Category: Crap For Brains

Analysis: ‘One Weird Trick’ to Uphold Gun Restrictions Returns to Federal Court

particularly flimsy legal theory has reappeared in federal Second Amendment litigation.

On Monday, US District Judge John L. Kane upheld Colorado’s three-day waiting period for gun purchases. He ruled the sales restriction didn’t violate the Second Amendment. His reasoning? The Second Amendment doesn’t actually protect gun sales at all.

“After examining the language of the Second Amendment using the Supreme Court’s analysis in Heller, I find, for the purposes of Plaintiffs’ Motion, that the plain text does not cover the waiting period required by the Act,” he wrote in Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis. “This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the Act is a regulation on the commercial sale of firearms and thus is presumptively permissible.”

Judge Kane, a Jimmy Carter appointee, said the state’s restriction passes the Second Amendment test established in the Supreme Court’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision by effectively short-circuiting it. Instead of examining the historical record for analogs to the modern waiting period, he argued that was unnecessary because the “right to keep and bear arms” doesn’t directly mention a right to buy, make, or sell them.

“From this reading of the plain text, it is clear the relevant conduct impacted by the waiting period—the receipt of a paid-for firearm without delay—is not covered,” he wrote. “Still, Plaintiffs attempt to equate the words ‘obtain’ and ‘possess.’ But these terms are not equivalent. To ‘keep,’ under the definitions provided in Heller, meant to retain an object one already possessed. It did not mean to receive a newly paid-for item, and it certainly did not mean to receive that item without delay. Likewise, ‘hav[ing] weapons’ indicates the weapons are already in one’s possession, not that one is receiving them.”

As I said when a judge in the Ninth Circuit employed the same logic to uphold a homemade gun ban last year, this is like a “one weird trick that plaintiffs hate” theory of Bruen. There’s no need to perform the analysis the Supreme Court requires if you cut the case off before it even really begins.

“Though it leads with a recognition of the primacy of Bruen’s ‘plain text’ point, [the plaintiff] seeks in its opening brief to jump ahead in the analysis to a historical/tradition assessment (and to jump ahead in Bruen to that decision’s discussion of how to conduct such an assessment),” Judge George H. Wu wrote in his ruling rejecting a request for a preliminary injunction against California’s ban on unserialized homemade guns. “But it has effectively attempted to avoid the necessary threshold consideration – does the ‘Second Amendment’s plain text’ cover the issue here? No, it plainly does not. AB 1621 has nothing to do with ‘keep[ing]’ or ‘bear[ing]’ arms.”

There has been a lot of disagreement among the lower court as to how best to implement the Bruen test. Judges have come down on different sides of whether the same restrictions have relevantly similar historical analogues. That disagreement will likely continue until the Supreme Court steps in and further clarifies how lower courts should carry out its test–a process it’s expected to start in its current case United States v. Rahimi.

But the idea that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms but not the right to make or acquire arms isn’t likely to be part of that clarification. It’s simply too cute by half. The argument makes you wonder what exactly Judge Kane and Wu think the point of protecting keeping and bearing arms is if the government can simply ban their manufacture or sale.

Judge Kane seemed to realize this because he did go through an attempt to do the actual Bruen analysis. He ruled that the law would still stand even if the Second Amendment protects sales. He argued colonial-era laws that disarmed intoxicated people were relevantly similar to the waiting period because both aimed at “preventing impulsive acts of firearm violence.”

“These measures are sufficient to show that our Nation had a historical tradition of regulating the carrying and use of firearms by intoxicated individuals,” Judge Kane wrote. “Plaintiffs do not seem to dispute this determination, but instead focus on whether those regulations are ‘relevantly similar’ to the Waiting-Period Act. For the purposes of this proceeding, I hold that they are.”

That line of argument doesn’t seem much more likely to persuade the Supreme Court–if it ever makes it that far up the ladder. But it at least engages with the test the Court handed down. The idea that the Second Amendment provides no protection at all to the act of acquiring arms is little more than an attempt to hand wave away Bruen.

There’s a subset of people in the U.S. who hate the idea of RKBA and the Supreme Court’s rulings and will do anything possible to sabotage them

Federal Judge Declares No Right to Acquire a Gun

If we possess a right to keep and bear firearms, it stands to reason that we must also have the right to acquire one, but according to a federal judge in Colorado no such right exists.

