Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and many others on the left are setting the stage for the political and media “attacks” on a “radical” Supreme Court.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy recently took the extraordinary step of publicly lobbying the Chief Justice after oral argument but before its ruling. “I trust that he will be a Chief Justice for all of us and that he has a strong institutional sense of the proper role of the judicial branch,” the Democrat declared on the Senate floor. “The conservative activism of recent years has not been good for the Court.”

He added that, “Given the ideological challenge to the Affordable Care Act and the extensive, supportive precedent, it would be extraordinary for the Supreme Court not to defer to Congress in this matter that so clearly affects interstate commerce.”

The elite liberal press has followed with pointed warnings that Mr. Roberts has a choice—either uphold ObamaCare, or be portrayed a radical who wants to repeal the New Deal and a century of precedent. This attack is itself clearly partisan, but it’s worth rehearsing the arguments to show how truly flawed they are.

Why do I even bother with Leahy? He’s a senator and has the ear of the media that’s why. I ask Leahy and any Democrats/liberals out there this one question. What recent Supreme Court cased during the last 20 years would be an example of conservative activism?

I really do want to know, so provide your answer in the comments section below, or if you’re shy, send us an email. I’ll give you a few days and post your examples before the weekend.

By the way, I’d be perfectly fine repealing the New Deal and a century of precedent with the full understanding the states have the ability – per the United States Constitution – to step in and provide many of the products and services now provided by the federal government.

As I have said before, Article 1, Section 8 seems very clear to me. It provides specific directives concerning the powers of Congress and therefore the federal government. The 10th Amendment affirms Article 1, Section 8 by again reminding everyone we are the United States of America, and powers not delegated to the United States (the federal government) by the Constitution are the exclusive realm of the states.

This is our fight for the next 50 years, get that into your heads. Yup, it will take a lot of time, but we must start today.

More on the Supreme Court’s possible overturn of Obamacare and the mandate at Volokh Conspiracy.

From The Guardian.

Shares in Facebook fell by more than 10% within minutes of the markets opening on Monday as underwriters deserted the stock and questions continued to be asked about how Nasdaq, the second largest US stock exchange, handled the flotation.

Pre-market trading had seen heavy selling of the stock, which was supported just above its $38 listing price on Friday by the leading banks who bought shares ahead of the initial public offering (IPO).

Within minutes of the shares going on sale again they were in freefall, and were soon trading close to $33 before recovering to end the day at $34.03, 10.4% below their flotation price on Friday.

I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest the social media genre of tech companies are extremely unique simply because every single one of them is doomed to failure. Let me rephrase. I’m not saying Facebook will fail, but what it comes down to is the simple fact users will be more than willing to stop posting to one social media site and start up somewhere else if everyone else does it. Remember MySpace?

After all, it’s a free service where no contracts are involved and at some point you have to ask the question … do I really want to hear from all of these “friends?”

Facebook thinks the users Timeline will be some sort of historical record – or maybe a journal – the user will want to update and keep in the future. They think you’ll be fully vested at some point and won’t leave. Honestly Facebook users, how often do you look back at a post you made last week let alone last year?

All it will take is one security breach – even if it is blown out of proportion by the media – to get users to switch over to Google + and trust me, Google is awaiting the fall and the onslaught of new users ditching Facebook for one reason or another.

Don’t take my opinion as fact or the truth, do what you will.

What else could the school system do? My original point stands, this classroom sound like it’s out-of-control and the teacher sounds like she’s way underwater. Anyway, suspended she is.

A teacher at a Rowan County school has been suspended after getting national attention for a YouTube video video that surfaced last week showing her yelling at her students, saying it’s wrong to criticize the president.

In the YouTube video, North Rowan High School teacher Tonya Dixon-Neely and her students were debating several political issues, including a discussion about President Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

She’s a lefty that in my opinion is a bully that does not seem to have control of her classroom.

The audio is below, but I can not figure out if this was part of a former lecture or just a jab-fest before or after class or something. If the class is in formal session, the first thing to note is that the teacher has zero control of the class.

In short, the student seems much more familiar with the Constitution, the law and current events than the teacher. Seriously, it’s like the teacher has a stubborn opinion and the student is the one playing devils advocate – with actual facts – to get the teacher to think about the subject.

That said, the teacher is the one with the power in the classroom and it’s funny as hell she’s complaining about Romney being a bully when she is a the real bully, suggesting students could be charged with a criminal offense after “slandering” the president.

