1. President Obama’s Plan To Kill Armed Pilot Program

2. The Proposition 8 Decision: Not Rational

3. Good News on Highway Bill Front; More Issues Elsewhere

4. There’s Only One Earmark In the Senate Highway Bill

1. President Obama’s Plan To Kill Armed Pilot Program

The President’s wants to end the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program (FFDO), also known as the armed pilots program. If Congress were to follow President Obama’s recommendation contained in his $3.8 trillion FY2013 budget proposal, they would be making a huge mistake. This anti-terrorism program has been a success and a cost effective means to protect the cockpits of commercial aviation from 9-11 style terrorism.The President’s budget lists the FFDO program as one of the few “cuts” to federal spending. They have reduced the program from the $25 million they received this year to $12 million for FY2013. This massive cut to the program would destroy it. Consider this evidence that the Obama Administration would be more happy to rely on intrusive screening procedures being applied to toddlers, the elderly, and Senators, rather than pilots with guns to provide a last line of defense to aviation terrorism.Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. The Proposition 8 Decision: Not Rational

The Ninth Circuit’s 2-1 decision last week in Perry v. Brown upheld the decision of Judge Vaughan Walker holding that the people of the State of California violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by passing – in a statewide referendum in 2008 – Proposition 8. Prop 8 amended the California Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, restoring the rule previously set forth in California statutory law until overturned by the California Supreme Court earlier in 2008. Prop 8 garnered over 7 million votes, two million more than John McCain in liberal California – it was the supported by 52.3% of the same electorate that broke 61-37 for Barack Obama, including 58% of black voters and 59% of Latino voters.Despite some game efforts to meddle with the burden of proof based on the sequence of events, the core of the decision – written by veteran arch-liberal Judge Stephen Reinhardt – was the same as that of the district court: the assertion that there is no possible rational basis for distinguishing between traditional, opposite-sex marriage and same-sex marriage. More specifically, in the California context, the court found that the federal constitution gives federal judges the right to dictate the language itself, holding that California’s voters were not even permitted to reserve the term marriage to opposite-sex marriage while providing effectively all the practical state-law benefits of marriage to same-sex couples through “domestic partnership.”Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Good News on Highway Bill Front; More Issues Elsewhere

Our voices are finally being heard – sort of. When we started voicing opposition to the highway bill there were few conservatives speaking out against it, and even fewer members of the House who were willing to oppose it. Now, there is so much opposition to the bill that John Boehner was forced to delay the vote on the highway bill, which was previously scheduled for today.Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. There’s Only One Earmark In the Senate Highway Bill

If the House highway bill is an excrement sandwich, the Senate version is…well, it’s a lot worse. The one saving grace of the bill was that it supposedly did not contain any earmarks. Well, indeed there is one earmark in the bill, and it’s directed to Nevada. The earmark is ensconced in the bill very cleverly.Please click here for the rest of the post.