In their monthly magazine, the NRA cited how Justice Sotomayor stated one thing about gun rights and then dissented in the recent McDonald v. Chicago decision.

Sen. Leahy: Is it safe to say that you accept the Supreme Court’s decision as establishing that the Second Amendment right is an individual right? Is that correct?

Judge Sotomayor: Yes, sir.

Leahy: Thank you. And in the Second Circuit decision, Maloney v. Cuomo, you, in fact, recognized the Supreme Court decided in Heller that the personal right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution against federal law restrictions. Is that correct?

Sotomayor: It is.

Leahy: And you accept and applied the Heller decision when you decided Maloney?

Sotomayor: Completely, sir. I accepted and applied established Supreme Court precedent that the Supreme Court in its own opinion in Heller acknowledged, answered the — a different question.

The NRA points out that in the McDonald v. Chicago decision, she dissented and agreed with her liberal colleague Justice Breyer.  He states in his dissenting opinion (pg. 210), “In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense.”

If Sotomayor recognized that the “personal right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment”, why did she agree with Breyer?  Normally, if a justice agrees in part, they will provide their own dissent.  Sotomayor did not do this.  Stevens, who also dissented with the majority opinion, filed his own dissent.  Sotomayor has filed her own dissents before.  So why not in this case?

Somewhere, she lied.  She either lied during her confirmation hearings or she lied on the bench.  Either way, Congress should investigate and find out.  Hopefully, if the Republicans retake the House in November, they will start impeachment proceedings.

The Attorney General of the United States recently dropped all charges against the Black Panthers for voter intimidation.  YouTube has a few videos of the voter intimidation.  Justice Department did not release an official statement but simply dropped the charges.  Most charges are dropped when there is not enough evidence to move forward with a trial, but with the video evidence, it seems like this is not the case.

The most disturbing aspect about this is the lack of communication from the White House or the Justice Department.  During the Bush administration, Justice Department officials cited plenty of evidence to move forward.  It is Obama’s Justice Department who has decided that there was “insufficient evidence.”

The facts of the case are that two Black Panthers, both wearing camouflage fatigues and one carrying a night stick, were walking in front of the entrance of a voting place.  While the reports differ, the common denominator was that people felt frightened at the sight of the man.  The eye-witness reports range from outright barring of white people to simply “looking mean.”  Since the Justice Department has not released their investigation notes, it’s hard to say.

When the Justice Department dropped the charges, they have given permission for other groups to “look mean” at the polls.  Members of the KKK, in their robes, can stand outside polling places.  They don’t have to say anything.  They can even hold the door open for people.  If this is ALL that they do, they should not get charged.  Under the Fourteenth Amendment, any “intimidation” that does not go beyond that of “looking mean” should be dismissed.  The sad fact may be that because the Obama administration is so adamant about flouting the Constitution and the law, Tea Partiers may end up being arrested and charged for simply wearing Anti-Obama shirts when they go to vote.

Of Obama wants to be the great president he says, he should fire Eric Holder and conduct a special investigation into this case.  A dismissed charged does not attach jeopardy so the Black Panthers can be charged again.  Make the investigation transparent, open to the public, and independent.  Then again, the last time there was a special independent investigator, he was fired for finding fraudulent activity between Obama and a supporter.

WMATA instituted it’s largest ever fare hike, costing Metro riders at least $.30 more per trip.  The excuse this time is “to close a $189 million budget gap for the fiscal year.”  This was the same excuse used when Metro proposed an emergancy $.10 fare hike.