U.S. District Judge John L. Kane, an 86-year-old appointee of Jimmy Carter back in 1977, made the eyebrow-raising decision in a case known as Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis, which challenges Colorado’s newly-enacted three-day waiting period on all gun sales. Kane denied the group’s request for an injunction that would have halted enforcement of the waiting period while the litigation continues, ruling the plain text of the Second Amendment only covers the right to keep and bear a firearm, not to purchase or acquire one for lawful purposes.

Plaintiffs contend that the words “keep” and “bear” in the Second Amendment are implicated by the waiting period required by the Act. In Heller, the Supreme Court examined the “normal meaning” of those words at the time of the Nation’s founding, reviewing definitions from contemporaneous dictionaries. As the Court explained, the 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language “defined ‘keep’ as, most relevantly, ‘[t]o retain; not to lose,’ and ‘[t]o have in custody.’”.

 The Court then turned to the word “bear” and determined that it means to “carry.” The Court clarified that, when “bear” is “used with ‘arms,’ however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation.” So, putting all the pieces together, the Court found that the text of the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

From this reading of the plain text, it is clear the relevant conduct impacted by the waiting period—the receipt of a paid-for firearm without delay—is not covered. Still, Plaintiffs attempt to equate the words “obtain” and “possess.” But these terms are not equivalent. To “keep,” under the definitions provided in Heller, meant to retain an object one already possessed. It did not mean to receive a newly paid-for item, and it certainly did not mean to receive that item without delay. Likewise, “hav[ing] weapons” indicates the weapons are already in one’s possession, not that one is receiving them.

So you have the right to possess a firearm but not the right to obtain one? Kane’s reasoning would leave the door open for all kinds of restrictions on the acquisition of arms. Why not a six-month waiting period? How about a $500 administrative fee for every firearm purchase, or mandating purchasers come up with a half dozen character references before a gun can be sold. Taken to its extreme, Kane’s position would leave open the possibility of a complete and total ban on gun sales. It’s ridiculous to separate the right to obtain a firearm with the right to keep and bear it, but that’s exactly what the judge did here.

Kane went on to say that even if commercial sales of firearms are protected by the Second Amendment’s language, Colorado’s waiting period is likely to withstand court scrutiny because there were no “Guns-R-Us” outlets at the time the Second Amendment was ratified. It could take days, weeks, or even months for a would-be gun owner to acquire a firearm while they waited for a shipment of muskets to be delivered to their nearest city or town. Of course, there was no law requiring people to wait before purchasing a firearm if one was readily available, nor were there any prohibitions on private transfers of arms. If your neighbor had a fowling piece that you wanted to purchase, you could walk or ride to his farm and make a trade or a cash transaction without the possibility of punishment from the state.

Further, says Kane, though there aren’t any statutes in the historical record that mirror Colorado’s modern waiting period, there are some old laws that he believes are a close enough analogue to allow the state’s three-day waiting period to pass muster; laws forbidding the carrying of firearms while intoxicated.

Perhaps the state could impose a more narrowly tailored requirement, but that is not the inquiry here. The intoxication laws prevented all individuals from becoming intoxicated and engaging in the prohibited conduct. They did not apply only to those people who would have certainly used a firearm irresponsibly while intoxicated. Despite Plaintiffs’ arguments, the “how” and the “why” of the intoxication laws and the Waiting-Period Act are sufficiently similar to demonstrate that the Act is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The purpose of the waiting period, according to Colorado’s legislature, is to “help prevent impulsive acts of firearm violence, including homicides and suicides.” According to Kane, because the ostensible reason for the waiting period is similar to the rationale on historical prohibitions against carrying while under the influence, that’s enough to make the two laws analogous. Of course, under that theory, virtually any gun control measure could be deemed a part of the historical tradition, so long as lawmakers contend that its purpose is to prevent “impulsive” acts of gun violence.

If the majority in Bruen believed that opinion would put a stop to the Second Amendment shenanigans in the lower courts, it should be clear to them by now that is most certainly not the case. We’ve seen judges declare that commonly owned arms like semi-automatic rifles are not protected by the Second Amendment, wide swathes of public spaces can be deemed “sensitive” and off-limits to lawful carry, and the right to keep and bear arms does not encompass the right to obtain one.

Each of these decisions is a gross misreading of Bruen as well as a green light for fundamental infringement on our Second Amendment rights, but until SCOTUS intervenes these abuses will continue.

