Our NRA has a stranglehold on our Constitutional Freedoms by the will of our citizens. It is a shame some people are so willing to murder others, yet that will NEVER justify erasing the freedoms from peaceful people nor even restricting us. That is the government you get in Russia, North Korea, etc. This is why so many of us have bequeathed so much in revenue generating properties to insure adequate funding far into the future. We fund our NRA with more than $200 million annually to keep fiends from stripping our gun freedoms from us. When these fiends attempt to take our gun freedoms from us, our VERY superior Legal Department helps these Rogue Politicos understand our Laws of the land! Here is another recent example: City of Chicago Ordered to Pay NRA's Legal Fees - Again Monday, July 07, 2014 $1.5 Million and Counting – The Taxpayer’s Burden of Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s and the City of Chicago’s Refusal to Recognize Second Amendment Rights Fairfax, Va. – The United States District Court in the Northern District of Illinois has ordered the City of Chicago to reimburse $940,000 in legal expenses incurred by the NRA. The NRA had challenged Chicago's ban on gun sales within city limits in Benson v. City of Chicago. The Benson case was consolidated into Illinois Association of Firearm Retailers v. City of Chicago and that case challenged five aspects of Chicago's law: (1) the ban on any form of carriage; (2) the ban on gun stores; (3) the ban on firing ranges; (4) the ban on self-defense in garages, porches, and yards; and (5) the ban on keeping more than one gun in an operable state. This is the second time that the City of Chicago has been ordered to reimburse legal fees in a suit sponsored by the NRA. The first was following the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago in which Chicago was ordered to reimburse the NRA more than $600,000. http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2014/7/city-of-chicago-ordered-to-pay-nras-legal-fees-again.aspx It will be interesting to see if Chicago enjoys helping us fund our Legal Department, OR if they can eventually understand their own laws as well as the laws of our nation. |
|
|
|
|
Just to let you know Selling white list PD account is againt PD rules, If stunna finds out he will unwhitelist the account
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a example of how "nothing is being done".
SAT JUN 28, 2014 AT 10:57 AM PDT
Mexico, Obama Administration taking action on migration of unaccompanied children
The New York Times ran this editorial on June 16: Innocents at the Border. I have only minor disagreements with the content, but this editorial attracted 506 comments, and almost all of them were negative, along the lines of “Deport them. Deport every single one.”
This issue is a mine field for Democrats running for Congress this year. The Republicans have tried to get some traction with Benghazi, Obamacare, and “invade Iraq (or Syria, The Ukraine, Crimea, whatever)” and it isn't working. The Republicans desperately need an issue they can win on, so I would be surprised if they didn't turn their noise machine loose on this one.
Let's start with a fact: according to the Border Patrol, three-fourths of these unaccompanied children are coming from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, not Mexico. They, of course,
have to travel across Mexico to get to the US. This is dangerous. They hitch rides on freight trains, and are crime targets. They place a burden on Mexico's social services (see below). So, a regional approach is required to deal with this situation, and that is exactly what the Obama Administration is pursuing. Vice-President Biden went on a tour a couple of weeks ago to meet with Guatemalan President Ottawa Perez Molina, Salvadoran President Salvador Sanchez Ceren and high-ranking ministers from Honduras and Mexico. He also talked to Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez on the phone. President Obama has responded by phoning Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto. The same group of Central American leaders are taking up the issue at the Ordinary Summit of Heads of State of the Central American Integration System (SICA) taking place in the Dominican Republic. Another top-level meeting has been organized in Nicaragua, to take place on July 16. And, just so that nobody gets the impression that this is all just talk, the Obama Administration has deported 27,140 Guatemalans so far this year.
Mexico's government is actually doing something, as well. The Mexico City newspaper La Jornada published an article on June 27 by Fabiola Martínez, En lo que va del año, México ha rescatado a 10,505 niños que viajaban a EU (“So far this year, Mexico has rescued 10,505 children traveling to the US”). Here's a translation:
At the end of 2014, Mexico will have rescued 16,000 children who were traveling through its territory to the United States, according to the Institute for National Migration (INM). Precisely 10,505 have been “rescued” so far this year, a 7.4% percent increase over the 9,727 rescued in all of 2013. INM warned of an increased northward flow of children, which is described by those responsible for Mexico's migration policy as a “humanitarian emergency”.
