Florida and Michigan

Florida, must you always be involved in some type of nonsense. You think 2000 would teach you a thing or two. So here we are. Florida has 210 delegates and Michigan has 156. Move your primary up before the established date, and lose your vote. Over 5,000,000 voters lost their vote, because their representatives chose to ignore the party laws. This wasn't even an issue for the Democratic Party until the favorite started getting her ass kicked by the rookie. Then, as the numbers came in and the lead slipped, all of a sudden its an issue.
By Septemeber 6th, 2007, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama signed this pledge:


WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar; WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country; WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee; WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar. THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.


Here’s the statement from Patti Solis Doyle, the Clinton campaign manager:

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.

And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.

Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."

And they did. So she signed a Pledge to adhere to the Rules, the Rules that were already in place, and when it became apparent she could lose, she wants them changed. Lets get to this. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. Either was Edwards, Richardson, or Biden. So how could they count those votes if his campaign was actually going along with the rules that were set in place with the disenfranchising of these State's Primary Voting Status due to the moving up of their primaries?

They Can't. They Shouldn't. Or I'm Leaving.

-R.Mann

District of Columbia vs Heller

"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."

Here is what gets me. It starts off with a well regulated militia but then comes back to the word people to keep and bear Arms. So is it the militia who can have weapons or is it the people to protect themselves from the militia? Could it be broken down in common language to this:

A government run Military is necessary to our security. Though, it is the right of all people to have weapons and the government should never be able to take this right away.

That makes sense to me. What if this is what they meant:

A government run Military is necessary to the security of our country. At never a time should a branch of government dissolve the military and ask them to turn over their weapons.

That works too.

A case that is ongoing in the Supreme Court is the District of Columbia vs Heller. It has to do with the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975. This Act, passed by the City Council of District of Columbia, bans all handguns, automatic guns and high-capacity semi-automatic weapons,while also prohibiting possession of unregistered firearms. The only ones who could have these weapons were those who had them registered before the Act was passed, or retired police officers and other government employees. This in fact took the right to bear arms away from the people and only gave it exclusivity to government employees and ex government officials. It also said a gun at home had to be unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Which would be very ineffective if someone broke in. So a government law which bans the use or possession of guns for protection or otherwise, and it took over 30 years for people to speak up about it.

On March 9,2007, portions of the law were declared unconstitutional by a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling in the case.The District subsequently applied for a en banc(which is basically the case done over again with all Judges Present), which was denied, and appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

The Conclusion of the Court of Appeals with Senior Circuit Judge Silberman Writing:

"Once it is determined - as we have done - that handguns are 'Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them ... That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment."

It is now before the Supreme Court to decide.

Early on, Justice Antonin Scalia asked, "why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed." He added, "The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Later, Justice Scalia noted, "It's not at all uncommon for a legislative provision or a constitutional provision to go further than is necessary for the principal purpose involved. The principal purpose here is the militia, but the second clause goes beyond the militia and says the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

The decision will be made this summer and will have far and wide impacts on jurisdictions who have tried to follow suit after DC, or states that enact gun laws, that are unreasonable in the courts view and final decision.


-R.Mann

Invading a country to feed their people

A UN humanitarian envoy is due in Burma to try to persuade the ruling junta to grant more access to UN workers to help with the cyclone relief efforts.
John Holmes will carry a letter from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to Burma's leader, Than Shwe, who has refused to answer Mr Ban's calls.
Burma says some 78,000 people have died and 56,000 are missing since Cyclone Nargis hit the country on 2 May.
Burma has so far been refusing most offers of international aid.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7406801.stm





What type of country would turn down aid to help its people? Even America, after Katrina, let international aid in. When does a ruling party go too far?



When they decide to let people die, instead of allowing others to come into to the rescue. China even has requested international aid, the first time since 1949. Do we really have to go into the country with tanks, to feed the people. I guess the world government has to insist on guns and butter for this country. Since their government rather let the governed die, there's no reason to negotiate. How many phone calls does the President of Burma get anyway?