And With That Remark, Nikki Haley Just Went Full Totalitarian

The explosion of antisemitism has been something of a shock. Not that it never went away or didn’t exist, but the viciousness of it all has been jarring. It’s one thing to peddle the age-old stereotypes about Jewish control of the media and finance. It’s another thing to outright call for all Jews to die. The Left used to hide their true intent regarding Israel with political-based language. The ‘we’re not antisemitic; we’re anti-Zionist’ was a big talking point from this group.

It’s a nasty pot of brew brewing for quite some time, and it’s not just an American thing. The British Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn was rife with antisemites; Corbyn couldn’t denounce Hamas as a terror group recently. Yet, if there’s one thing we know that won’t work in snuffing out vicious antisemitism and calls for Jewish genocide on social media, it’s to censor it like Oceania’s Thought Police.

Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, a hopeless 2024 candidate, suggested a new protocol that is downright Orwellian. It also might not be legal. For starters, she wants everyone on social media to be verified; no anonymous accounts can be permitted to use these platforms. She bypasses the legal debate by saying this is a national security issue.

Look, I can’t stand these pro-Hamas clowns either. But this would be a massive propaganda win for the terrorists. It’s what they want us to do, Nikki. We also don’t need to drive these people underground, some of whom will be top recruits in carrying out terrorist attacks.

Using social media has been essential in exposing antisemites recently, so I say fight fire with fire. They’re the ones losing their jobs right now.

 

Comment O’ The Day:
It’s a good way to start something they can’t win.

‘Nationwide gun emergency’ discussed by U.S. House Democrats at roundtable meeting

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Democrats held a Monday roundtable forum on changing U.S. gun laws following a recent mass shooting in Maine, where 18 people were killed. 

The top Democrat on the committee, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, invited witnesses to discuss gun violence solutions, and said that the gun industry lobby, the National Rifle Association and Republicans push back against gun reform.

“We’re going to examine the nationwide gun emergency that’s taking place, the endless rounds of gun violence and massacres that are plaguing our society,” Raskin said.

Some of those witnesses included gun safety advocates, educators, survivors of gun violence and people who seek to intervene in community violence.

“There is a light at the end of the tunnel with this issue,” Democratic Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost of Florida said. “The gun lobby is more afraid, now more than ever, as they see a multiracial, multigenerational army of Americans who are not willing to relent from the demand for common sense gun reform.”

Democrats on the committee who participated in the forum included Reps. Greg Casar of Texas, Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia and Dan Goldman of New York.

Democrats said they opted to organize the roundtable after being turned down in their request for a formal hearing to Republicans who control the chamber. “We could not convince the majority to have a hearing about the state of the nation with respect to gun violence,” Raskin said.

Continue reading “”

Gun rights groups to seek Supreme Court ruling on assault weapons

Gun rights advocacy groups say they intend to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the state’s assault weapons ban after a federal appeals court on Friday refused to block enforcement of the law.

In a statement Saturday, the Illinois State Rifle Association said it was not surprised by the 7th Circuit panel’s 2-1 decision, which said plaintiffs in the consolidated cases had not met their burden to show they were likely to win in a constitutional challenge to the law.

“It has always been and is our intent to take our case to the U.S. Supreme Court where we believe we can get a favorable ruling for law-abiding gun owners in Illinois,” the organization said. “We will continue to stand up for the Second amendment and Illinois law-abiding gun owners and against our anti-gun Governor Pritzker and General Assembly.”

In addition, the National Foundation for Gun Rights – which provided attorneys involved in the consolidated case – said it will appeal as well.

“Semi-auto bans like Illinois’ strike right at the heart of the Second Amendment and are completely inconsistent with multiple Supreme Court precedents,” the organization said in a statement. “We will keep fighting and are preparing to appeal this outrageous ruling.”

The 7th Circuit’s decision on Friday left in place the state’s assault weapons ban as well as local bans enacted by Cook County and the cities of Chicago and Naperville.

The state of Illinois and the city of Naperville both enacted their bans in response to a mass shooting last year at an Independence Day parade in Highland Park that left seven people dead and dozens more injured or traumatized.

Authorities say the alleged shooter in that incident used a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 semiautomatic rifle and carried three 30-round magazines. That type of gun and magazine are now banned under the state’s assault weapons law.

The majority opinion from the 7th Circuit focused on whether that type of weapon, or others like it, were protected under the Second Amendment.

That opinion, written by Judge Diane Wood and cosigned by Judge Frank Easterbrook, drew a distinction between the types of “bearable” arms commonly used for self-defense and the type of weapons typically reserved only for military uses.

