A Couple Of Updates!

Update-Keyboard-ROHA few days ago we posted how a court had struck down handgun laws in Washington, D.C. because they effectively banned weapons and therefore were contrary to the Second Amendment and previous Supreme Court rulings.

After the ruling, the City sought a 180 day stay of the decision which would allow them to craft new regulations on weapons in D.C. The lawyers for the opposing party agreed to a 90 day stay and eventually, that is what a judge agreed to as well.

So for now, the old, un-Constitutional rules are still in effect until the DC City Council can figure out what they can do next to try and deprive citizens of their rights.

As lawmakers get to work, D.C. police returned to past arrest practices. Ten minutes after the judge granted the reprieve at 1:20 p.m., Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier rescinded orders hurriedly issued Sunday night and told 4,000 officers that “all laws related to firearms regulations and crimes remain in effect.”

But the chief also reminded officers to handle firearms cases “with caution,” noting that the public may not be aware that the old gun laws are at least temporarily back in force.

Yesterday we posted how the Department of Justice was suing the Pennsylvania State Police over the physical testing standards used to applicants to the Police.

After a little more research, we found a website where the Pennsylvania State Police give the standards in more detail than the DOJ’s complaint.

Here are the standards for applicants:

Share the Hoecakes

Department Of Justice Sues Pennsylvania State Police.

DOJ-v-PA-State-Police-ROHWith nothing else on its plate to look into, the Department of Justice announced that it was suing the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) over the use of base physical standards as criteria to be selected for training as a Pennsylvania State Trooper.

In a press release, the DOJ says:

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, alleges that the physical fitness tests used by the state police between 2003 and the present excluded qualified women from consideration for hire as entry-level state troopers by

testing for physical skills that are not required to perform the job. The department also alleges that, during the relevant time period, the defendants’ use of physical fitness tests as part of a multi-step employment selection process disproportionately screened out female applicants, resulting in a disparate impact against those applicants.

According to the actual complaint, the DOJ says that there were two fitness tests administered to applicants. One test was administered from 2003 to 2009, and another test with more elements was administered between 2009 until 2012.

For the 2003 – 2009 test:

The 2003 PFT consisted of five events: (1) a 300-meter run; (2) sit-ups; (3) push-ups; (4) a vertical jump; and (5) a 1.5-mile run.

Male and female applicants were given different standard of performance to pass but more women failed the test percentage wise than men.

Under the theory of “disparate impact,” the DOJ now asserts that because women failed the test more than men, the test itself must discriminate against women.

Stupid Letter To The Editor – Vote Early! Vote Often!

Praise the Lord!

A day without posting about the City of Satellite Beach!

(But the day is young and tonight is a City Council Meeting…..)

Yesterday the Florida Today newspaper published a letter to the editor from John Cielukowski of Cocoa Beach concerning the State of Florida’s cleansing of voter rolls prior to the upcoming election. Mr. Cielukowski’s letter is full of partisanship, often lacking in facts, and devoid of logical thinking.

Here is what he had to say:

Scott’s ‘witch-hunt’ voter purge blasted

Gov. Rick Scott is at it again. He is locked in a battle with the U.S. Justice Department regarding his witch-hunt to purge supposedly illegal voters from Florida’s voter lists.

To make matters worse, über conservative U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-West Miami, is marching in step with our governor. The irony here is his complicity in this matter is removing many legally registered Hispanics from the voter lists.

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney must be giddy about the work his Florida henchmen are doing to ensure a victory in our state.

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Orlando, is correct in stating this purge is similar to the 2000 Florida election debacle. I guess our governor is trying to repeat the infamous voter purge by former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, taking more than 1,000 eligible voters off the voter rolls weeks before an election that was decided by 537 votes.

Voter fraud is an exaggerated and even nonexistent issue in Florida. The 48-hour turnaround rule to register also is unrealistic and just another big bump in the road for those who are newly registering to vote. Many are middle-class full-time employees who need much more time than 48 hours to fill out and submit their voter registration paperwork.

I believe we would not be revisiting this voter list injustice if the conservative sheep in this state had not elected a shady governor who was involved in Medicare fraud.

