Here many of us sit Unemployed , No work to be found , and the Obama administration is supporting Abortions in Kenya ?
WTF?
23 Million dollars to support an agenda in another Country , especially Kenya , For obama might be Alright , but 23 Million Dollars of U.S Taxpayers Money , would go far in the hands of the almost 15 Million unemployed in the U.S .
But , it's better to support Abortions in Kenya !
Foxnews
A Republican lawmaker is accusing the White House of “unconscionable” and “illegal” acts for its role in Kenya's referendum on a new constitution, which would legalize abortion in the country for the first time.
Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey cited a report by the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, which estimated that more than $23 million in U.S. taxpayer funds have been spent on the referendum, and Smith and other conservatives have complained that at least some of that money has been spent in sport of the proposed constitution, possibly violating U.S. law.
“Under no circumstances should the U.S. government take sides,” Smith said at a news conference Wednesday. “Yet that is precisely what the Obama administration has done.”
He and other lawmakers accuse the Obama administration of offering incentives to Kenya to approve the controversial new constitution, promising that passage would “allow money to flow” into the nation's coffers. A federal law known as the Siljander Amendment makes it illegal for the U.S. government to lobby on abortion in other countries.
“We were unable to get any information prior to asking for those (USAID) reports,” Smith said. “There’s been no transparency in this process.”
Thursday, July 22, 2010
GOP Lawmaker Blasts White House for $23M Spent on Kenya Constitution Vote
Friday, July 2, 2010
Chicago Approves Tough New Handgun Restrictions
So here we go , 4 days after the supreme court says that we as American citizens are allowed to own a handgun NO MATTER WHAT ! Chicago votes unanimously to ban Handguns everywhere but outside your home , including in gun shops !
WTF , are these Douchenozzles afraid of ? Are they afraid that someone will actually use one IN SELF DEFENSE ? or maybe use one to stop a criminal from committing a crime ?
Man it makes your head spin !
These little hubs of America that think they can just DICTATE how things are going to be , make me sick !
Foxnews
CHICAGO -- Members of the Chicago City Council have approved what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States.
Friday's 45-0 vote comes four days after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling made it almost certain that Chicago's handgun ban would be overturned. The high court ruled Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live.
The new city ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun.
Monday, June 28, 2010
US Supreme Court extends gun rights
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Shall not Be Infringed ! Duh !
It is about time this has been decided , But I bet it is not over .
The BBC
The US Supreme Court has restricted the rights of state and city governments to enforce controls on gun ownership.
The US's highest court ruled by 5-4 that a ban on handgun ownership in Chicago was unconstitutional.
Justices said the US Constitution protected the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defence.
The ruling could potentially change laws on gun ownership in many of the US states.
Debate over the exact meaning of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms has raged for years in the US.
The ammendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Two years ago, the court ruled a ban on handguns in Washington DC was unconstitutional - declaring that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defence in the home.
But Washington is a federal city, with a unique legal standing. Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago, Illinois, and its suburb of Oak Park, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years.
In Monday's ruling on that challenge the justices said the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states".
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Guardians of the free Republics looked to Gandhi, King, and Mandela
The Guardians of the free Republic's stated desire was to peacefully and nonviolently 'restore' America to a pre-1933 form of government. But why would 50 governors step down at their request? In the wings, the group insinuated, waited the military.
UH O.K. ?
The U.S. Military is waiting to do what ?
Just another Case of Radicalisation within the United States , and another Organization of people really out of touch with Reality !
We all would like to see the Government torn down and restructured in a way we see fit , But to do it like these guys or the Hutarees really does not further our cause , it only strengthens theirs !
Atlanta
In a recent plea, Sam Kennedy, a "guardian elder" of the Guardians of the free Republics, warned the modern-day "original government" revolutionaries to approach their March 31 "Restore America Plan" with Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, and Mohandas Gandhi in mind.
"We would simply like to urge patriots everywhere to champion their faith instead of force, and allow The Restore America Plan an uneventful 30 to 60 days for visible implementation which will ultimately end the bogus prosecutions and terrorist activities once and for all," wrote Kennedy recently.
The FBI failed to understand the Guardians' peaceful intentions.
