Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Click the Link for more on Gun Laws
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBF_enUS277US277&q=montana+gun+legislation
There are good sites to get more information about Gun Laws.
There are good sites to get more information about Gun Laws.
Montana Governor Signs New Gun Law
Montana Governor Signs New Gun Law
May 05, 2009 06:46 PM EDT views: 30592 rating: 8.2/10 (15 votes) comments: 236
Who says the state of Montana don't have guts? Sure it only applys to guns made in the state but it is the things said within the legislation that are important.
Montana Governor Signs New Gun Law Executive Summary - The USA state of Montana has signed into power a revolutionary gun law. I mean REVOLUTIONARY. The State of Montana has defied the federal government and their gun laws. This will prompt a showdown between the federal government and the State of Montana . The federal government fears citizens owning guns. They try to curtail what types of guns they can own. The gun control laws all have one common goal - confiscation of privately owned firearms.
Montana has gone beyond drawing a line in the sand. They have challenged the Federal Government. The fed now either takes them on and risks them saying the federal agents have no right to violate their state gun laws and arrest the federal agents that try to enforce the federal firearms acts. This will be a world-class event to watch. Montana could go to voting for secession from the union, which is really throwing the gauntlet in Obama's face. If the federal government does nothing they lose face. Gotta love it.
Important Points - If guns and ammunition are manufactured inside the State of Montana for sale and use inside that state then the federal firearms laws have no applicability since the federal government only has the power to control commerce across state lines. Montana has the law on their side. Since when did the USA start following their own laws especially the constitution of the USA , the very document that empowers the USA .
Silencers made in Montana and sol in Montana would be fully legal and not registered. As a note silencers were first used before the 007 movies as a device to enable one to hunt without disturbing neighbors and scaring game. They were also useful as devices to control noise when practicing so as to not disturb the neighbors. Silencers work best with a bolt-action rifle. There is a long barrel and the chamber is closed tight so as to direct all the gases though the silencer at the tip of the barrel. Semi-auto pistols and revolvers do not really muffle the sound very well except on the silver screen. The revolvers bleed gas out with the sound all over the place. The semi-auto pistols bleed the gases out when the slide recoils back. Silencers are maybe nice for snipers picking off enemy soldiers even though they reduce velocity but not very practical for hit men shooting pistols in crowded places. Silencers were useful tools for gun enthusiasts and hunters.
There would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required. So in a short period of time there would be millions and millions of unregistered untraceable guns in Montana . Way to go Montana !
Discussion - Let us see what Obama does. If he hits Montana hard they will probably vote to secede from the USA . The governor of Texas has already been refusing Federal money because he does not want to agree to the conditions that go with it and he has been saying secession is a right they have as sort of a threat.. Things are no longer the same with the USA . Do not be deceived by Obama acting as if all is the same, it is not. Text of the New Law HOUSE BILL NO. 246 .
INTRODUCED BY J. BONIEK, BENNETT, BUTCHER, CURTISS, RANDALL, WARBURTONAN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA ; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE.BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA :
Section 1. Short title. [Sections 1 through 6] may be cited as the "Montana Firearms Freedom Act".Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 6] is the following:
(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights, as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.
(4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana , and the right exists, as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
Section 3. Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 6], the following definitions apply:
(1) "Borders of Montana " means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.
(2) "Firearms accessories" means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.
(3) "Generic and insignificant parts" includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.
(4) "Manufactured" means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.
Section 4. Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana ...
Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:
(1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
(2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.
Section 6. Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 6] must have the words "Made in Montana " clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.
Section 7. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 6] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 6].
Section 8. Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.
SEND THIS TO EVERY FREEDOM LOVING (PATRIOT) RED BLOODED AMERICAN YOU CAN........
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977674743&grpId=3659174697249471&nav=Groupspace
by Col. George W.
Member since:May 18, 2007
May 05, 2009 06:46 PM EDT views: 30592 rating: 8.2/10 (15 votes) comments: 236
Who says the state of Montana don't have guts? Sure it only applys to guns made in the state but it is the things said within the legislation that are important.
