Posts
All Comments
| In a bill passed by the Legislature earlier this month, the state is asserting that guns manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana to people who intend to keep their weapons in Montana are exempt from federal gun registration, background check and dealer-licensing rules because no state lines are crossed. |
| A bill by state Rep. Leo Berman exempting Texas-made firearms, gun accessories and ammunition sold within the state from federal regulation and law -- including registration -- was heard in a House committee on Monday. "With the appointment of Eric Holder as U.S. attorney general, we have the most anti-Second Amendment attorney general in the history of the nation," Berman said. "What we're saying with this is there are some guns not subject to federal regulation. We have guns and gun accessories and ammunition here that are not subject to their regulation." |
| Prime sponsor Mike Kelly, R-Fairbanks, attracted 10 co-sponsors and said the bill is both a measure to allow manufacture of guns and a statement that Alaska intends to reclaim some of its rights. Alaska has seen rights eroded in the oversight of navigable waters, fish and game, and access to natural resources, Kelly said, but can reclaim rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. "We will handle the regulation of it," he said. Kelly said the federal government has regulated firearms in part though the oversight of interstate commerce. The bill addresses that by exempting firearms, ammunition and firearm accessories that are manufactured and retained in the state. Guns and ammo that fit that criteria should be exempt from federal regulation, including registration, he said. |
| You're right that we should read the small print. According to Alan Solomont, chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service, this program can eventually "involve" as many as 8 or 9 million people. So with that in mind, consider this bit of small print: "those in an 'approved national service position' may not try to influence legislation, engage in protests or petitions, take positions on union organizing, engage in partisan political activities, or, among other issues, be 'engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of proselytization.'" Isn't that scarey? Everyone involved in this program is forbidden to express their opinion on legislation? forbidden to petition or protest? forbidden to "engage in partisan political activities," to boycott or support a strike? forbidden to go to Sunday school or build a church? During the campaign, Obama said he wanted to establish "a 'Civilian National Security Force' as big and as well-funded as the U.S. military. Melody Barnes, director of the White House domestic policy council, confirmed that this is it. A lot of the small print seems unconstitutional to me. People should consult their representatives. Also note, participation in this program is MANDATORY for anyone receiving school loans. |
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration advised federal agencies yesterday to release their records and information to the public unless foreseeable harm would result.
Attorney General Eric Holder issued new guidelines fleshing out President Barack Obama's Jan. 21 order to reveal more government records to the public under the Freedom of Information Act, whenever another law doesn't prohibit release.
The new standard essentially returned to one issued by Attorney General Janet Reno during the Clinton administration. It replaced a more restrictive policy imposed by the Bush administration under which the Justice Department defended any sound legal argument for withholding records.
"We are making a critical change that will restore the public's ability to access information in a timely manner," Holder said in a written statement.
Full Article: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=21381
| become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. |
| What do I think of Obama? FDR 2.0 with recovery delayed decades due to mismanagement, wrong effort, and training people to be dependants, not independants. |
| I see Obama as a modern day Teddy Roosevelt, just more sane. Teddy, for those who aren''t familiar, did whatever he wanted, including signing treaties with other nations, years before Congress caught up to him and actually made it all legal. I see him as a modern FDR, in that he'll "save" us from Depression, by nationalizing everything possible, and making his Socialist party buddies proud (even though they say he isn't one of them, and he's ah, misplaced, his membership card and lifetime pledge of loyalty to them). |
| Originally Posted by CuongNhuka  He's a Libertarian. They tend to make claims like that. |
| Originally Posted by Sukerkin Hmmm. "Claims" is it? Over here in England we tend to call that "Telling the truth". I suppose it's just another example of how we are two cultures seperated by a common language  . |
| Originally Posted by CuongNhuka It's a claim because it doesn't agree with his world view. I'm just pre-empting the reply. |
| Obama issued a statement supporting the tax on the AIG bonuses, saying it would send "a strong signal to the executives who run these firms that such compensation will not be tolerated." |
| If enacted, the tax could easily come under legal challenge. "This violates some fairly old-fashioned provisions of the Constitution called bills of attainder and ex post facto laws and things like that," said Terry Connelly, business school dean at Golden Gate University. |
| The "top 1%" isn't just going to pay for these policies. Many of them would assent to that. The rancorous language used to describe these taxpayers makes it clear that as a matter of public policy they will be made to "pay for" the fact of their wealth -- no matter how many of them worked honestly and honorably to produce it. No Democratic president in 60 years has been this explicit. |
| The primary goal is a massive re-flowing of "wealth" from the top toward the bottom, to stop the moral failure they see in the budget's "Top One Percent of Earners" chart. The White House says its goal is simple "fairness." That may be, as they understand fairness. But Figure 9 makes it clear that for the top earners, there will be blood. This presidency is going to be an act of retribution. In the words of the third book from Mr. Obama, "it is our duty to change it." |
| “There’s nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted so far in the favor of so few. . . . It’s a legacy of irresponsibility, and it is our duty to change it.” |
| Surprise, surprise, Obama really did mean what he said when he told Joe the Plumber he wanted to spread the wealth around. Obama’s tax and spending bills are not intended to raise revenue or stimulate the economy, but to redistribute wealth and he’s inserting his ideology for everyone to see right there in the most blaring of terms in the driest of documents, the federal budget. This should be a true wake-up call to those who think Obama is a benign pragmatist. A guy who feels it necessary to proselytize this explicitly in the budget ain’t no pragmatist; he’s a propagandist and he wants to convert you (BTW this reminds me of those in the last century who were stunned that another demagogue actually meant what he said; those who weren’t surprised had read Mein Kampf and took the writer at his word). |
