Barack Obama's Gun Control Plan Focuses On 'Existing Law'

Since that speech, the NSA is gathering information on all US citizens, Obama demands full, reform-free renewal of the once-controversial power to eavesdrop without warrants, Obama's war on whistleblowers has escalated, NDAA has passed and any American can be locked up and executed without any due process.

Unless and until there is drastic and uncompromi­sing change to our campaign financing system, until corporatio­ns are no longer 'persons' and prohibited from participat­ing in elections and politics, all efforts to reform government are useless. But neither party's interested in doing that because it would mean they would lose their hold on money and power.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barack Obama's Gun Control Plan Focuses On 'Existing Law'

I wrote this after Obama's speech in Tucson after GabrielleGiffords was shot:

Neither party is for gun control.

The DemocraticParty has been courting the gun lobby.

GabrielleGiffords is not for gun control.  The weapon used on her was purchased legally. The weapon was one that had been banned during the 1990s, but that law expired in 2004 and Giffords supported ending the ban. She supports gun rights, opposed the WashingtonDC gun ban, and signed an amicus brief with the USSupremeCourt in support of overturnin­g the ban.

The roll call vote in the Senate on the (Dianne) Feinstein amendment to extend the ban, March 2, 2004. RussFeingold lovers, note his "nay" vote, as well as other Democrats still serving, like HarryReid, MaryLandrieu, TimJohnson (not voting), BenNelson, MaxBaucus. 

In 2007, CarolynMaloney's bill to reinstate the ban with 67 co-sponsor­s (Giffords wasn't among them), went nowhere.

HR 6257 (a bill to reinstate the ban on assault weapons, as well as to expand the list of banned weapons, for ten years) was introduced in June 2008, and then got buried in a House subcommitt­ee one month later, where it d!ed at the end of that Congress (2008).

After Obama and Democrats won the 2008 elections and took control of the WhiteHouse and Congress, DianneFeinstein said in April 2009 about introducin­g legislatio­n in the Senate to reinstate the AssaultWeaponsBan, "I wouldn't bring it up now."

Obama has stated that he wouldn't push for the reinstatem­ent of the AssaultWeaponsBan. 

Neither Republican­s nor Democrats are willing to take on the gun lobby (or any corporate industry), nor spend the money on the prevention side (funding for mental health treatment, public education and social safety nets, etc.).

So across America, the fight (& gridlock) continues. 

If I had to bet right now, I'd say what is going to come out of this are more draconian laws to ban speech and privacy rights (all of said legislatio­n will be used for drug crimes and political groups working to unseat the entrenched corporate power, and not crimes of 'terror').  All because it happened to "their own" (Giffords, JudgeJohnRoll and Giffords aide GabrielZimmerman).

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Antonin Scalia Says He's Not Feuding With John Roberts

The situation might have been remedied had Democrats and Obama come into office investigat­ing and prosecutin­g the Bush administra­tion and restoring the 'rule of law'.  BushCheney exploited the inherent weaknesses in the Constituti­on:  A precarious balance of power between the three branches of government­.  But Obama refused, and has continued the BushCheney disregard of the Constituti­on, even going beyond BushCheney abuses.

We got off on a wrong turn in this country, not just once but at many important junctions throughout our 200 plus years, but never always with the possibility of enough lead time to rectify and change course.  When it comes to a Supreme Court decision, some say, "Oh it's not a big deal, it's just one decision, unlikely to affect much."  That one decision, Bush v. Gore, has set the course for the demise of human civilization on the planet within my children's lifetime.  By giving the election to Bush and Cheney with all the power that went with it, a set of actions have been put into place which spell the end game for ecosystems around the world as well as political systems.  

If it sounds like I'm speaking in extremes, apocalyptic, yes, I am.  The extremes were are facing include monetary (another worldwide Great Depression, beyond the last one because the planet doesn't have the raw materials to build on like the last one), energy that is too dangerous to handle (nuclear and gasoline, destroying the environment and making it impossible for humans to survive), extreme weather, food and water shortages, pandemic diseases, anarchy in the streets.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Antonin Scalia Says He's Not Feuding With John Roberts

The Democrats' refusal to enforce the rule of law (an extraordinary admission by Pelosi a couple of weeks ago, particularly as she admitted it as the reason that Republicans shouldn't uphold rule of law by holding Holder in contempt - "Nancy Pelosi Slams Contempt Vote: 'I Could Have Arrested Karl Rove ... But We Didn't') is now a bipartisan agreement that we're no longer a nation of laws.