Continue reading “”

The West Bank can be ‘disputed’ as much as anyone wants. The region just happens to be the ancient Israelite provinces of Judea and Samaria taken back from Jordan (after that country occupied it in 1948 during that war),  after during the 1967 ‘6-Day’ war.

Scoop: Biden Demands Gun Control for Israelis

The Biden administration refused to sell American weapons to Israel unless it provided guarantees the guns would not be given to civilians living in the West Bank, the Washington Free Beacon is exclusively reporting.

The Jewish state urgently requested the United States sell it thousands of M-16 rifles following the Hamas terror group’s Oct. 7 slaughter of more than 1,400 unarmed Israeli citizens. But the Biden administration would not approve the sale until Israel guaranteed the critical weapons would not reach civilian outposts in the West Bank, which the Biden administration and its Democratic allies view as occupied territory.

The stipulation was characterized by officials as unusual and indicates the Biden administration is succumbing to pressure from its far-left flank, which is pressing Israel to enact a ceasefire and accusing the Jewish state of carrying out a genocide as it defends itself from Hamas terrorists operating in the Gaza Strip.

The guns are critical to Israel’s defense as it faces down the most significant threat in decades. With the military engaged in an assault on the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, Jewish civilians in dangerous areas like the West Bank are being trained and equipped to defend themselves against potential attacks.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.) is said to be one of the lawmakers who pressured the Biden administration to restrict Israel’s access to the weapons.

The Biden administration has become increasingly open about its desire for Israel to halt its war effort so that humanitarian aid can be delivered into the Gaza Strip, a call the Jewish state has rejected, citing Hamas’s reliance on this aid for its terrorist activities. President Joe Biden, after initially offering full throated support for Israel’s defensive operations, accused Israelis living in disputed West Bank areas of conducting unwarranted attacks on Palestinians in remarks late last month, claiming they are “pouring gasoline on the fire.”

While this is pretty much nothing more than the 7th poking their finger in the eye of SCOTUS, the sooner this gets to there, so we know what the words of the 2nd amendment mean to the courts, and thus to law, the better.

Seventh Circuit Overturns Injunction Against Illinois “Assault Weapons Ban”, Says AR-15s Aren’t Protected Arms

On the face of it, Friday’s decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn an injunction against enforcement of Illinois’ recently enacted ban on “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazines doesn’t change circumstances on the ground. The three-judge panel that issued today’s decision had previously stayed U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn’s injunction while the state appealed, so the law has been in effect throughout litigation.

Still, the 2-1 decision does matter, both because it provides an opportunity for some or all of the plaintiffs to appeal on an emergency basis to the Supreme Court and because it will undoubtedly be cited by other anti-gun judges around the country, including those on the Ninth Circuit panel hearing the appeal of Judge Roger Benitez’s decision striking down California’s ban on “assault weapons.”

I won’t have a chance to do a deep dive into the opinion until this weekend, but one thing immediately stuck out to me as I was giving a quick look-over. The three-judge panel concluded that AR-15s (and presumably semi-automatic rifles in general) are not protected by the Second Amendment because they’re too close to machine guns:

Coming directly to the question whether the weapons and feeding devices covered by the challenged legislation enjoy Second Amendment protection, at the first step of the Bruen analysis, we conclude that the answer is no.

We come to this conclusion because these assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are much more like machineguns and military grade weaponry than they are like the many different types of firearms that are used for individual self-defense (or so the legislature was entitled to conclude). Indeed, the AR-15 is almost the same gun as the M16 machinegun. The only meaningful distinction, as we already have noted, is that the AR-15 has only semiautomatic capability (unless the user takes advantage of some simple modifications that essentially make it fully automatic), while the M16 operates both ways. 

Both weapons share the same core design, and both rely on the same patented operating system.

If the distinction between semi-automatic and select fire is enough to render modern sporting rifles outside the scope of the Second Amendment, according to the Seventh Circuit, then what does that mean for semi-automatic handguns? Are they too close to machine guns to be protected as well? Note this passage from the majority opinion:

The similarity between the AR-15 and the M16 only increases when we take into account how easy it is to modify the AR-15 by adding a “bump stock” (as the shooter in the 2017 Las Vegas event had done) or auto-sear to it, thereby making it, in essence, a fully automatic weapon.

You can (illegally) attach an auto-sear or a switch to many semi-automatic handguns as well. Is the Seventh Circuit suggesting that the most popular make of handguns, undoubtedly in common use for lawful purposes, is also beyond the Second Amendment’s protection?

