SECURE FREEDOM MINUTE
According to President Obama, the greatest threat we face is climate change. So his administration has gone to war on, wait for it, NASCAR.
That’s right. The Environmental Protection Agency under the direction of its regulate-everything-in-sight administrator, Gina McCarthy, has reportedly decided that – in the interest of cutting gases that supposedly contribute to planetary warming – the conversion of street cars into race cars will have to be restricted.
It’s not clear whether making it harder to upgrade regular cars into racing machines will make an iota of difference in world surface temperatures. Even the UN acknowledges that far more dramatic regulations won’t have appreciable impact. What is a pretty safe bet, though, is that the EPA’s ruling will inflame the nation’s millions of NASCAR fans – and give them a reason to vote this fall.
Image via muskegonpundit.blogspot.com
The government plans to shut down global warming doubters and compel speech that aligns with the leftist ideology on the subject. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative Libertarian think tank prominent for its skeptical viewpoint in climate-policy debates is under assault and the government hopes to shut them down.
The government is, as CEI puts it, criminalizing people for policy differences through RICO-style investigations.
No matter what your opinion is of climate change, the question here is whether the government can use force to compel speech or silence dissent.
The Fight over Financial Aid to Illegal Alien Students Continues
Too often, politicians at every level will ignore the clear language of a law if it doesn’t let them do as they wish. This is evident on two fronts this week: in California and here in the District of Columbia.
First California. You will recall that we filed a taxpayer lawsuit in August 2014 challenging a decision by the University of California Regents to give up to $27.1 million in non-resident tuition waivers and financial aid to illegal alien students in their schools.
A lower California state court upheld their action, and we’ve now completed the briefing for the appeal of the lower court ruling with the filing of a reply brief this week. We brought this litigation on behalf of Earl De Vries, a legal resident and taxpayer of California (Earl De Vries v Regents of the University of California (BC555614)). Under California law, taxpayers have the right to sue government officials to prevent unlawful expenditures of taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources.
In our August 2014 lawsuit on behalf of De Vries in the L.A. County Superior Court, we asked the court to halt the estimated annual $19.6 million in non-resident tuition waivers; $4.3 million in taxpayer-funded grants and scholarships; and $3.2 million in state loans the Regents have started giving illegal alien students.
Under the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act” passed by Congress in 1996, unlawfully present aliens are ineligible for state or local public benefits. The only exception to this federal law is when a state “affirmatively provides for such eligibility” to illegal aliens, which states may do “only through the enactment of a State law …
Does the president of the United States have the power to unilaterally tell millions of individuals who are violating federal law that he will not enforce that law against them now, that they may continue to violate that law in the future and that he will take action that makes them eligible for federal benefit programs for which they are not currently eligible due to their unlawful status?
Through Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, President Barack Obama is telling the Supreme Court exactly this right now.
The solicitor general calls what Obama is doing “prosecutorial discretion.”
He argues that under this particular type of “prosecutorial discretion,” the executive can make millions of people in this country illegally eligible for Social Security, disability and Medicare.