On June 10, 2010, the WMATA Board approved the FY2011 budget. From the FY2010 budget, there was a $189 million shortfall.  The changes to the FY2010 budget were as follows:

• Medical and Safety initiatives: $1 million
• Safety recommendations: $6 million
• Eliminate 1% pay increase for non-union employees: ($1 million) (emphasis added)
• Departmental reductions: ($6 million)

And here’s what WMATA did to try to close the gap (figures in the millions):

• Additional departmental reductions: $16
• MetroAccess Service: $9
• Fare Increases: $108 (emphasis added)
• Borrowing Preventive Maintenance: $30 (emphasis added)

As of April 2010 (the latest budgetary review available), 16.9% of the budget has been used for “services” and “supplies”, both of which are not defined.  So that 16.9% is being overly generious.  My initial entry showed that WMATA spent 77.6% of their budget on salaries and benefits.  As of April 2010, this number is 70.8% of their budget, still higher than the health care secture, which demands 52% of the budget on average.

Note that no increases were eliminted for union employees.  As of this writing, I could not find the current union contract for WMATA.  The only one available expired June 30, 2008.

Instead of reducing salaries, which is where WMATA is bleeding the most, they instead increased fares and “borrowed” $30 million from their preventive maintenance reserves.  My question is if they had $30 million to borrow, why wasn’t that money used to actually prevent maintenance on the aging system?

Over the past two weeks, WMATA has experiences several problems: one major security oversight where someone was able to walk onto a MetroBus parking lot, steal a bus, and then crash into a tree.  A few days ago, smoke billowed out of the Dupont Circle Metro Station when one of the escalators stopped working.  Lastly, a MetroAccess driver was arrested for sexually assaulting a passenger.

It’s clear that safety is NOT a top priority for WMATA.  The numbers make this obvious.  They care more about pleasing the ATU and their members than repairing the system.  The problem with a union controlling a transit system is that it doesn’t matter how many people ride.  If they don’t get enough money, they’ll complain to the government, who in turn will provide more funding, which will go to the union employees and not to repairs.  Then something will break, the transit system will say it needs money to make things safer to increase fares.  Then people will stop riding, causing the system to not get enough money and round and round it goes.

Kellen Lauer is misguided in opting to support so-called clean energy in lieu of oil.  Citing the gulf disaster only furthers this point.  The technology behind clean energy is still developing.  Furthermore, the energy transformation for many “green” sources is so low that they are not yet economically viable.  For example, solar power only converts less than 10% of the energy it receives.

I agree with the fact that we must continue to develop renewable energy sources.  But until they meet or exceed the power outputs of oil, we must continue to find sources of oil.  We don’t stop driving cars because we see accidents everyday.  Neither should we stop drilling because of an oil spill.

If Senator Jon Kyl’s story is true, congress should seriously start considering articles of impeachment on Obama.  The President’s sworn duty is to protect this country first and foremost.  If Obama is using political manuvering to not secure our borders, he is neglecting the job that people have voted him to do.  The Chief Executive is to execute the laws of the land, not write them.  If he wanted to do that, he should have stayed a senator.

Impeachment is not meant to be an easy process but when the President refuses to do his job, congress needs to get the courage to do the right thing and begin impeachment proceedings.  However, time has shown that courage is something that both the executive and legislative branch seem to lack.

There are two republicans running in the primary: Matthew Berry and Patrick Murray. Berry is a new-comer to politics and is seeking his first elected office. He is unashamedly homosexual, living with his life partner in liberal Arlington, VA.

Patrick Murray, whose name sounds so familiar but can’t place it, is also running in the primary. Residing in more-blue-than-red Alexandria, VA, Murray is also running for his first elected office. Little is given away about his private life on his website. He is a retired U.S. Army Colonel.

I’ve said this before: I’m a Republican by force, not by choice. What I mean by this is that I’m often more conservative than the Republican party tends to be. Since we live in a two-party system, unfortunately, the only option is the vote for candidates that best represent my views. These candidates, more often than not, side Republican.

Berry and Murray have similar political views. They both have pledged to repeal the Healthcare bill if elected. They stand remarkably close in terms of national defense. I believe the biggest difference comes down to two issues: gay marriage and abortion. And this is where I made my choice.