The Secretary of the Interior has proposed to his peers in the region (United States, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras) to immediately put in effect an information campaign to discourage children from leaving their homes and make it clear that crossing to North American countries will not mean that they will be accepted as immigrants.
This proposal was raised by Mexico after a high-level meeting in Guatemala last week, and will be ratified today in another regional conclave on the subject.
The INM said that in the past nine months, state and Federal authorities have broken up 35 criminal gangs and have arrested 330 people suspected of assaulting undocumented migrants.
The National System for Integral Family Development (DIF) is dealing with children under 11 while their immigration status is resolved. They handle either the assisted return or the granting of refugee status in Mexico, and run detention facilities for those between 12 and 17 years. They use the word “rescue” for these processes.
Since 2007, the policy of the Child Protection Office has been giving priority to family unification and the physical, emotional and psychological well-being of children in turning them over to relatives.
Yesterday, Under Secretary for Population, Migration and Religious Affairs Mercedes del Carmen Guillén Vicente traveled to Managua, Nicaragua, to participate at the 19th Regional Conference on Migration. The measures proposed by Mexico will be voted on by the delegates of the participating nations.
The main points are: addressing the problem with shared responsibility, operational support to comply with any agreement of the leaders of the nations participating in the upcoming summit of the Central American Integration System, and discouraging minors from leaving their communities.
In addition, they will share Best Practices of repatriation and intensify training of public servants for care for unaccompanied migrant and repatriated children.
|
|
|
|
The constant illegal invasion of undocumented peoples entering the country doesn't stop because no one wants to get behind any effort to stop it. Some states need the cheap labor they provide and no politician wants to lose the legal Hispanic vote. There is no easy answer to a problem that has been allowed to get out of control for decades. Placing thousands of our military troops along the border with Mexico may not be constitutional and Berlin-like walls don't work. A general amnesty may be the only logical answer for those already here along with monetary assistance for those willing to return to the land of their birth and working with the Mexican government to stop the invasion on their side of the border. One way or another its going to cost a great deal of money and until we are ready to pay for it....nothing will be done.
Yes. I'm also sick to death of the constant bleat from cons that nothing is being done! NOTHING! OBAMA'S inviting team (BECAUSE THE 'ILLEGALS' SAY SO!" Honestly, these people are brainless...and proud of it. They actually work at it. |
|
|
|
1) Single Payer HC
2) Term limits
3) Abolish Lobbyist and groups
Term limits are not necessary because members of Congress must be regularly re-elected. If they are not doing a good job in office, we can simply vote for someone else. Career politicians have no place in Washington. They are also subject to corruption, and the influence of lobbying. |
|
|
|
|
1) Single Payer HC
2) Term limits
3) Abolish Lobbyist and groups
|
|
|
|
What I'm saying is that a national policy will help in two major ways - first, it will reduce availability (notice I said reduce, not eliminate) of black market guns by shutting down at least PART of the flow source by making unregistered sales illegal everywhere.
What's your source for making that claim? It's called an opinion - and one based in sound logic. The problem you and I have is that you seem to think I'm calling this a magic bullet - which I'm not, and without a magic bullet, you're unwilling to consider ANY measures. Where do you citizens of Jersey go to get your Free Speech permits? What the fuck about "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? |
|
|
|
Registration should be voluntary. Then nobodies breakin the law. Even if made law...it would be voluntary. Criminals will not register their weapons...only honest law abiding citizens will. Not even! Americans will NEVER tolerate any Government knowledge of our guns, and we train our kids to evade any and all Registration schemes to locate guns. Officials in Connecticut Stunned by What Could Be a Massive, State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners Feb. 13, 2014 12:04am http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/13/tens-of-thousands-of-connecticut-gun-owners-may-be-staging-a-massive-act-of-civil-disobedience/NON COMPLIANCE Why haven’t Californians registered all their assault weapons? http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1952It is truly unthinkable that any "American" will ever tolerate any gun registration scheme preceding gun confiscation. It worked in Nazi Germany and Communist China, and therefore it fails in the USA! It requires a brain dead or FOOL American to Register any commodity gun. This is also why we rarely report stolen guns. Gun ownership has ZERO connection to any government. |
|
|
|
Other things I don't own...A parachute..A chainsaw..A trailer hitch ..A hot air popcorn popper..Like a firearm...I hope I never need any of these things.