A letter by Mr. Kennedy to all 50 governors demanding they step down within three days or be removed contained an implicit threat – and could be a cause, the FBI worried, for incitement for others to take action against the government.
Actively recruiting across the country in the last few months and promoted on a Texas radio station, the Guardians of the free Republics believe the US government is a corporate imposter put in place by corrupt bankers as part of the New Deal in 1933.
Going back to 'original' form of government
In essence, their "plan" seeks a return to de jure, or original, governance, stripping Washington of its ability to tax citizens' income and dismantling agencies such as the FBI. The Anti-Defamation League says "sovereign citizen" groups wage war against authority using "paper terrorism," but rarely resort to violence.
And although the Guardians lay out an interesting legal theory – arcane federal law and how it's interpreted is core to the sovereign citizen movement – the idea that they could quietly, and, as they suggest, without ridicule, work behind the scenes to slide America back nearly a century seems, in retrospect, folly.
So far, a number of Guardians have emerged. Kennedy, a Texas radio-show host, was interviewed for two hours on Friday by the FBI, but not arrested. Another "elder" listed is Tom Schaults, who runs clinics on "attorney repellant technology." And a third is the owner of the Guardians website, Clive Boustred, whom Mother Jones describes as "a British-educated former South African soldier with an apparent knack for 'anti-terrorist warfare.'"
The appearance of Mr. Boustred in the mix may give some clue to the assertion by the Guardians that they had an agreement with "the military" to support their quiet coup.
The Los Angeles Times writes that the "group's philosophy mingles with the anti-Federal Reserve mantra espoused by followers of US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas as well as with anti-tax advocates."
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Supreme Court Remains Divided Over Gun Control
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Pardon the language ,But This is pretty fucking self explanatory !
well regulated may be considered an issue for some , but really it means nothing More than being kept in check , much like the police , military ,the Government and so on .
So none may rule over the other !
something our Government and some Douchbag lawyers seem to have forgotten !
Just because a person does not like guns , it does not allow them to infringe on my rights , and try to tell me I may not own them !
Who is anyone to say that I may keep and bear arms to protect my country but not myself ?
I could go on , But i need to clean my guns !
the New York Times
WASHINGTON — An unusually intense Supreme Court argument Tuesday showed that the justices remain bitterly divided about the meaning and scope of the Second Amendment. And it suggested that the five-justice majority in the 2008 decision that first identified an individual right to keep and bear arms was prepared to take another major step in subjecting gun control laws to constitutional scrutiny.
The case the justices considered Tuesday was a sequel to the blockbuster 2008 decision, District of Columbia v. Heller.
The Heller case placed limits on what the federal government could do to
regulate guns, and the issue before the court now was whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local laws as well. It seemed plain that at least the five justices in the Heller majority would say yes without reservation.
But the two justices who wrote dissents in Heller, Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen G. Breyer, peppered the lawyers with questions about how the court might apply the Second Amendment to the states in only a limited way.
Justice Breyer asked Alan Gura, a lawyer for residents of Chicago challenging its strict gun control law, whether the city should remain free to ban guns if it could show that hundreds of lives would be saved. Mr. Gura said no.
Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority decision in Heller, objected to the inquiry. A constitutional right, he said, cannot be overcome because it may have negative consequences.
But Justice Scalia was less receptive to an idea that has excited constitutional scholars in recent months.
“What you argue,” he told Mr. Gura, “is the darling of the professoriate, for sure, but it’s also contrary to 140 years of our jurisprudence.”
Justice Scalia was referring to Mr. Gura’s assertion that the court has been going about making parts of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states in the wrong way.
The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, was originally a restriction on only the power of the federal government. The Supreme Court later ruled that most but not all of the protections of the Bill of Rights apply to the states under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, one of the post-Civil War amendments.
Many judges and scholars, including Justice Scalia, have never found that methodology intellectually satisfactory. “Due process,” after all, would seem to protect only fair procedures and not substance. The very name given to the methodology — substantive due process — sounds like an oxymoron.
Mr. Gura, supported by scholars all along the political spectrum, argued that the court should instead rely on the 14th Amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause, which says that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” There is evidence that the authors of the clause specifically wanted it to apply to allow freed slaves to have guns to defend themselves.
So does mr Guru , Not like the fact that Freed Slaves were allowed to own guns to protect themselves ?