Berry, who is homosexual, supports legalized marriage for same-sex partners. This is understandable, but something I completely disagree with. I actually ran into Berry when I was having lunch with a friend at Famous Dave’s. When I asked him if he would support federal legislation, he said no, which was surprising. He said that he was a federalist and that question should be left to the states. While I disagree with this notion, I like the fact that he would not support federal legislation to do so, which also means that he would not support legislation to support marriage between one man and one woman. Murray’s stand is that marriage should be between one man and one woman, but agrees with Berry that this should be left to the states to decide.

My stance is that an issue this important should be decided at the federal level with a constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman.

Abortion legislation is likely to come up after the election. Something so pisive is never introduced on an election year for fear of political ramifications. However, it’s important to remember candidate’s voting record on these issues.

Berry and Murray both describe themselves as “pro-life” but this can mean many different things to different people. So both of them describe what they would support. Murray believes that abortion should be a “decision that should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her family and her doctor.” Berry, on the other hand, told me that he believes abortion should be made illegal.

While I believe the battle for making abortion illegal has been lost, I believe that Berry’s stance is important. His stance says to me that he believe life is important. It should just be terminated without regard. Abortion supporters will say, “What about a woman’s health?!” The word-choice here is important. Health can mean many things. I’ve heard “stretch marks” be used as a reason to abort a baby. Berry’s stance on this issue made my choice clear.

As a Christian, I believe God values every life, from conception to death. While I believe God would disapprove of Berry’s life-style choice, the fact is that there is still time for God to reveal this sin to him. When a baby is terminated, it is never given the chance to know God. (I’m not going to start a “Does a fetus go to heaven?” debate here.)

I believe God values life far more than he loathes sin. This is the reason Jesus came to save us. While I disapprove of Berry’s lifestyle (and told him so when we met), it doesn’t mean that I hate him or think he’s evil. There are many people in my life whom I believe are not living the life that God had intended. I lived that life for a while. It just means that God is still working on their hearts.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: I would vote for a Satan worshiper who believe in the right to life than a Christian who was pro-choice. I am not saying Berry is a Satan worshiper! Let’s make the clear! But the priorities he has placed is important and this key issue made the difference.

This is why I’m asking Christians as well as conservative Republicans to support Matthew Berry in the upcoming primary on June 8th.

Congressman Moran:

I would like to let you know that I’m deeply disappointed and very displeased with your performance as my representative to Congress. Your sponsorship of HR 2324 (Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009) is a prime example.

The FBI, Harvard University, among many other institutions have PROVEN that there is no such thing as a Gun Show Loophole in the way that the public understands it. Your failure to properly understand this and many other issues is why I will actively be pursuing your removal from office this November.

It is one thing for us to disagree on issues. It’s another to be completely misinformed.

Michael Soh

Alexandria, VA

I want him OUT OF OFFICE!  This guy has been nothing but a disappointment to the district and must be fired.  He voted for the Healthcare bill and the stimulus package.  This man has done more to hurt America than he has to help.  It’s time for him to be eliminated with extreme prejustice.

Dear Mr. Soh,

This responds to your request for a fee waiver relating to your Public Access to Records Policy (PARP) request for copies of the report that shows how much was paid to WMATA’s bus drivers, Metro train operators, maintenance personnel, and any other position that is unionized for the last five years.  You requested that we include how long the employee has worked for Metro and how long the employee has held their current position including both current and previously employed individuals.

Pursuant to PARP § 8.1, fees are charged for record search, review, and duplication when records are sought for commercial use.  However, fees are limited to charges for copying when records are not sought for commercial use or the request is made by a representative of the news media.  PARP §§ 8.1, 8.2.  PARP § 8.4 further provides that “documents shall be furnished without charge or at a charge reduced below the fees established in §§ 8.1 and 8.2, if WMATA determines that the disclosure of the information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to the public understanding of the operations of WMATA and is not primarily in the interest of the requester.”

