Tuesday, June 25, 2013
The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration
, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. , and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo.
These Senators voted to let the UN take our guns. They need to lose the election. We have been betrayed.
46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.
Sunday, June 23, 2013
Now a new YouTube video shows that in the future, drones could also carry out the close-combat duties of foot soldiers.
In the video a real-life weapon demonstrations have earned him a cult following, shows off a quadrotor – a mini helicopter with four rotors - outfitted with a machine guns. The U.S. Military have and are currently using them to fly the borders of Mexico and the U.S. as a practice run to see how effective they are and if local law enforcement can use them on un armed and armed Americans. This was a decision by President Obama after he used 3 of these drones to kill American citizens on foreign soil.
The FFA has disclosed maps of 19 universities that are designing and building them.
The FAA has also Disclosed a map of where they are housed
Its website hosts an interactive map that allows the user to zoom in to the area around where they live to see if any sites are nearby.
However, the FAA is yet to reveal what kinds of drones might be based at any of these locations.
The agency says it will release this data later.
Most of the drones are likely to be small craft, such as the Draganflyer X8, which can carry a payload of only 2.2lb.
Police, border patrols and environmental agencies, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), could use for them effectively.
While few would object to vast open areas being monitored for wildfires, there are fears of privacy violations if drones are used to spy over cities
The anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks said Snowden was heading for a "democratic nation" which it did not name, although a source at the Russian airline Aeroflot said he would fly on within 24 hours to Cuba and then planned to go to Venezuela.
Moscow airport officials said the flight from Hong Kong had landed but could not immediately confirm Snowden was on board. However, a source at Aeroflot said he had booked a seat on the service.
Snowden, who worked for the National Security Agency, had been hiding in Hong Kong since leaking details about U.S. surveillance activities to news media.
A spokesman for the government of Hong Kong, a former British colony which returned to China in 1997, said it had let Snowden depart because a U.S. request to have him arrested did not comply with the law.
The United States wanted him to be extradited to face trial and is likely to be furious about his departure. In Washington, a Justice Department official said it would seek cooperation with countries Snowden may try to goto.
"It's a shocker," said Simon Young, a law professor with Hong Kong University. "I thought he was going to stay and fight it out. The U.S. government will be irate."
A source at Aeroflot said Snowden would fly from Moscow to Cuba on Monday and then planned to go on to Venezuela. The South China Morning Post earlier said his final destination might be Ecuador or Iceland.
The WikiLeaks anti-secrecy website said it helped Snowden find "political asylum in a democratic country".
It added in an update on Twitter that he was accompanied by diplomats and legal advisers and was travelling via a safe route for the purposes of seeking asylum.
"The WikiLeaks legal team and I are interested in preserving Mr Snowden's rights and protecting him as a person," former Spanish judge disclosures in the public interest - is an assault against the people."
Assange has taken sanctuary in the Ecuadorean embassy in London and said last week he would not leave even if Sweden stopped pursuing sexual assault claims against him because he feared arrest on the orders of the United States.
U.S. authorities have charged Snowden with theft of U.S. government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information and wilful communication of classified communications intelligence to an unauthorized person, with the latter two charges falling under the U.S. Espionage Act.
The United States had asked Hong Kong, a special administrative region (SAR) of China, to send Snowden home.
"The U.S. government earlier on made a request to the HKSAR government for the issue of a provisional warrant of arrest against Mr Snowden," the Hong Kong government said in a statement.
"Since the documents provided by the U.S. government did not fully comply with the legal requirements under Hong Kong law, the HKSAR government has requested the U.S. government to provide additional information ... As the HKSAR government has yet to have sufficient information to process the request for provisional warrant of arrest, there is no legal basis to restrict Mr Snowden from leaving Hong Kong."
Thursday, June 20, 2013
If we are so broke but yet cta came up with funds for a jump bus and paid for the street on Jeffrey to be torn up and new signs and sidewalks. Now they are working on the red line for 5 months. In South Chicago they are replacing fire plugs and pipes. But yet Illinois spends more money then they take in we need to stop the politics as usual activity
Friday, June 7, 2013
Libertarian favorite Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., stood with liberal Democratic Sens. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Jon Tester of Montana in criticizing the court-approved gathering of the telecom data. “Can the FBI or the NSA really claim that they need data scooped up on tens of millions of Americans?” Merkley asked.