-R.Mann

Bush is Nuclear

Rep. Davis: Bush Is 'Absolutely Radioactive'

@ 5:34 pm by Andy Barr

Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) thinks that President Bush is "absolutely radioactive" and that any Republicans close to the him will suffer electoral consequences.

Davis, who made waves for a shockingly bleak memo about the electoral outlook for the GOP this fall, tells Bloomberg TV in an interview that will air tonight that GOP members have "got to get some separation from the president."

"Republicans, I think, have time to turn it around to some extent," Davis tells the network.

"But, if they don't, we're cruising for a bruising."

Davis has been mentioned as a possible replacement for current NRCC chair Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) following three straight special election defeats for the GOP. The Virginia Republican is not seeking reelection.

Amazing. At a time when solidarity is key to securing a victory in November, the Republicans count their biggest asset as their greatest liability. When the President of the United States, could actually hurt your reelection ideals, there is an issue. When everyone was following along, not many spoke up with their disagreements because they knew it was solidarity that continues the party lines, and build supports for all involved. Way to dig your own grave.

-R.Mann

Minutemen and Free Stuff

Anti-illegal immigration group wants San Diego highway sign
May 10, 6:43 AM (ET)

By ALLISON HOFFMAN
SAN DIEGO (AP) -

"When members of an anti-illegal immigration group offered to sponsor litter cleanup on local roads, they never imagined California officials would offer them an Adopt-a-Highway stretch near a Border Patrol checkpoint on Interstate 5, the main artery carrying illegal migrants north from the U.S.-Mexico border.
On Friday, lawyers for the San Diego Minutemen told a federal judge that the state had no right to rescind the offer after state legislators complained to the California Department of Transportation. The group asked that its blue Adopt-a-Highway sign be put back where it stood without incident for about six weeks until the agency removed it in January."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080510/D90INQ100.html

It's Amazing how rights are given to the Illegal few, taken from the legal many, and thrown to the panderers of Unconvicted, Undocumented, Criminals. Those who break the law are criminals and whatever title you throw at them, the substance still remains. It is starting to become clear in our country that doing the right thing, is actually a waste of time. I see many people come to my neighborhood in brand new vehicles, one I could never afford, and yet I find them doing 10 dollar an hour jobs. Well when you're on Social Services, and rent is Section 8, and you have food stamps, well that gets rid of all cost. Throw in that your pay is tax free and straight cash you're doing ok. Something is wrong when doing the right thing hurts you. There is laws in this country and unless we start following them, our country will continue to be in decay. There is a right way to do immigration. There is a wrong way to do immigration. We're doing the wrong thing. Someone shouldn't get to take from the pot, without having to put into it. Do I look at my poor Americans and tell them they cannot have social services if need be? No. I do not. Reason be, whatever small amount they put in, at least they put in. We seem to have a two-tier System here. We have a Capitalism Society, where wealth is distributed among many, and if you try hard enough, you can make it. Have that house, car, beautiful family and success. Pay your taxes, use social services temporarily and try your best. That's all America ask of all of us, to give it our best shot.

Then, there is another system. The Socialist System. That is all those who want, not necessarily need, but want can have. Free housing, food, healthcare anything. You don't even have to work. You can live your whole life being instead of becoming. The problem is, one hand doesn't know its providing for the other. The working guy who makes 30,500 and pays about 6k in taxes, doesn't know that the Illegal who's making 30,500 a year, and keeps it all, is having his rent paid, food paid for and healthcare provided from the legal working guy. Pretty sweet deal.

People will always find way to screw the system, lets stop making it so easy to do.

Also, For God's Sake, let the Minute Men put their damn sign up, and we should appreciate that they are picking up the litter the illegals threw next to the highway on their way into the land of FREE whatever you want.

-R.Mann

This Day

Celebrate your mother. If not, you're a dick.