WMATA has reviewed your email, dated April 2, 2010, where you provided information for us to determine whether you are eligible for a fee waiver.  You note that your intended use of the records is non-commercial, that you intend to use the data to accurately determine whether employees of WMATA are paid within market standards, and plan on releasing the records on your personal website.  Although your response suggests that you do not have a commercial interest in the records, we have denied your request for a waiver because merely posting records on a web site is not enough to meet the standards of disseminating the information to the public widely, Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Dept. of Justice, 185 F.Supp. 2d 54, 59 (D.D.C. 2002), or in a way for the public to understand the operations of WMATA.  See Brown v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, 445 F.Supp. 2d 1358, 1359  (M.D. Fla. 2006).  Wage rates are set through the collective bargaining process and not through individual WMATA managers.  Furthermore, information regarding wage rates regarding union employees are published on our website and can be viewed at http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/docs/local_689_050104-063008.pdf.  For all of these reasons, we have denied your request for a fee waiver.

We estimate that it would cost $208.00 for  5 hours of staff time to retrieve and review the records that you requested for exempt material.  We do not anticipate a fee for copying charges because the data will be provided electronically.  Please confirm via email whether you agree to pay the fee associated with processing your request by May 28, 2010.  If we do not receive your agreement to pay the fees by May 28, we will close your request file.

Sincerely,

Keysia A. Thom

I believe getting these records will be important especially in light of the fact that WMATA plans to increase fares AGAIN. The proposed increases will be the largest in the system’s history.

I would like your help in raising the money needed to get this request filled.  I’ve set up a Paypal page where you can donate money to help off-set this cost.  While I could appeal the decision to charge me, it would cause a delay in the release of the records.  I’m asking people to donate at least $2 because the fees Paypal charges make any less amount pointless.

As soon as I receive the data, I’ll make it available on this site for immediate download.  Once I finish my analysis, I’ll post the results.

I expect the data by the end of next week.

Mr. Thomas Sowell’s article was a bit outlandish, but the overall point is great.  One of the arguments used by the left to legalize gay marriage is, “Why do you get to decide what is moral and what isn’t?”  This same standard should be applied to Barack Obama.  His ‘enough money’ statement was tantamount to saying, “I’ll say when you’ve made enough.”  While he was talking to Wall Street, I doubt he would have the same attitude toward the unions that back him.  His statement reminds me of his campaign when he advocated “sharing the wealth.”

Mr. Sowell accurately wrote that the more people make, the more they donate.  The only reason why Obama would want to cap income is so that any excess could be taken by the government to be spent by the government.  And well all know how great that’s worked out.

Author’s note: This letter was not published.

Under the Obama administration, there have been several attacks within the homeland, many of which have failed not because of intelligence but out of sheer luck.  Suspected “Christmas pants” bomber Umar Abdulmutallab was allowed on the plane with explosives in his underwear, while many of his fellow passengers had to discard their water bottles.

The Ft. Hood Massacre, regardless of whether you call it a terror attack, happened on a military base where there was evidence of Maj. Nidal Hasan’s instability and the army did nothing.

Times Square terrorist Faisal Shahzad was thwarted because his detonator did not work.  What’s worse is that he was able to buy a plane ticket in cash despite being on the “Do not fly” list.  His plane was minutes from taking off when someone realized he should not have been allowed to board.

The first job of any president is to provide for the safety and security of the citizens of the United States.  It is NOT providing health care, regulating markets, or even providing jobs for citizens.  If the president cannot keep his citizens safe, all of the mentioned policies will be for nothing.

Obama needs to get his priorities straight.

Author’s note: This letter was published in an abridged form on May 11, 2010 in the Washington Examiner.

The public needs to know where this money is going before any additional fare hikes are enacted.  I’m okay with a fare hike IF AND ONLY IF the AFL-CIO isn’t bullying for more money.