Under Morton's stated policy, most of the 12 million or so illegal aliens that the administration wants to legalize are currently safe from deportation.

This is just one of the reasons that the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council voted unanimously that they have no confidence in Morton's ability to lead the agency. Aside from ordering ICE agents to not enforce federal immigration laws, Morton has also gutted worksite enforcement and the 287(g) program, which is a cooperative effort between local law enforcement and federal immigration agents.

Read Judge O'Conner's full decision here.

ANNE MANETAS is the Deputy Director of NumbersUSA
NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.

 Many might remember when Barack Obama first offered Amnesty by executive order back in June 2012, which paved the way for the DREAM directive on deferred action. At the time this caused an uproar and criticisms from the Republican party. (Source- CNN)

(Grammatical changes have been made to this post)

Federal Appeals Court Rules Obama's Recess Appointments Were Illegal And Unconstitutional

By Susan Duclos

[Update reminder] In 2007, Harry Reid started holding pro-forma Senate sessions to prevent George Bush from naming recess appointments. (Source- CNN from 2007)

Last year when Republicans did the same, Obama named them anyway. This ruling invalidates Obama's appointments.(Source- The Hill) [End Update]

A federal appeals court has ruled that Barack Obama abused his powers when he made recess appointments last year when the Senate was technically not in recess, making those appointments unconstitutional and illegal.

(Ruling embedded below the post)

Via AP:

President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board.

The unanimous decision is an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions.

The ruling also throws into question Obama's recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray's appointment, also made under the recess circumstance, has been challenged in a separate case.

More from Washington Times:

The three-judge panel’s ruling is a major blow to Mr. Obama. The judges ruled that the appointments Mr. Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board are illegal, and the board no longer has a quorum to operate.

But the ruling has even broader constitutional significance, with the judges arguing that the president’s recess appointment powers don’t apply to “intrasession” appointments — those made when Congress has left town for a few days or weeks.

The judges signaled the power only applies after Congress has adjourned sine die, which is a legislative term of art that signals the end to a long work period. In modern times, it means the president could only use his powers when Congress quits business at the end of a year.

“The dearth of intrasession appointments in the years and decades following the ratification of the Constitution speaks far more impressively than the history of recent presidential exercise of a supposed power to make such appointments,” the judges wrote.

“Recent presidents are doing no more than interpreting the Constitution. While we recognize that all branches of government must of necessity exercise their understanding of the Constitution in order to perform their duties faithfully thereto, ultimately it is our role to discern the authoritative meaning of the supreme law.”

The case is likely to end up before the Supreme Court, and it turns on the definition of what the Constitution means when it says “recess.”

To put it bluntly, Obama just got his ass handed to him.

[Update] Some great analysis from Hot Air over this decision and the possible future ramifications.

[Update] Obama's Illegal, Invalid and Unconstitutional Appointee Will Ignore Federal Court Ruling

(The portion dealing with The meaning of "the recess," starts on page 16 of the embedded ruling below)

(Grammatical error corrected in this post)

Fontana School PD Purchases AR-15's, Same Guns Feinstein Wants To Ban, To Protect Students

By Susan Duclos

AR-15's are specifically named in the list of guns that gun grabber, Dianne Feinstein, proposes to ban in her Senate bill, but evidenced by the Fontana Unified School District Police Department purchase of 14 of the AR-15's, authorities seem to believe those guns are one of the best ways to defend the lives of their students.

Via CBS Los Angeles:

FUSD Superintendent Cali Olsen-Binks approved the acquisition of the rifles, which are being stored on campuses in locked safes for responding police officers in the event of an attack.

Fontana Police Chief Rodney Jones and Mayor Acquanetta Warren supported Olsen-Binks’ decision.
“It’s unfortunate that we have to have that, but it’s the best message we can send to anybody that thinks to harm our children,” said Jones. “The message we’re sending is…not here, not now, we’re prepared for you. And if you seek to harm our children, we will neutralize that threat and you will most likely be killed.”

Warren said, “Everyone wants children safe. At this time, we as a community, we have to come together and find other ways. But in the interim, our police officers need to be equipped.”

Feinstein asserts these types of guns are not used for defense and attempts to link guns to hunting, but Second Amendment supporters continue to maintain that gun are first and foremost a means of defense. Of home, of family, of personal safety and "necessary to the security of a free state," as is stated in the Second Amendment which guarantees a citizens right to bear arms.

As Expected, Filibuster Reform Becomes Filibuster Refined

By Susan Duclos

Conservatives said, time and again that all Harry Reid's bluster and talk of stripping the filibuster from the Senate or making meaningful "reforms" that would prevent the minority party from filibustering, was nothing more than Reid spewing nonsense.