Meanwhile, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina stood with Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California in defending the collection of telecom data.“This program has strong restrictions on it,” Feinstein -- who is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee -- assured NBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “The data are just phone numbers and trunk lines; there's no content. It is put behind a wall. The only way it can be used is if there is strict scrutiny -- reasonable, articulable knowledge that this can connect to a terrorist attack, either under way or under planning or some conspiracy.”
But Paul portrayed the collection of telephone data as “an astounding assault on the Constitution. After revelations that the Internal Revenue Service targeted political dissidents and the Justice Department seized reporters' phone records, it would appear that this Administration has now sunk to a new low.”
Paul -- a potential contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016 -- noted that he’d offered an amendment last year that would have attached Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But it was defeated -- and in fact got only 12 votes.
That vote revealed the way terrorism can alter the political lineup; only two other GOP senators supported Paul on his amendment: Mike Lee of Utah and Dean Heller of Nevada. The majority of the support came from Democrats -- nine lawmakers, including Merkley and Tester -- voted for Paul’s amendment.
On issues like abortion, gun control or “Obamacare,” Democrats Merkley and Feinstein have voted the same -- and on the opposite side from Paul. But on the collection of telephone data the Democrats clash.
Terrorism policies have a way of the jarring the usual left-versus-right categories: instead, it’s libertarian mistrust of executive power (Merkley and Paul) versus a willingness to allow extraordinary steps to defeat and deter terrorists (Graham and Feinstein).
This extends to the issue of using drones overseas against terrorist suspects. Referring to conservative Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, Democrat Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota noted in April that “You know we’re in strange territory when Sen. Cruz and
*** Upset or happy if Congress doesn’t pass a bill? But if you’re a supporter of the immigration reform legislation, you might be a little troubled by this finding: Respondents are divided if they want Congress to pass a bill this year. Per the poll, 47% say they would be upset if Congress doesn't pass a bill, and that includes a majority of Democrats (54%). But an equal 47% say they wouldn't be upset if Congress doesn’t pass immigration legislation, and that includes a majority of Republicans (53%). (Strikingly, the partisan divisions have flipped since this question was last asked in 2006, when former President George W. Bush was supporting comprehensive immigration reform. Back then, more than six-in-10 Republicans said they would be upset if immigration reform didn't pass, and an almost equal percentage of Democrats -- who were out of power in the White House -- said they wouldn't be upset. Yet note that there’s not a whole lot of intensity to these current immigration numbers: 21% said they would be VERY UPSET if Congress doesn’t pass legislation, and 26% said they would be NOT AT ALL UPSET if that happens. But compare that to a gun question we also asked: 34% said they would be VERY UPSET if Congress doesn’t pass a background-check law, versus 31% who said NOT AT ALL UPSET. Bottom line: The immigration debate isn’t as highly charged as the gun debate.
*** Health care law’s unpopularity reaches new highs: Meanwhile, just months before President Barack Obama's signature health-care law fully goes into effect next year, it remains unpopular with the American public, according to the new NBC/WSJ poll, with 49 percent saying they believe the law is a bad idea. That’s the highest number recorded on this question since the poll began measuring it in 2009. Just 37% say the plan is a good idea. The poll also finds that 38 percent say they and their family will be worse off under the health-care law, which also is the highest percentage on this question that dates back to 2010. By comparison, 19% say they'll be better off, and 39% say the law won't make much of a difference. The poll, however, shows deep divisions by political party and health insurance status. By a 35%-to-11% margin, Democrats say they'll be better off under the health-care law. But Republicans say they'll be worse off, 67% to 4%. What's more, those who currently don't have health insurance have a more positive view of the health-care law than those who have insurance -- either through individual purchase or through their employer. Bottom line here: The Obama White House has a massive PR problem with health care. The biggest reason: Opponents of this law have been very vocal, while supporters have done very little to drum up support. The president doesn’t sell it that often, and many arms of the Democratic Party essentially avoid it. Politics abhors a vacuum, and opponents -- not supporters -- have filled the health-care vacuum.