It sure sounds like it to me, though the panel didn’t have to address that issue since the state hasn’t attempted to ban the majority of semi-automatic pistols, only a subset it deems to be “assault weapons”. This is actually something that gun control activists have been arguing for a couple of years now, both in civil litigation and in lobbying the Biden administration to reclassify many semi-automatic firearms as machine guns under the National Firearms Act.

If the Seventh Circuit’s twisted logic is adopted or allowed to stand by the Supreme Court, not only would the most popular style of rifle be implicated, but the vast majority of handguns that are in the hands of lawful gun owners across the country as well. The 2-1 decision is bad enough, but the long term implications will be even worse unless and until SCOTUS makes it clear that the Seventh Circuit got it wrong.

If I was Benjamin Netanyahu, I have my spokesman to ‘diplomatically’ tell SloJoe what to do with a cactus.

Biden Shot His Mouth Off About the Israeli Invasion of Gaza…And It’s Not Good

Joe Biden once again mouthed off about the Israeli invasion of Gaza last night. He wants a humanitarian pause, also known as a ceasefire, which is music to Hamas’ ears. Granted, this isn’t new, but it showcased again the administration’s temperamental attitude toward this issue. We vetoed a UN resolution calling for something similar when Israeli air and artillery strikes were becoming more intense. The timing isn’t lost on anyone, either.

Guy wrote about the Israel problem Biden is facing from the Left. And Biden’s “pause” remarks occurred during an event in Minnesota, a state he needs to win next year, which is chock-full of pro-terrorist or terrorist-sympathizing voters (via Fox News):

“President Biden said there should be a “pause” in the Israel-Hamas War to provide humanitarian aid to Gazans and get those trapped in the Gaza Strip released. 

The comment came during a campaign event in Minnesota on Wednesday evening, when a member of the audience shouted: “As a rabbi, I need you to call for a ceasefire right now.” 

The president — who has not supported a ceasefire since the war began on October 7 — said that he would support a “pause.” 

“I think we need a pause,” Biden began. “A pause means give time to get the prisoners out.” 

In his comments, Biden was exerting pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to give Palestinians a brief reprieve from Israel’s retaliatory military operation. He also said he convinced both Netanyahu and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to allow aid into Gaza. 

Biden later said that he understood the “emotion” over the war and said it is “incredibly complicated for Israelis.” 

“It’s incredibly complicated for the Muslim world as well… I supported a two state solution, I have from the very beginning,” he continued. “The fact is the matter is that Hamas is a terrorist organization. A flat-out terrorist organization.” 

This elitist snob starts with an opinion that he states as fact and then moves on from there building a large sand castle

Textualist or not, does Johnson, or anyone, really, believe that if we could question Madison today, he would say that it was his intent to allow this country to be awash in guns, including automatic weapons that serve no good purpose other than as instruments of war or mass killings?

The obvious answer is YES! Madison and his fellow patriots had just fought off what they considered a tyrannical government, and they believed the people had that right and that responsibility to ensure a free state. “Weapons of War”™ (*gasp* Horrors!) were exactly the kind of “arms” the second was intended to protect, just in case the government was stupid enough to not realize that in the future. That does not even address the issue that there exists tens of millions of these rifles in the nation that are used for lawful purposes daily.

He claims he is ‘incredulous’. I find myself also being incredulous that someone who has held and holds such positions can also hold such a flawed opinion, especially after the Supreme Court had ruled on the matter so many times, starting in the 1800s with Cruikshank and on to just last year in Bruen. Actually I wish he would hold his breath.

Speaker Johnson’s hypocritical First and Second Amendment contradictions

From Court to Campus: Former Federal Judge John E. Jones III Takes Helm ...
Former (thank God) Federal Judge John E. Jones III, President of Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania

I am a college president. And I am afraid.

The mass killing last week in the college town of Lewiston, Maine, is the 36th this year in the United States, according to an AP/USA Today/Northeastern University mass killings database. The 18 who were murdered bring us to a total of nearly 200 victims of these ghastly events.

Sadly, it is easy to predict that there will be more of them before the year is out. Which community — college town or not — will bear the weight of the next tragedy?

I am also a former federal judge. And I am incredulous.

The House of Representatives has a new Speaker, Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.). During a 2016 sermon at the Christian Center in Shreveport, La., Johnson blamed mass school shootings on a “series of cultural shifts” in the United States that included teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution and erasing creationism from society. Last week, Johnson opined that it was inappropriate to discuss gun control “in the middle of a crisis” and that “it’s not the weapon, it’s the underlying problem.”