Montana Governor Signs New Gun Law Executive Summary - The USA state of Montana has signed into power a revolutionary gun law. I mean REVOLUTIONARY. The State of Montana has defied the federal government and their gun laws. This will prompt a showdown between the federal government and the State of Montana . The federal government fears citizens owning guns. They try to curtail what types of guns they can own. The gun control laws all have one common goal - confiscation of privately owned firearms.
Montana has gone beyond drawing a line in the sand. They have challenged the Federal Government. The fed now either takes them on and risks them saying the federal agents have no right to violate their state gun laws and arrest the federal agents that try to enforce the federal firearms acts. This will be a world-class event to watch. Montana could go to voting for secession from the union, which is really throwing the gauntlet in Obama's face. If the federal government does nothing they lose face. Gotta love it.
Important Points - If guns and ammunition are manufactured inside the State of Montana for sale and use inside that state then the federal firearms laws have no applicability since the federal government only has the power to control commerce across state lines. Montana has the law on their side. Since when did the USA start following their own laws especially the constitution of the USA , the very document that empowers the USA .
Silencers made in Montana and sol in Montana would be fully legal and not registered. As a note silencers were first used before the 007 movies as a device to enable one to hunt without disturbing neighbors and scaring game. They were also useful as devices to control noise when practicing so as to not disturb the neighbors. Silencers work best with a bolt-action rifle. There is a long barrel and the chamber is closed tight so as to direct all the gases though the silencer at the tip of the barrel. Semi-auto pistols and revolvers do not really muffle the sound very well except on the silver screen. The revolvers bleed gas out with the sound all over the place. The semi-auto pistols bleed the gases out when the slide recoils back. Silencers are maybe nice for snipers picking off enemy soldiers even though they reduce velocity but not very practical for hit men shooting pistols in crowded places. Silencers were useful tools for gun enthusiasts and hunters.
There would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required. So in a short period of time there would be millions and millions of unregistered untraceable guns in Montana . Way to go Montana !
Discussion - Let us see what Obama does. If he hits Montana hard they will probably vote to secede from the USA . The governor of Texas has already been refusing Federal money because he does not want to agree to the conditions that go with it and he has been saying secession is a right they have as sort of a threat.. Things are no longer the same with the USA . Do not be deceived by Obama acting as if all is the same, it is not. Text of the New Law HOUSE BILL NO. 246 .
INTRODUCED BY J. BONIEK, BENNETT, BUTCHER, CURTISS, RANDALL, WARBURTONAN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA ; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE.BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA :
Section 1. Short title. [Sections 1 through 6] may be cited as the "Montana Firearms Freedom Act".Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 6] is the following:
(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights, as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.
(4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana , and the right exists, as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
Section 3. Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 6], the following definitions apply:
(1) "Borders of Montana " means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.
(2) "Firearms accessories" means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.
(3) "Generic and insignificant parts" includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.
(4) "Manufactured" means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.
Section 4. Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana ...
Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:
(1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
(2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.
Section 6. Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 6] must have the words "Made in Montana " clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.
Section 7. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 6] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 6].
Section 8. Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.
SEND THIS TO EVERY FREEDOM LOVING (PATRIOT) RED BLOODED AMERICAN YOU CAN........
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977674743&grpId=3659174697249471&nav=Groupspace
by Col. George W.
Member since:May 18, 2007
Thursday, May 14, 2009
From the Clarion Ledger-
Obama administration leans to constitutional lawlessness
George F. Will / • The Washington Post • May 14, 2009
Read Comments(1)
gsl.recommendCountHrefEnabled='true';
Recommend
Print this page
E-mail this article
Share
Del.icio.us
Facebook
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090514/OPINION/905140301
Buzz up!
Twitter
WASHINGTON — Anyone, said T.S. Eliot, could carve a goose, were it not for the bones. And anyone could govern as boldly as his or her whims decreed, were it not for the skeletal structure that keeps civil society civil - the of rule of law. The Obama administration is bold. It also is careless regarding constitutional values and is acquiring a tincture of lawlessness.
In February, California's Democratic-controlled Legislature, faced with a $42 billion budget deficit, trimmed $74 million (1.4 percent) from one of the state's fastest growing programs, which provides care for low-income and incapacitated elderly and cost the state $5.42 billion last year. The Los Angeles Times reports that "loose oversight and bureaucratic inertia have allowed fraud to fester."