Mr. Cielukowski seems to think that ad hominem attacks adds to the credibility of his argument concerning this issue. It does not. It simply shows his partisanship on an issue upon which we all should agree – the desire to have fair elections.

Mr. Cielukowski makes the claim:

Bill Nelson Proves He Is A Partisan Hack.

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) stood up on the floor of the Congress and gave a speech concerning the State of Florida’s attempt to purge voter rolls of those who are not allowed to vote.

Later in the week, Nelson sent a copy of the speech to newspapers around the state:

Mr. President,

As I was heading to the Capitol this (Tuesday) morning, I couldn’t help but think about the jolting news from my state: the Justice Department will sue Florida over its purge of voting rolls.

Being a native Floridian whose family came to Florida 183 years ago, and having served the people of my state for years, I simply cannot believe the state of Florida would deliberately make it more difficult for lawful citizens to vote.

But the governor did sign the new law last summer to reduce early voting days and blunt voter registration drives.

Then he launched this massive purge of the voter rolls — hunting for suspected noncitizens. And in so doing, he’s now defying federal authorities who say you cannot conduct a purge of voter rolls so close to an election.

The governor and his administration should ensure the credibility of our voter rolls. It should have a program to suppress fraud.

But above all else, the state must ensure that every lawful citizen who has the right to vote can do so without impediment.

It was a long time ago, but something Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said about voting rights seems appropriate again. Dr. King said, “The denial of this sacred right is a tragic betrayal of the highest mandates of our democratic traditions. It is democracy turned upside down.”

I hope the governor will heed those words.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Let us say it here: Nelson is a partisan hack who doesn’t care one iota about the right to vote. Nelson only cares about Democrats winning elections by any means necessary.

Department Of Justice Sues Fire Department Over “Disparate Impact.”

The US Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against the City of Jacksonville for discrimination against minority firefighters.

Firefighters seeking to be promoted within the Jacksonville (Florida) Fire Department must take a test. The test is one part of the process to be promoted. Statistically, African Americans are not passing the test as often as others. In addition, when they do pass the test, their scores are generally lower than other racial groups. The only “conclusion” one can reach is there must be discrimination within the test and the Jacksonville Fire Department – at least according to the DOJ.

This is the ol’ “disparate impact” theory which we have covered before. When Obama took office and appointed Eric Holder to the Attorney General spot, Holder said he would focus on cases of “disparate impact” rather than cases of actual discrimination.

As part of this shift, the Obama administration is planning a major revival of high-impact civil rights enforcement against policies, in areas ranging from housing to hiring, where statistics show that minorities fare disproportionately poorly. President George W. Bush’s appointees had discouraged such tactics, preferring to focus on individual cases in which there is evidence of intentional discrimination.

The problems with the DOJ’s claims in the Jacksonville case are many. First, unless the tests are asking “what is the secret handshake at meetings of the KKK?” it is difficult to see how a test can be discriminatory. If the test asks questions on procedures, regulations, safety, fire types, etc., we cannot see how the test itself is discriminatory. Answers are either right or wrong. In the case of a fire department, what happens when you have people in positions of authority who get questions dealing with the public safety wrong? Is the public better served by promoting people who can’t pass a test on subject matter pertaining to their job?

Violation of Terms of Service a Felony?

According to, today the Department of Justice will testify before Congress to increase penalties under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

At issue is the Act’s use of the term “exceeds authorized access.” When passed, the intent of the Act was to have the phrase apply to hacking or fraud on the internet. Now the Feds want to expand the meaning to “any violation of the Terms of Service of a website.”

Doesn’t sound like much, does it?

It does when you consider the ramifications. A letter signed by a group including the Electronic Foundation Frontier, the ACLU, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation highlights the problem:

Our primary concern – that this will lead to overbroad application of the law – is far from hypothetical. Three federal circuit courts have agreed that an employee who exceeds an employer’s network acceptable use policies can be prosecuted under the CFAA. At least one federal prosecutor has brought criminal charges
against a user of a social network who signed up under a pseudonym in violation of terms of service.