I don't own a parachute or a popcorn popper. I use my chainsaw frequently and keep a half dozen chains for it. I definitely own a trailer hitch I use mostly in support of my wife's Interior Decorating practice, and moving furniture between our homes as my wife prefers. Every member of my family owns various guns. Each kid is given a 22 rifle at age 10, a shotgun at age 12, and a handgun at age 14, as they demonstrate unwavering safety practices. As an NRA Instructor I push safety before any get guns, and I push that VERY HARD! I have owned guns all my life, having grown up on a farm where critters tended to eat the crops given the chance. My father paid a dollar for a groundhog kill and two bucks for a crow (crows are way too smart, hard to hit, harder to get close to them). I think the NRA is insane and if you are not a farmer or a sportsman you should not be carrying. I mean the recent walking into restaurants with your 30/30 slung over your should should cause anyone not truly insane to see the rationale for regulation. I would register my weapons in a NY minute and so should we all. The many Liberal gun Registration law violators in California and Connecticut who reject any and all gun Registration schemes, out of hand disagree with you as do most Americans. Guns, chain saws, trailer hitches, etc., are bought sold, borrowed, loaned, and traded as are guns and other tools, in living rooms, parking lots, etc. Many millions of pre 1940 guns are included, and records are destroyed frequently per Federal law. |
|
|
|
|
How in the hell am I supposed to pick between: Batman: TAS X-Men Spider-Man Animaniacs Tiny Toon Adventures Pokemon Hysteria Rugrats and GI Joe?I can't do it.
|
|
|
|
Other things I don't own...A parachute..A chainsaw..A trailer hitch ..A hot air popcorn popper..Like a firearm...I hope I never need any of these things.
I don't own a parachute or a popcorn popper. I use my chainsaw frequently and keep a half dozen chains for it. I definitely own a trailer hitch I use mostly in support of my wife's Interior Decorating practice, and moving furniture between our homes as my wife prefers. Every member of my family owns various guns. Each kid is given a 22 rifle at age 10, a shotgun at age 12, and a handgun at age 14, as they demonstrate unwavering safety practices. As an NRA Instructor I push safety before any get guns, and I push that VERY HARD! |
|
|
|
I wish i could have voted once for each firearm i own...
The 'firearms' have fed my family, provided hours of targeted entertainment and provided relief for suffering varmits.
Self-righteous buffoons who advocate a) hunger over hunting b) video game entertainment c) pain and suffering of wild critters
should be air-dropped into Flint or Detroit to sing Kumbayah.
My son just told me that he wished he had said what you posted, since it is true of ours and millions of American families! Collectivist Liberal, Anti-American, Fiends, just have no possible clue of how passionately we Americans loath and detest them!!! |
|
|
|
|
I actually rather enjoy cardio machines. I like the Elliptical / Cross-Trainers, throw on a good CD/mix/whatever and have at it. I also like some of the group cardio classes like Box Fit / Body Combat / Etc.
|
|
|
|
Do you own a firearm?
A key misunderstanding between gun-control advocates & the rest of us: Americans are OK with guns. We don't like violence or guns in the hands of mad men & criminals, but we are OK with guns.
Do you own a firearm? Yes, and an Anti-American, FIEND driven, Government Gestapo, and Collectivist Liberal SS Trooper Gang, "MAY" even be capable of finding one or the other of my guns, by digging up the entire USA up, down to an eight foot depth and removing ALL walls within all buildings within the correctly chosen states. Those with negative IQs who drool in their Cheerios may fantasize that I or a more Conservative Great Grand Kid might ignorantly honor an Anti-American, Gun Registration scheme against American citizens. ROTFLMAO!!! "IF" you can imagine such ignorance and stupidity... I mildly wonder how many Billions such an Anti-American activity might require. How can we raise that cost??? OH WAIT!!! WAIT!!! The dedicated despised Collectivist Liberals in California and Connecticut have already pissed in the proverbial faces of their Rogue, state, Anti-Americans, who so, so, ignorantly attempted a FOOL'S Registration Scheme that in both cases failed! With an additional, say fifty Trillion dollars in Chinese borrowed money, why, these Anti-Americans 'could possibly' find most of our guns. China might then propose annexing the USA, and we, the people, would perhaps all retire to the stadium to watch the American FIENDS perform, having determined the USA was no longer worthy of existance if Liberalism survived. |
|
|
|
|
BTW, there are also lots of jokes about women swapping their husbands for material things, so get off your always offended high horses, people. Sheesh!
|
|
|
|
I draw a firm line in the sand with regard to the families of those figures, most particularly the minor children and spouses that are not directly involved in political policy.