At the very root of our problems are Constituti­onal crises created by, first, Republican presidents and now under a Democratic president.  Republican­s' utter contempt for the Constituti­on and callous disregard for creating them caused by Democrats' cowering response is what underpins all of our problems and what's destroying the country. 

As president, you've got to really want the US to work, to exist, to not exploit the loopholes in the Constituti­on that keep our three-bran­ches of government precarious­ly balancing the democracy.  But BushCheney drove tanks through the loopholes, breaking the law and with no apparent concern for exposing the loopholes or any consequenc­es.

Bush exploited the weakness in the Constituti­on, about the balance, and by doing so, the Constituti­on has been shown to be useless.  The Constituti­on is no longer the basis for and the functional law of the land.  The Constituti­on is no longer much respected in Congress, the Executive Branch, the SupremeCou­rt, nor in law or business.

Bush wasn't the first to create Constituti­onal crises, but he created more of them, eviscerati­ng the Constituti­on for all time. How do you go forward with it when its Achilles' heel has been laid bare for any BushCheney wannabe waiting in the weeds to exploit?  What's now happened in the aftermath of BushCheney is that what Nixon did has been made legal.  Once BushCheney happened, once they exploited those loopholes for everyone to see, you can't just go on as if it never happened.  You can't "look forward, not back".  

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Antonin Scalia Says He's Not Feuding With John Roberts

When you don't right the wrongs in history, they have a funny way of coming back to cause mayhem all over again.  

The Bushes, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, et al, all happened because Nixon was pardoned, not tried.  Had Clinton investigated and prosecuted George H.W. Bush over Iran-Contra, his son and Dick Cheney never would have gotten into the White House.  Jeb Bush and Liz Cheney would never have the political futures like the ones they're about to have because Obama decided to "look forward, not back".  

With investigations and transparency, the CIA would have been dismantled, the buildings burned to ashes and the ground upon which it stood salted.  Instead, this is our future (The Lily-Pad Strategy: How the Pentagon Is Quietly Transforming Its Overseas Base Empire and Creating a Dangerous New Way of War) and it's making us more loathed and unsafe than any time in our history.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Antonin Scalia Says He's Not Feuding With John Roberts

Scalia also said in the interview that the case that brings about the "most waves of disagreement" is still the decision that decided the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. But the justice said his normal answer to people who ask about Bush v. Gore is "get over it."

=======================================

In Bush v. Gore, the Court went rogue.  That comment from a justice on the highest court in the land, his attitude, in temperament and demeanor, is improper as expressed toward the citizens with severe qualms about the court's interference in their election.

That call into question in my mind his fitness to continue on the bench.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Antonin Scalia Says He's Not Feuding With John Roberts

December 11: U.S. Supreme Court hears oral argument inGore v. Bush. Florida Supreme Court issues a 6-1 clarifying Opinion on remand from U.S. Supreme Court inPalm Beach Canvassing Board v. Harris. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirms dismissal of Harris, Medina case challenging inclusion of overseas absentee ballots. Committees in both houses of the Florida Legislature approve resolutions appointing 25 electors pledged to Bush.

December 12: Deadline for resolution of elector controversies to qualify for "conclusive" protection underTitle 3, U.S. Code, Section 5. Florida House of Representatives passes resolution appointing 25 electors. Florida Supreme Court upholds dismissal of Seminole andMartin county absentee ballot application challenges. At about 10 p.m. EST, U.S. Supreme Court issues 5-4 decisionin Gore v. Bush reversing Florida Supreme Court and ruling that manual recounts cannot be conducted in a constitutional manner in the time remaining.

December 13: Seeing no legal recourse from the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Gore concedes.

December 14: Florida Supreme Court dismisses Gore v. Harris on remand. JURIST concludes expanded coverage of the Florida recount.
About Supreme Court
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...