The suspected Maine shooter reportedly used a “Ruger SFAR” rifle “chambered for high-powered .308 ammunition.” The weapon is “larger and more powerful than the regular ammunition carried in the rifles of soldiers and SWAT teams.”

Johnson is a staunch defender of what he believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution represents. Its wording, which includes “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” has for generations been the subject of various interpretations and countless lawsuits.

Interestingly, the same Bill of Rights that contains the Second Amendment also features the First Amendment. Within it is the establishment clause, which prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.”

In 2005, I presided over the landmark case of Kitzmiller v. Dover in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. At its conclusion, I ruled that a school district’s policy introducing a concept known as intelligent design into the ninth-grade biology curriculum was, in fact, tantamount to teaching creationism, and thus violated the establishment clause. In rendering this opinion, I carefully followed the First Amendment’s dictates as well as Supreme Court precedent. The decision was not appealed and still stands.

It is my educated guess that Speaker Johnson, a trained lawyer, sees himself as a textualist. That is, he believes in the ordinary meaning of a legal text. I have always thought that to be an interesting interpretive theory so far as it goes, but far too unrealistic in practice. The Second Amendment was drafted largely by James Madison, who of course later served as president of the United States.

Textualist or not, does Johnson, or anyone, really, believe that if we could question Madison today, he would say that it was his intent to allow this country to be awash in guns, including automatic weapons that serve no good purpose other than as instruments of war or mass killings? It is absurd to think that Madison, a brilliant scholar and statesman, would endorse that view. In fact, I think he’d be as incredulous as I am that anyone could so torture the amendment he carefully drafted in this fashion.

I find myself endeavoring mightily to explain to my students how we arrived at this point, and why we lack the political will to pass reasonable gun legislation that would make us all safer. I have no good answers to their inquiries. They are afraid, and I share their apprehensions.

And so, I ask new Speaker Johnson and his colleagues these questions: Where is your courage, and when is the right time to pass legislation designed to end these slaughters? I will not hold my breath waiting for answers.

Oregon removes writing, reading, and math mastery from high school graduation requirements

The Oregon State Board of Education unanimously voted on Thursday to remove proof of mastery in reading, writing, and math in order to graduate from high school until 2029.

The board argued that requiring all students to pass one of several standardized tests or to create an in-depth assignment their teacher judged as meeting state standards was a harmful hurdle for students of color, disabled students, or those learning English as a second language. The standardized tests will still be given but will not play a role in determining whether students receive their diplomas.

“We haven’t suspended any sort of assessments,” state board member Vicky Lopez Sanchez said during the board meeting. “The only thing we are suspending is the inappropriate use of how those assessments were being used. I think that really is in the best interest of Oregon students.”

Opponents of the new order argued that removing the requirement devalues an Oregon diploma. The opponents argued that helping students with low academic skills through extra instruction in writing and math has helped them. However, supporters claim that forcing students to spend extra time on schoolwork eliminates their opportunity to take an elective and does not translate to how they perform after graduation.

“We are unable to ethically make a different decision at this point. It is also unethical for us to continue to require this when we know it can continue to cause harm and has had no change in how students are performing,” Board of Education Chairwoman Guadalupe Martinez Zapata told ABC’s KATU-2.

Hundreds of state residents have filed public comments on the subject, and most are in favor of keeping the requirements. But mastery is not the only graduation requirement. Students also need to earn a certain amount of credits and create an education plan that helps them achieve their goals after high school.

The pause was initiated during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, when schools across the country were forced to shut down

No, they haven’t.

Rabbi Claims That Hamas Has ‘Perverted Islam.’ Alas, No.

It’s understandable that in times of crisis, people would reach out for reassurance, for some indication that things aren’t as dismal as they seem. Still, when times are tough, it is more important than ever not to be seduced by wishful thinking.

In a disheartening exercise of willful ignorance and the myopia that wishful thinking can induce, the Jerusalem Post published a curious piece Tuesday entitled “Hamas has perverted Islam for their sacrilegious, blasphemous actions.” The author, Yakov Nagen, is identified as a rabbi and “the director of Ohr Torah Stone’s Blickle Institute for Interfaith Dialogue.” Interfaith dialogue is a realm in which self-delusion can all too easily run wild and fond hopes reign supreme over reality; Nagen’s article is, unfortunately, yet another example of this.

