I hope everyone has/had a great 4th of July holiday weekend. As you hit the road or make it home, here’s a collection of stories I thought you might find of interest….
First off, some supporters of the 2nd Amendment are saying they won’t shop at Target. This, after the major retailer announced that they are urging shoppers not to openly carry firearms in their stores.
The Daily Caller- Target Doesn’t Ban Guns; Gun-Grabbers Declare Victory
Of course, mass shooters tend to gravitate toward No Gun Zones, while ignoring such requests. Guess which symbol Target just placed on all of their customers’ backs?
Fortunately for citizens of states where it’s still legal to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, this is not a ban. It’s barely even a scolding. It’s merely: “Don’t put us in the middle of this, you guys. We just wanna sell flip-flops and toilet paper.”
From Politico’s Morning Energy:
– Wyoming Sticks by Coal Despite Emission Standards, Shale-Gas Boom. WSJ: http://on.wsj.com/1o5YlDj
– Coal mine’s rejection on global-warming grounds has major implications. InsideClimate News: http://bit.ly/1qOybHJ
DailySignal.com: Environmentalists Call U.S. Workers ‘Collateral Damage’
One of the leading leftwing environmentalists last week described the hundreds of thousands of Americans who may lose their jobs due to the Obama administration’s new anti-carbon regulations as “collateral damage” in the fight against global warming.
The offensive comments were issued by William S. Becker, the head of the Climate Action Project, a well-funded environmental group.
— Jason Thielman (@ThielmanJason) July 3, 2014
— Bob Brigham (@BobBrigham) July 3, 2014
Great Falls Tribune: Montana grizzlies kill cattle 100 miles from mountains
A trio of sub-adult grizzly bears attacked and killed two calves at a ranch on the Teton River north of Carter early Monday.
Ranch owners Dean and Kippy Schuler were first alerted to the presence of the bears Sunday night, when they were awakened in their home by their dogs barking outside.
Much of the border areas in South Texas are considered national wildlife refuge areas, which are protected lands overseen by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Lower River Grande Refuge, for example, runs for 275 miles along the Rio Grande River, which is on the border of Texas and Mexico. The Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge is a meager 2,000 acres, but the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge encompasses more than 97,000.
Why is this an issue? Because the majority of people illegally trying to enter the U.S., whether drug smugglers, human traffickers or those seeking a better life in America, are coming across these protected lands.
They choose to cross the border across to those protected lands because they know it’s harder for the border patrol to apprehend them in these areas, thanks to rules made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, which is part of the Department of the Interior.
“Is this a new Cold War? There are certain similarities. This is the greatest moment of confrontation since [the time of Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev,” McFaul said. For example, he noted that not even in the depths of the Cold War was the Kremlin chief of staff subject to economic sanctions, which is the case today. “It’s a deeply tragic moment. It makes me wonder, and I know the president wonders, were we naive to try to think about a different relationship with Russia?”
There several ways of thinking about the recent crisis. One favorite frame, especially among Russian experts, is that this is simply the way Great Powers behave and the way they’ve behaved for centuries. Russia is a rising power, and it’s only natural that it would seek to control more territory. That can’t be written off entirely, McFaul said, but he doesn’t see it as the main factor. First, he explained, if Russia had made a faster transition to democracy and markets—like, say, Poland did—the situation might be different. And second, he noted that Russian policy up until late February of 2014 was far more accommodating.
Ambassador McFaul is from Montana.
— Aaron Flint (@aaronflint) July 1, 2014
Jim Geraghty with National Review:
Supreme Court decisions to liberals are kind of like the World Cup to the rest of us. They largely ignore them until the stakes are highest, and then, in an unexpected, suddenly-revealed decision that could have been reversed if one participant had scored the other way, they explode in a mass exhibition of jubilation or furious disbelief and anguish over defeat.
MichelleMalkin.com: Another law signed by Bill Clinton comes back to bite the Dems?
Recently, Democrats were celebrating the overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act that was enacted in 1996. Bill Clinton congratulated himself for helping lead the recent fight to overturn the law that some guy named Bill Clinton signed.
Fast forward to this morning when the Supreme Court sided with Hobby Lobby. The majority ruled that Hobby Lobby fell under the umbrella of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Who signed that bill? Bill! The RFRA was sponsored in the U.S. Senate by some right-wing Republican named Chuck Schumer.
National Review: 9 Myths from Justice Ginsburg’s Hobby Lobby Dissent
MYTH 1: “[T]he Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
FACT: Justice Alito wrote, “We do not hold, as the principal dissent alleges, that for-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can ‘opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.’” As always, RFRA requires that the burden on religious exercise be substantial before the government is held to the “compelling governmental interest” test.
The administration’s losses on Obamacare rules and compulsory union dues served as a rebuke on the Supreme Court’s final day after months of judicial decisions to rein in big government on issues such as snooping without a warrant, campaign finance restrictions and Mr. Obama’s recess appointment powers.
In the more than five years that Mr. Obama has been in office, the court has rejected the government’s argument with a 9-0 decision 20 times.