But the Service Employees International Union collects nearly $5 million a month from 223,000 caregivers who are members. And the Obama administration has told California that unless the $74 million in cuts are rescinded, it will deny the state $6.8 billion in stimulus money.
Such a federal ukase to a state legislature is a sign of the administration's dependency agenda - maximizing the number of people and institutions dependent on the federal government. For the first time, neither sales nor property nor income taxes are the largest source of money for state and local governments. The federal government is.
The SEIU says the cuts violate contracts negotiated with counties. California officials say the state required the contracts to contain clauses allowing pay to be reduced if state funding is.
Anyway, the Obama administration, judging by its cavalier disregard of contracts between Chrysler and some of the lenders it sought money from, thinks contracts are written on water. The administration proposes that Chrysler's secured creditors get 28 cents per dollar on the $7 billion owed to them, but that the United Auto Workers union get 43 cents per dollar on its $11 billion in claims - and 55 percent of the company. This, even though the secured creditors' contracts supposedly guaranteed them better standing than the union.
The Economist says the administration has "ridden roughshod over (creditors') legitimate claims over the (automobile companies') assets."
This is not gross, unambiguous lawlessness of the Nixonian sort - burglaries, abuse of the IRS and FBI, etc. - but it is uncomfortably close to an abuse of power that perhaps gave Nixon ideas: When in 1962 the steel industry raised prices, President Kennedy had a tantrum and his administration leaked rumors that the IRS would conduct audits of steel executives, and sent FBI agents on predawn visits to the homes of journalists who covered the steel industry.
The Obama administration's central activity - the political allocation of wealth and opportunity - is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption.
George F. Will / • The Washington Post • May 14, 2009
E-mail columnist George Will at georgewill@washpost.com.
George F. Will / • The Washington Post • May 14, 2009
Read Comments(1)
gsl.recommendCountHrefEnabled='true';
Recommend
Print this page
E-mail this article
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Newsvine
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090514/OPINION/905140301
Buzz up!
WASHINGTON — Anyone, said T.S. Eliot, could carve a goose, were it not for the bones. And anyone could govern as boldly as his or her whims decreed, were it not for the skeletal structure that keeps civil society civil - the of rule of law. The Obama administration is bold. It also is careless regarding constitutional values and is acquiring a tincture of lawlessness.
In February, California's Democratic-controlled Legislature, faced with a $42 billion budget deficit, trimmed $74 million (1.4 percent) from one of the state's fastest growing programs, which provides care for low-income and incapacitated elderly and cost the state $5.42 billion last year. The Los Angeles Times reports that "loose oversight and bureaucratic inertia have allowed fraud to fester."
But the Service Employees International Union collects nearly $5 million a month from 223,000 caregivers who are members. And the Obama administration has told California that unless the $74 million in cuts are rescinded, it will deny the state $6.8 billion in stimulus money.
Such a federal ukase to a state legislature is a sign of the administration's dependency agenda - maximizing the number of people and institutions dependent on the federal government. For the first time, neither sales nor property nor income taxes are the largest source of money for state and local governments. The federal government is.
The SEIU says the cuts violate contracts negotiated with counties. California officials say the state required the contracts to contain clauses allowing pay to be reduced if state funding is.
Anyway, the Obama administration, judging by its cavalier disregard of contracts between Chrysler and some of the lenders it sought money from, thinks contracts are written on water. The administration proposes that Chrysler's secured creditors get 28 cents per dollar on the $7 billion owed to them, but that the United Auto Workers union get 43 cents per dollar on its $11 billion in claims - and 55 percent of the company. This, even though the secured creditors' contracts supposedly guaranteed them better standing than the union.
The Economist says the administration has "ridden roughshod over (creditors') legitimate claims over the (automobile companies') assets."
This is not gross, unambiguous lawlessness of the Nixonian sort - burglaries, abuse of the IRS and FBI, etc. - but it is uncomfortably close to an abuse of power that perhaps gave Nixon ideas: When in 1962 the steel industry raised prices, President Kennedy had a tantrum and his administration leaked rumors that the IRS would conduct audits of steel executives, and sent FBI agents on predawn visits to the homes of journalists who covered the steel industry.