As has been pointed out multiple times, had Reid actually done such a thing, bills passed by limiting the minority voice would never make it through the Republican controlled House of Representatives, with Speaker John Boehner saying it would be "dead on arrival" and should Democrats lose the majority in the Senate in 2014, their own "reform" would have stripped them of everything filibuster reform supporters wanted to take away from Republicans now.

Wonkblog- Harry Reid: “I’m not personally, at this stage, ready to get rid of the 60-vote threshold

Long term, it would have been biting off their nose to spite their face.

So, the highly touted filibuster reform became nothing more than filibuster refined by the time party leaders reached a deal.

I'll let the disappointed liberals explain:

Ezra Klein

But the deal Reid struck with McConnell doesn’t end the filibuster against the motion to proceed. Rather, it creates two new pathways for moving to a new bill. In one, the majority leader can, with the agreement of the minority leader and seven senators from each party, sidestep the filibuster when moving to a new bill. In the other, the majority leader can short-circuit the filibuster against moving to a new bill so long as he allows the minority party to offer two germane amendments. Note that in all cases, the minority can still filibuster the bill itself.

A pro-reform aide I spoke to was agog. “Right now, you have to negotiate with McConnell to get on a bill,” he said. “Tomorrow, if this passes, you still need to negotiate with McConnell to get on a bill. It changes nothing on how we move forward.”

Klein concludes:

But for now, Republicans have little to fear. The filibuster is safe. Even filibusters against the motion to proceed are safe. And filibuster reformers have lost once again.

Another liberal site: TPM- "Filibuster Reform Ends With A Whimper: How It Fell Apart"

Reformers in and out of the Senate believe that Reid tapped into their enthusiasm to advance his goal. “Reid said he wants to make it easier to move on bills,” said a pro-reform aide. “This doesn’t do that. He still has to negotiate with McConnell to get on a bill. It’s a negligible difference to how the Senate operates today.”

The outside reform source accused Reid of “a total 180 reversal.”

“Everything we were seeing led us to believe … that he was very serious about including [the shifting of the burden component],” the source said. “But that all hinged on him using the constitutional option, which I don’t think he ever really intended to do.”

Seems Reid came to the conclusion that in politics, the landscape can change with just one election and historically a president's party loses congressional seats in midterm elections, especially a president's second term.

20 Democratic Senate seats are on the ballot for the 2014 midterm elections (22 with special elections) and 13 Republican Senate seats. Almost all the Republican Senate seats are in safe states, while a number of Democratic Senate seats are in right of the center states and considered vulnerable.

If Democrats lose control of the US Senate in the 2014 midterm elections, these disappointed reform supporters can, should, and will be thanking Harry Reid for preserving the filibuster.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Lesson Learned: Lay Down With Gun Grabbers, Lose Second Amendment Supporters

By Susan Duclos

Back story: The Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show decided to to limit the sale or display of modern sporting rifles (also called ARs) at their February 2-10  event in Harrisburg, Pa.

The NRA and 170 companies and celebrities pulled out of the show, one saying "We need to stand firm against those siding with the anti-gun crowd." 

Via Washington Examiner:

Pennsylvania Rep. Tom Marino said he was disappointed in the cancellation, and blamed Reed Exhibition's gun ban. "The decision represents yet another attempt to undermine protections guaranteed to all Americans under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and it restricts the ability for law-abiding citizens to purchase legal firearms that are increasingly being used for hunting in a number of states. I encourage Reed Exhibitions to swiftly reverse its decision and for the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture to take steps to ensure that all future events of this nature held at the Farm Show Complex are held in a manner that respects the Second Amendment rights of all Pennsylvanians."

The National Wild Turkey Federation, a group supported by turkey hunters, said they were boycotting to raise awareness of the threat against the Second Amendment. "We feel strongly about the importance of the Second Amendment in pursuit of our mission of preserving our hunting heritage," said Skip Motts, president of the NWTF Pennsylvania State Chapter.

Outcome: Show organizers have been forced to cancel.

Lesson learned and should be carefully observed by any politician in Washington is: Lay down with gun grabbers and lose Second Amendment supporters.


Economy, Jobs, Budget Deficit Top Three Priorities For Americans, Gun Laws in Bottom 4 of 21

By Susan Duclos

According to Pews Public's Policy Priorities for 2013,  what American's see as priorities differ greatly from what Obama has been using his bully pulpit to push.

The top three on the list of priorities for 2013, in order, are the strengthening the economy, improving job situation and reducing the budget deficit. 72 percent see reducing the budget deficit as a priority.

This puts the American public directly on the GOP's side in the upcoming March battle over spending cuts and the fiscal responsibility of balancing the nation's budget.

In his recent speeches, Barack Obama has listed one of his main priorities as gun control and passing more gun laws, but Americans disagree and strengthening gun laws is in the bottom four, coming in 18th out of 21 policy goals tested, with only 37 percent seeing new guns laws as a priority.