None of this should surprise you.

The video shows a classroom discussion about the Washington Post hit piece about Mitt Romney bullying a kid some five decades ago. One student says, “Didn’t Obama bully someone though?” The teacher says: “Not to my knowledge.” The student then cites the fact that Obama, in Dreams from My Father, admits to shoving a little girl. “Stop, no, because there is no comparison,” screams the teacher. Romney is “running for president. Obama is the president.”

The student responds that both are “just men.”

The teacher yells — literally yells — that Obama is “due the respect that every other president is due … Listen,” she continues, “let me tell you something, you will not disrespect the president of the United States in this classroom.” She yells over the student repeatedly, and yells at him that it’s disrespect for him to even debate about Romney and Obama.

The student says that he can say what he wants.

“Not about him, you won’t,” says the teacher.

The teacher then tells the student – wrongly – that it is a criminal offense to say bad things about a president. “Do you realize that people were arrested for saying things bad about Bush? Do you realize you are not supposed to slander the president?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjpWaESn_9g

On the group’s About Us page, they can’t even muster the skills to define a goal. Maybe it’s implied or something, but they just want to rally against Rush. There is no objective listed. Supposedly they are “ready to do the right thing” whatever that might be. I’m betting they think there is a market for T-shirts or something.

Meanwhile, Rush’s new Facebook page, Rush Babes for America, gathered more Likes in one week than Media Matters for America collected in almost four years.

In less than a week, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh’s “Rush Babes for America” Facebook page has accumulated more “likes” than the liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America’s (MMFA) Facebook page has accumulated in just under four years.

MMFA is currently waging a campaign to get Rush Limbaugh off the air for his comments pertaining to contraception activist Sandra Fluke. On Monday evening, MMFA’s Facebook had 57,687 “likes,” accumulated since the organization launched its Facebook page on August 8, 2008.

Also on Monday evening, Limbaugh’s jab at those who have demonized his rhetorical treatment of women — his “Rush Babes for America” Facebook page — had topped 60,483 “likes.” Limbaugh’s group was open for public viewing just prior to the beginning of his radio program on Tuesday, May 8, 2012.

Back to Talkers.com, who lets us know about the seven protesters in Washington.

NOW-Organized Protest of Rush Limbaugh at WMAL, Washington Fizzles.  The National Organization for Women-sponsored “Enough Rush” campaign got off to an ignominious start outside the studios of affiliate WMAL, Washington, DC Friday, May 18 as just seven protesters marched.  As reported by Fox News, NOW announced the campaign against the Premiere Networks talk radio superstar in April and has partnered with Media Matters for America to target affiliate stations and their advertisers.  Friday’s event in DC was part of a national protest scheduled for that day.  Reports of substantial protests at other Limbaugh affiliate stations have not surfaced.

Colleen Curry over at ABC News goes back to dig up the same old information on the “exploding” growth of militias and White supremacist groups.

The number of radical hate groups and militias has exploded in recent years in reaction to the changing makeup of America, and new census figures showing the majority of babies born in 2011 were non-white could fuel those simmering tensions, experts who track hate groups warned.

“White supremacist groups have been having a meltdown since the census bureau predicted that non-Hispanic whites would lose the majority by 2050,” said Mark Potok, spokesman for the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups. “The demographic change in this country is the single most important driver in the growth of hate groups and extremist groups over the last few years.”

As a reminder, Cooke got the following from SPLC in response to questions concerning why they did not cover the extreme fringe of the #Occupy movement and other left wing groups.

“Do you have any plans to start tracking Occupy Wall Street after a hate group tried to blow up a bridge?”

“No, I don’t think so,” he said. “We blogged it right away when it happened.” I asked him why he thought this deserved only a blog post, and he explained that the SPLC only deals with “hatred of people based on class characteristics,” which a little more pushing revealed meant “immutable characteristics such as a person’s eye or skin color.” “So,” I asked, “Occupy doesn’t count because it doesn’t hate people based on their innate characteristics?” He assented, but didn’t explain adequately why SPLC is vocal on “Islamophobia,” for example — whatever Islam is, it is not an “immutable” characteristic — and why it concerns itself with matters of traditionalist Catholic theology.

…

[T]he SPLC only tracks those who commit violence or who seek to destroy whole systems in the name of an ideology.

“Isn’t that exactly what happened in Cleveland?” I asked. “These five men, all linked with Occupy Wall Street, attempted to blow up a bridge as an overture to the wholesale destruction of Cleveland, Ohio, and in the name of anarchism. They also looked to blow up the Republican convention.”