The Obama administration's central activity - the political allocation of wealth and opportunity - is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption.
George F. Will / • The Washington Post • May 14, 2009
E-mail columnist George Will at georgewill@washpost.com.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
I had an Epiphany
Hello,
I study International Relations ( Specifically: TERRORISM and COUNTER TERRORISM ) when I'm studying at a University, on a Graduate Level. This is why I post notes here for you.
Epiphany: Today, Americans hear about ENHANCED Interogation Techniques, which oh by the way, We train our own troops on ( GIVING and RECEIVING ). The recent contraversy is about concern that the release of certain CLASSIFIED PICTURES will cause Allied Troops to be in further jeopardy !?! You mean more so than the CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS that have already been EXPOSED this Year, DID?
What part of : Hostages of Terrorists, Military Prisoners of Terrorists and Government Officials, not to forget the attrocities against innocent Civilian Men, Women and Children of the effected Countries, perpetrated by these TERRORISTS, have all been DECAPITATED, blown up, and KILLED or MAIMED in numerous ways already; did these Promonent Individuals who are trying to SABOTAGE American and Allied efforts to thwart these TERRORISTS, by RELEASING THE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS in the first place, fail to acknowlege or UNDERSTAND?!?
How could it be worse than it already is?
TERRRORIST is the wrong NOUN and ADJEC TIVE. They are MURDERERS, ANARCHISTS, RAPISTS, EXTREMISTS, KIDNAPPERS, THIEVES, BANDITS, MERCENARIES WITHOUT A COUNTRY, ARSONISTS, SERIAL KILLERS, NON UNIFORMED INSURGENTS and- TYRANTS and more...; to properly name a few appropriate NOUNS and ADJECTIVES !
Frankly, the partial or total release of Classified Documents to the Public and thus to our ENEMIES too, is not guarenteed by the CONSTITUTION, the benchmark for all law in the United States of America. The. release of CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS puts the American and thier Allie's Military, in greater Harms Way, along with US too! We used to understand this, as is illustrated by an old adage from WWII " Loose Lips Sink Ships ! "
Please feel free to comment !
www.walterdavidson.com
I study International Relations ( Specifically: TERRORISM and COUNTER TERRORISM ) when I'm studying at a University, on a Graduate Level. This is why I post notes here for you.
Epiphany: Today, Americans hear about ENHANCED Interogation Techniques, which oh by the way, We train our own troops on ( GIVING and RECEIVING ). The recent contraversy is about concern that the release of certain CLASSIFIED PICTURES will cause Allied Troops to be in further jeopardy !?! You mean more so than the CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS that have already been EXPOSED this Year, DID?
What part of : Hostages of Terrorists, Military Prisoners of Terrorists and Government Officials, not to forget the attrocities against innocent Civilian Men, Women and Children of the effected Countries, perpetrated by these TERRORISTS, have all been DECAPITATED, blown up, and KILLED or MAIMED in numerous ways already; did these Promonent Individuals who are trying to SABOTAGE American and Allied efforts to thwart these TERRORISTS, by RELEASING THE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS in the first place, fail to acknowlege or UNDERSTAND?!?
How could it be worse than it already is?
TERRRORIST is the wrong NOUN and ADJEC TIVE. They are MURDERERS, ANARCHISTS, RAPISTS, EXTREMISTS, KIDNAPPERS, THIEVES, BANDITS, MERCENARIES WITHOUT A COUNTRY, ARSONISTS, SERIAL KILLERS, NON UNIFORMED INSURGENTS and- TYRANTS and more...; to properly name a few appropriate NOUNS and ADJECTIVES !
Frankly, the partial or total release of Classified Documents to the Public and thus to our ENEMIES too, is not guarenteed by the CONSTITUTION, the benchmark for all law in the United States of America. The. release of CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS puts the American and thier Allie's Military, in greater Harms Way, along with US too! We used to understand this, as is illustrated by an old adage from WWII " Loose Lips Sink Ships ! "
Please feel free to comment !
www.walterdavidson.com
Sunday, May 10, 2009
If current economic policies 'seem' wrong, they are
If current economic policies 'seem' wrong, they are
WASHINGTON — From Oct. 18 to Dec. 3, 1961, 116,000 people visited New York's Museum of Modern Art before anyone noticed that Henri Matisse's painting "Le Bateau" had been hung upside down. Modernity is supposed to "transgress" standards of the traditional, which is why Paul Hindemith, while rehearsing one of his dissonant orchestral compositions, said to the musicians, "No, no, gentlemen - even though it sounds wrong, it's still not right."