“What empowers Hamas and allows it to thrive,” Nagen asserts, “is that too many have accepted their corruption of the teachings of a world religion.” He notes with satisfaction that Hamas does have opponents within the Islamic world: “Hundreds of Muslim leaders signed a public statement issued by the Global Imams Council (GIC) unequivocally condemning the massacre. In the condemnation, they refer to a legal ruling issued by the Islamic Fatwa Council, located in the Iraqi spiritual capital of Najaf: ‘It is prohibited to pray for, join, support, finance, or fight on behalf of Hamas.’”

That sounds wonderful, but then Nagen adds, “The ruling enumerated 11 correlations between Hamas and ISIS, including the use of suicide bombers, missile attacks against civilians, and genocidal aspirations, in the case of Hamas annihilating the Jews.”

It is unpleasant, but nonetheless true: neither ISIS nor Hamas originated these ideas. They are all rooted in core Islamic texts. The justification for suicide bombing is in the Qur’an, the holy book of Islam: “Indeed, Allah has bought from the believers their lives and their wealth, because the garden will be theirs, they will fight in the way of Allah and will kill and be killed.” (9:111) This is the only promise of paradise in the Qur’an, but one can take hold of that promise by being killed while killing unbelievers.

Continue reading “”

All failures – if this can be called that –  especially that of opponents, should also be studied for lessons to be learned.

Consider; If they all became ‘martyrs’ would there be a problem?

Hamas’s Strategy of Human Sacrifice
Never before has a party adopted a war strategy to maximize civilian deaths on its own side.

On October 13, Israeli military commanders told Palestinians living in Gaza to evacuate to the south. The northern half of the strip is full of Hamas assets—from rockets to rifles, communications gear to personnel—that Israel plans to destroy in the coming days of the war. But Hamas leaders demanded that the people stay in place. Why?

While some of Hamas’s most brutal tactics, like systematic rape and beheading captives, are long-practiced atrocities for which the armies of Stalin, Hitler, and Genghis Khan are infamous, it is unprecedented for a party to adopt a war strategy to maximize civilian deaths on its own side. This is so strange and evil that it should appall any decent person. Contrary to conventional commentary, this is not a human shield strategy. It’s a human sacrifice strategy.

Since its birth in 1987, Hamas has declared its aim to destroy Israel. Its strategy is asymmetric—that is, because Hamas is smaller and weaker than the Israeli army, it relies on a strategy designed to undermine Israel politically. In hopes (presumably) that it can induce Saudi leaders to drop their plans to normalize relations with Israel, Hamas launched this war with two goals. First, to provoke uprisings among Arabs and Muslims, both within and outside Israel. Second, to cause the rest of the world to view Israel with disgust and hatred.

To achieve these aims, Hamas is ensuring that its war will harm and kill large numbers of Palestinians in Gaza. To bring this about, it has strategized and laid groundwork for years. Its aim is to propagandize a gullible world—to put the blood of Palestinian victims on Israel’s hands.

Defense officials in numerous countries, for operational reasons and to comply with international laws of war, take pains to locate their military assets away from their civilians and to maximize protection for the latter. Hamas officials do the opposite. As United Nations officials and others have disapprovingly noted, Hamas stores ammunition in schools, puts missile launchers adjacent to mosques, sets up command centers in hospitals, and generally bases its operations in densely populated civilian neighborhoods.

This is not simply a human-shield strategy, where the aim is to deter an attack by using innocent lives as a barrier. Hamas is doing something far more insidious: it’s ensuring the mass death of Palestinians. Here is Hamas official Ali Baraka summing up the difference between the two worldviews: “The Israelis are known to love life. We, on the other hand, sacrifice ourselves. We consider our dead to be martyrs.”

Continue reading “”

Judge Bars Trump From Campaigning Against His Top Political Opponent

A U.S. District Court judge has barred former President Donald Trump from campaigning against his top political opponent: the federal government.

On Monday, Judge Tanya Chutkan issued a gag order to prohibit the Republican frontrunner from speaking out on the case just more than a year out from the next election. The order bars Trump from publicly defending himself against attacks from potential witnesses, court personnel, or federal prosecutors in the case, including Special Counsel Jack Smith.

“This is not about whether I like the language Mr. Trump uses,” Judge Chutkan reportedly said. “This is about language that presents a danger to the administration of justice.”