“They were anarchists,” he repeated.

“Yes?”

He paused. “We’re not really set up to cover the extreme Left.”

No, you choose to ignore what the extreme left does.

Of course, when they completed a field test study with 1,500 students … there was no problem. From Fox News.

The Florida Department of Education lowered the performance level standard on a state writing exam after only 27 percent of fourth graders passed, MyFoxOrlando reports.

The decision to lower the standard from a four to a three was made in an emergency conference call Tuesday. The test scores range from zero to six.

Fourth grade teachers say the test inadequately reflected their pupils’ writing abilities. They say the main reason the students did poorly was the test question was too hard.

According to the Florida Department of Education, the prompt, or essay topic, for fourth graders in the state of Florida this year was, “Suppose you or someone else had a chance to ride a camel. Imagine what happens on this camel ride. Write a story about what happens on this camel ride.”

Since this was a writing exam, there should not have been a problem – or a grade reduction – if the 4th graders confused a camel with a horse or a bear. The grade reduction should have been directly related to their writing skills. To put it another way, this is a writing exam, not a zoology exam.

This really sucks, since the Shooting Sports Center is a nice, comfortable and safe place for introducing new shooters to the sport learn about firearms, and do some training. You had the opportunity to rent a variety of Smith & Wesson firearms to “try before you buy,” and you could join IDPA matches held two or three times per month with as many as 50 participants enjoying an evening or morning of shooting with really good people.

Again, this was – and is – a very safe place to shoot. They took the introduction to firearms very seriously, requiring non-members visiting watch a safety video prior to entering the range and be directly supervised by a range safety officer while on the line.

Unfortunately, four crummy felon thugs ruined it for law-abiding citizens.

Court documents show that in May 2011, 22-year-old Manuel Lora went to the range with some friends and fired several shots. Lora is a convicted felon, and two of his friends are also convicts. …

But federal law states that it is illegal to possess a firearm and ammunition by a person convicted of a crime punishable by at least one year in prison.

Federal law didn’t stop Lora and the others from using the range. Court documents show they falsely signed liability waivers and certificates saying they’d never been convicted of crimes punishable by a year in prison. All four lied. Documents state Lora used several pistols rented from the range, and months later, police said he shot and killed 25-year-old Jonathon Tallaj in Springfield with a similar weapon he’d fired at the shooting range. Lora has since been charged with Tallaj’s murder.

Note Lora did not, and could not buy the gun used to murder Tallaj from Smith & Wesson, he obtained the gun illegally since he’s a convicted felon.

Supposedly, Smith & Wesson was not bullied by the anti-gun state of Massachusetts, but I don’t believe that for a minute. Their statement…

We recently made the business decision to temporarily close our Shooting Sports Center while we make changes to better align its purpose with our key business objectives as a firearm manufacturer. This is a decision that we made internally and on our own accord for a number of business-related reasons which include the many complexities of operating a public range, combined with our desire to focus on our manufacturing operation.

Why don’t I believe it? I guess it does not really matter, but let’s say Smith & Wesson caved to anti-gun pressure back during the late years of the Clinton administration and a lot of people have not forgiven them. Smith & Wesson’s leadership has an image problem.

Anyway… What was Smith & Wesson supposed to do? Verify through a background check for every person who came into the range to try shooting or rent a firearm? Certainly doable, but that opens up a bunch of issues and a lot of questions.

If you think background checks are reasonable, what do you do about registered sex offenders who move among us in public? Should malls be required to complete a background check on everyone who comes in to shop? Certainly, sex offenders on a registry can be dangerous right? How about a school football game? School plays and musicals? Even if sex offenders are banned from school grounds, the system – mostly – relies on self-enforcement. Should a mall or school be responsible if sex offenders commit crimes on their property or follows someone from their property and attacks them? At least Smith & Wesson requires all participants answer the “are you a convicted felon” question, make a copy of their IDs and keep the documentation. (Smith & Wesson must have provided law enforcement with the liability releases and questionnaire.)

As a patron, I hope Smith & Wesson leadership would read this post, and I’d like to encourage them to immediately again open the range to the law-abiding public.

Update: I found the following statement online, but can not confirm it actually came from Smith & Wesson.

Due to a number of business and infrastructure factors which include planned upgrades, we are electing to keep the SSC closed on a temporary basis. This closure applies to the general public, current members, law enforcement, IDPA members, VIP’s (without prior approval) and all Smith & Wesson employees. The closure will remain in effect until further notice. We anticipate a mid-summer opening.