These activities should not be “computer crimes,” any more than they are crimes in the physical world. If, for example, an employee photocopies an employer’s document to give to a friend without that employer’s permission, there is no federal crime (though there may be, for example, a contractual violation). However, if an employee emails that document, there may be a CFAA violation. If a person assumes a fictitious identity at a party, there is no federal crime. Yet if they assume that same identity on a social network that prohibits pseudonyms, there may again be a CFAA violation. This is a gross misuse of the law. The CFAA should focus on malicious hacking and identity theft and not on criminalizing any behavior that happens to take place online in violation of terms of service or an acceptable use policy.

The Obama administration seems to have made it their mission to control the internet and the content on it. Twice the White House has set up websites so people can contact them when something is posted with which the administration disagrees. We have seen the Department of Homeland Security seize domains and domain names without any due process for the seizure.

In essence, the Obama Administration through the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security are is looking to make criminal what is essentially a civil matter.

That is dangerous.

But it doesn’t stop there.

In a letter to Congress, the DOJ is looking to further expand the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The letter calls for increases in the ability to seize assets of citizens and increasing penalties. For example, according to the Cnet article, uploading a copyrighted song or video to YouTube twice “becomes a pattern of racketeering.”

We may be paranoid, but to us this is a continued attack on the freedoms of Americans.


The Los Angeles Times headline says it all:

Justice Department’s $16 muffins don’t sit well

The headline and the story following it summarizes an audit report issued by the Office of the Inspector General on the costs of Conference Planning and Food and Beverages at Department of Justice conferences.

The “highlight” of the report and one that people have latched onto is the audit concludes the DOJ effectively paid $16 for muffins at one conference. If you thought gasoline was expensive, the report found:

For example, one conference served $16 muffins while another served Beef Wellington hors d’oeuvres that cost $7.32 per serving. Coffee and tea at the events cost between $0.62 and $1.03 an ounce. At the $1.03 per-ounce price, an 8ounce cup of coffee would have cost $8.24.

The extravagance has become a political talking point overnight.

Republicans fire off their shots:

“The Justice Department appears to be blind to the economic realities our country is facing,” [Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa] said in a statement.

“The inspector general’s office just gave a blueprint for the first cuts that should be made by the super committee,” he added, referring to the panel tasked with reducing the federal budget deficit.

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), who chairs the House appropriations subcommittee that oversees Justice Department spending, also weighed in with his displeasure over the food and beverage tab for conferences.

“It is clear that while American taxpayers were tightening their belts and making difficult financial decisions, the department was splurging on wasteful snacks and drinks as well as unnecessary event planning ‘consultants,'” he said in a letter to U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder.

Democrats return fire:

Stories about the $16 muffin “reinforce why the President and I launched the Campaign to Cut Waste, a government-wide initiative to reduce spending by making government more effective and more efficient,” vice president [Biden] said in a statement.

Democrats fire again with the “they did it too” defense:

Another Brilliant Plan From the EEOC – Make Felons a Protected Class.

The US Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) is taking comments and input on making a new class of protected workers such as women, minorities, holders of creeds, etc.

That new class?


In a warped world where people who have broken the law are protected in what is being termed “workplace discrimination” over those who have not broken the law, the EEOC wants to insure that felons have the same rights to a job as those who have not committed a felony.

The EEOC released a statement on the issue entitled, “Striking the Balance Between Workplace Fairness and Workplace Safety,” in which the Commission said:

Employers often refuse to hire people with arrest and conviction records even years after they have completed their sentences, leading to recidivism and higher social services costs, experts told the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) at a meeting today at agency headquarters.

Speaking to the Committee were:

  • Amy Solomon, Senior Advisor to the Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Justice Programs at the Department of Justice. That would be the Obama Department of Justice run by Eric Holder who has made it plain that the DOJ will sue businesses on the basis of “disparate impact.”
  • Cornell William Brooks, Executive Director of the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice, a social justice “think and do tank”
  • Michael F. Curtin, Jr., President and CEO of the D.C. Central Kitchen
  • Victoria Kane, an attorney with the hospitality group Portfolio Hotels & Resorts

  • Barry A. Hartstein, a shareholder in the law firm of Littler Mendelson
  • Adam Klein, a partner in the law firm Outten & Golden LLP
  • In total that would be two speakers from the far left, three lawyers, and a President of a volunteer organization.

    Who was missing?

    « Previous Entries