The order itself, however, presents a danger to American democracy. Democrats are already trying to prevent Americans from being given the chance to vote on the former president. Now, far-left activists are wielding the judiciary to prevent Trump from leading an effective campaign. With a more than 45-point lead in the Republican primary, Trump isn’t running against the other candidates attempting to challenge him. He’s running against the Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice under President Joe Biden is running against him with 44 federal indictments to thwart the GOP frontrunner’s triumphant return.

The special counsel prosecuting Trump over protestors’ 2021 attack on the Capitol requested the gag order in September, alleging the former president’s statements over the case sought to “undermine the integrity of these proceedings and prejudice the jury pool.” Yet the proceedings were undermined from the start with the selection of Judge Chutkan to preside over the politically charged case in the nation’s capital. Just more than a week after Smith requested the gag order, Chutkan refused a motion from Trump’s legal team that she recuse herself from the trial.

There has never been any doubt on how Chutkan might rule on consequential decisions since the Jan. 6 indictments were first handed down on Aug. 1. An activist judge with an obvious animus against the former president and his supporters, federal prosecutors could not have been given a more friendly judge in a district more friendly to the government’s case. Beyond the fact residents in Washington D.C. voted for Biden over Trump in 2020 by a whopping 92 to 5 percent, an Emerson College survey found a majority, 64 percent, had already made up their minds to vote in favor of convicting Trump if they were selected for his jury. Only 8 percent said they would find Trump innocent, and another 28 percent were unsure. Chutkan herself is likely among those who would vote in favor of convicting based on recent rulings and statements.

According to the Associated Press in August, the Obama-appointed judge built a reputation as “a tough punisher of Capitol rioters.” Chutkan presided over more than three dozen cases of those charged with crimes related to the Capitol riot.

“Other judges typically have handed down sentences that are more lenient than those requested by prosecutors,” reported the AP. “Chutkan, however, has matched or exceeded prosecutors’ recommendations in 19 of her 38 sentences. In four of those cases, prosecutors weren’t seeking any jail time at all.”

Chutkan has also condemned comparisons of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot to the deadly riots for so-called “social justice” of 2020. The fiery riots, she claimed in one hearing, were actually “the actions of people protesting, mostly peacefully, for civil rights.” The Capitol riot, on the other hand, was an attempt to “violently overthrow the government.” Never mind the $2 billion worth of damage, making the outbreak of leftist violence one of the most destructive in American history, and “protestors” targeting of federal buildings. The carnage from the summer of rage cost 66 times more than the estimated damage done to the Capitol in the hours-long riot.

Trump’s Republican rivals attacked him for shelling out a disproportionate amount of campaign funds for his own legal defense. Those attacks, however, fail to grapple with the reality that for Trump, his serious opponents aren’t the other Republicans in the race. His primary contest is one with the federal government trying to silence him.

BLUF
Now, I don’t think for a minute that Biden is “directing all of this” — he’s getting directed by his staff. But even CBS is now throwing him under the bus by questioning his age and ability to do the job. You know how bad the interview truly was when that’s the takeaway.

More on Disastrous Biden Interview: Scott Pelley Has to Help Him Finish Sentence, Says President ‘Tired’

I wrote earlier about a couple of the teaser clips from the “60 Minutes” interview with Joe Biden.

Those were bad, but the complete interview was even worse.

First, we should note that there was a little bit of water-carrying for Joe Biden with host Scott Pelley saying that the president was fitting them into his busy schedule on Thursday.

Biden had his 10 a.m. daily briefing and a 4:30 meeting where he just had to sit and listen to CEOs, how is that busy? Maybe it’s “busy” for an 80-year-old who has so many issues. But that’s why he shouldn’t even be there.

Biden seemed completely at sea throughout the interview, and so old.

Pelley asked if he could foresee U.S. troops involved in the Israeli war. Notice his answer: it wasn’t “no.”

It was “I don’t think it’s necessary” because “Israel has one of the finest fighting forces in the country.” Um, Joe? Israel is its own country, it’s not part of the U.S., what are you even saying here? In what country?

Then he threw Israel under the bus with this confusing remark, saying they should not reoccupy Gaza, that he thought that would be a “big mistake.” Funny, that’s just what Iran was hoping Joe would say, and there he is right on cue. You can see him struggling to answer this question.

Pelley asks what was his message to “Hezbollah and its backer Iran.” Biden’s response wouldn’t exactly send fear down any bad actor’s back, and Pelley even had to finish his thought for him.

I’m sure Iran is quaking in their boots right now.

Continue reading “”