During the coming months we will reassess the entire operation to assure alignment with our core business objectives and we plan to open as a private facility with a renewed purpose intent on supporting our commitment to the shooting sports industry. Our plans will encompass continued access to License-To-Carry (LTC) and other training programs as well as FirstShots®, IDPA events, Scout activities, Hunters Education classes and others.

You can read more in this Washington Times editorial, but here is the bullet point story…

• Army 1st Lt. Augustine Kim returns home after being injured during his second tour in Afghanistan.
• He picks up his personal weapons from his parents home in New Jersey (where he kept them for safe storage while on deployment) and heads back to his North Carolina home by car.
• The weapons – being transported per federal guidelines – were properly secured in the back of his vehicle and locked up, separate from ammunition.
• On the way, he had a doctors appointment at Walter Reed Medical Center and stopped there. Reed is within the Washington, D.C. limits.
• On the way out, he gets lost in the city and gets pulled over. Knowing he’s transporting his legally owned personal weapons properly per federal guidelines, he allows the DC police department to search his car.

It’s not clear what brought about the traffic stop or if there was any probable cause to search his vehicle, but we do know Kim was arrested and charged with four felonies.

The cops asked Lt. Kim if they could search his vehicle. The lieutenant agreed because his guns were cased and stored in full compliance with federal firearm-transport laws. “I told them I had been under the impression that as long as the guns were locked in the back, with the ammunition separate, that I was allowed to transport them,” Lt. Kim told The Washington Times. “They said, ‘That may be true, however, since you stopped at Walter Reed, that makes you in violation of the registration laws.’ ” It is illegal to possess a firearm anywhere in the District other than the home. He was handcuffed and brought back to police headquarters, and his guns were confiscated as evidence.

The tank platoon leader was booked on four felony counts of carrying outside the home, which threatened a maximum penalty of a $20,000 fine and 20 years imprisonment. “I knew if I got one felony, my military career would be over,” Lt. Kim recalled. The next day, he hired firearms attorney Richard Gardiner to represent him. After several months of negotiations, Mr. Gardiner persuaded the U.S. attorney to offer a deal in which Lt. Kim would plead guilty to one misdemeanor charge of one unregistered gun which would then be dismissed if he avoided violating the law for nine months. Though all charges were dropped a year ago, Lt. Kim’s record has not yet been expunged.

The city of Washington has been dragging their feet when it comes to returning Kim’s personal property. Bastards. Thieves. Criminals all of them.

There is a huge problem here that must be resolved. I really wish Kim had the ability and backing to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court, and the NRA or some other gun organization should have backed him 100 percent. There was absolutely no intent to commit a crime here, and as a matter of fact, Kim took the steps to research the law and proceed as directed.

But he made a stop in DC and didn’t just blow through or go around. What if he needed gas? What if he got stuck in a storm? What if he got a flat tire or broke down? What if you were on a flight was re-directed to a city or state with firearm laws so restrictive they could charge you with multiple felonies as soon as you picked up your bags?

All of these things have happened to people, and there have been multiple instances where the New York Port Authority Police hassled or arrested people flying out of New York Airports.

This issue must be fixed.

I guess it’s kind of like telling Hamas, the Taliban and al-Qaida…

“Hey, we’re going to leave the Middle East next week. Since we’re leaving we expect you will think they might stop harassing the Israelis and recognize their state. We also will expect you to think they might faithfully honor the human rights of women and children”.

What kind of foreign policy game is this?

An influential panel is calling for an 80 percent reduction of U.S. nuclear weapons and an elimination of all nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missiles.

In a report for the advocacy group Global Zero, retired Gen. James Cartwright and others argue that the U.S. needs no more than 900 total nuclear weapons for its security in a post-Cold War world. The report chaired by Cartwright, a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff known to be close to President Barack Obama, comes at a time that the president is weighing a range of sharp nuclear reductions.

The president isn’t weighing much of anything right now, except the cash flowing into his reelection campaign. He won’t mention this at all until after the election. If he wins, we already know he’ll feel he has more flexibility to act unilaterally.

The report argues that such drastic cuts in nuclear forces by the United States and Russia could open the way for the two countries to open arms control talks with other countries, including China.

That’s funny, and the first thing I thought was “what about North Korea?” I guess if they mentioned North Korea, their report would lose all credibility.