Proponents of today's world-turned-upside-down economic policies say the policies might seem wrong but really are boldly modern in their rejection of markets in favor of pervasive government intervention in economic life. Hence New York, which until eight months ago was the financial capital of the world, is no longer even the financial capital of the United States.
Washington is.
So says Ian Bremmer in "State Capitalism Comes of Age: The End of the Free Market?" in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. It should be read by Americans who are dismayed by the blurring of the line between public and private sectors.
Most Americans assume - and are encouraged to do so by those doing the blurring - that the government is doing this reluctantly and is eager to find an "exit strategy" to "unwind" its interventions. Bremmer, president of the consulting firm Eurasia Group, believes that although the governments of many developing nations have made "a strategic rejection of free-market doctrine," governments of developed countries do not intend to "manage" their economies "indefinitely." About the former, he is correct. About the latter, his wish may be the father of his thought.
Among the myriad signs that many nations are developing systems "in which the state functions as the leading economic actor," Bremmer notes that the 13 largest oil companies are owned and operated by governments and that governments in the developing world control three-quarters of the world's energy reserves. Privately owned multinational companies produce just 10 percent of the world's oil and own just 3 percent of its proven reserves. In many developing nations, large companies that remain in private hands are only nominally private: They are government appendages in that they are dependent on government patronage for credit, contracts and subsidies. "Sovereign wealth funds" already account for one-eighth of global investment. .
In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville anticipated people being governed by "an immense, tutelary power" taking "sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate." Tocqueville said, "It does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them" until people resemble "a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."
So what today seems as modern as Matisse once seemed was actually foreseen 17 decades ago. Like Hindemith's music, what is happening seems wrong. And it is.
E-mail columnist George Will at georgewill@washpost.com.
WASHINGTON — From Oct. 18 to Dec. 3, 1961, 116,000 people visited New York's Museum of Modern Art before anyone noticed that Henri Matisse's painting "Le Bateau" had been hung upside down. Modernity is supposed to "transgress" standards of the traditional, which is why Paul Hindemith, while rehearsing one of his dissonant orchestral compositions, said to the musicians, "No, no, gentlemen - even though it sounds wrong, it's still not right."
Proponents of today's world-turned-upside-down economic policies say the policies might seem wrong but really are boldly modern in their rejection of markets in favor of pervasive government intervention in economic life. Hence New York, which until eight months ago was the financial capital of the world, is no longer even the financial capital of the United States.
Washington is.
So says Ian Bremmer in "State Capitalism Comes of Age: The End of the Free Market?" in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. It should be read by Americans who are dismayed by the blurring of the line between public and private sectors.
Most Americans assume - and are encouraged to do so by those doing the blurring - that the government is doing this reluctantly and is eager to find an "exit strategy" to "unwind" its interventions. Bremmer, president of the consulting firm Eurasia Group, believes that although the governments of many developing nations have made "a strategic rejection of free-market doctrine," governments of developed countries do not intend to "manage" their economies "indefinitely." About the former, he is correct. About the latter, his wish may be the father of his thought.
Among the myriad signs that many nations are developing systems "in which the state functions as the leading economic actor," Bremmer notes that the 13 largest oil companies are owned and operated by governments and that governments in the developing world control three-quarters of the world's energy reserves. Privately owned multinational companies produce just 10 percent of the world's oil and own just 3 percent of its proven reserves. In many developing nations, large companies that remain in private hands are only nominally private: They are government appendages in that they are dependent on government patronage for credit, contracts and subsidies. "Sovereign wealth funds" already account for one-eighth of global investment. .
In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville anticipated people being governed by "an immense, tutelary power" taking "sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate." Tocqueville said, "It does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them" until people resemble "a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."
So what today seems as modern as Matisse once seemed was actually foreseen 17 decades ago. Like Hindemith's music, what is happening seems wrong. And it is.
E-mail columnist George Will at georgewill@washpost.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)