Since both Michelle Obama and Nancy Pelosi are very political, I guess you have no objection to poking a little fun at them. As far as racial undertones are concerned, liberals are the ones constantly reminding us that the Obamas are black and therefore beyond criticism. I also stated that I was equally uncomfortable with jokes that in any way attacked a person's race, ethnicity, gender, religion or age. And in that respect I have a couple of issues with this joke as it relates to gender. First it places the First Lady of the US and the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives on the same level as a couple of hogs. And more disturbing it insinuates that Barack Obama actually "owns" the two individuals and as such can trade them for farm animals. OK, I admit it. As I said earlier, I lack a sense of humour. Or at the least, I lack a totally developed one. First it places the First Lady of the US and the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives on the same level as a couple of hogs. |
|
|
|
I draw a firm line in the sand with regard to the families of those figures, most particularly the minor children and spouses that are not directly involved in political policy.
Since both Michelle Obama and Nancy Pelosi are very political, I guess you have no objection to poking a little fun at them. As far as racial undertones are concerned, liberals are the ones constantly reminding us that the Obamas are black and therefore beyond criticism. Michelle Obama is not an elected political figure, but she does have the right to free speech, a platform, and the right to support her own and her husband's programs. Just as Laura Bush did. So no, you don't get to lump her in with a congresswoman who deserves what she gets (as if either of them deserve that) Would your 'joke' naming Laura a good trade for a pig draw guffaws from you? |
|
|
|
|
I draw a firm line in the sand with regard to the families of those figures, most particularly the minor children and spouses that are not directly involved in political policy.
|
|
|
|
Obama said WE would take action if Assad used chemicals, and you think Obama's "action" of letting the Russians talk it out would make Iraq quiver? I don't think anything we did to the Assad administration in a practical sense would have made the ISIS quiver. But a couple of things: 1.) it WAS taken seriously by both the Assad administration and Russia 2.) action was voted down in both our congress and the British parliament. President Obama would have liked to intervene more heavily but the politics of that didn't line up for him. exactly what was the red line Obama drew that ended Gadhafi's life? The mass killing of civilians domestically. Gaddafi though also had a very active hand in the genocide in Darfur and a huge hand in regional instability far and above anything that Assad has ever engaged in. The United States has long wanted Gaddafi to be removed from power, Reagan even tried to kill him in a bombing run; president Obama saw an opening to remove him and do so with Libyan support, NATO support, and with the tentative support of even the Arab League: a feat that even HW Bush wasn't able to accomplish during the Gulf War with Iraq. You're giving Obama credit for gaddafi's killing? http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/na...fd5_story.html |
|
|
|
As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.
That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).
Obama flexed and his bluff was called and he turned tail. Why would anyone believe he has the resolve to follow through when he said (paraphrased) "use chemical weapons and we will respond" and Assad not only used them, he used them on children, and Obama's reply was (paraphrased) "uhh, Bush bad, when's my tee time again? See post immediately prior to yours. Your argument has no supporting evidence upon which to rest. Obama issued the "red line" challenge...he didn't have to, but he did. Then he got called on it when Assad killed 1400 people and Obama's response was to "clarify what he meant when he said 'red line'." What other evidence is there besides Obama saying "we" and "red line" and "will respond" and then not responding when the red line was crossed and shat upon? None of that supports your argument that a red line in Iraq wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. Try again. You rather missed the fact that his red line in Syria was taken seriously: hence the Russian political intervention. You also rather missed the fact that one of the longest sitting modern dictators ended up losing his life when he was on the wrong side of our red line in Libya. You also seem to have missed how seriously Al Qaeda takes our drone program. Let me know when you have something backing up your speculation. Obama said WE would take action if Assad used chemicals, and you think Obama's "action" of letting the Russians talk it out would make Iraq quiver? exactly what was the red line Obama drew that ended Gadhafi's life?ooh yeah, they're SO SCARED!! http://time.com/77024/drone-strikes-al-qaeda-yemen/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
