(Xinhuanet) -- Pop star Britney Spears on Tuesday was granted in a court hearing overnight visitation rights with sons Sean Preston, two and half years, and Jaden James, 21 months, who are in the custody of her ex-husband, Kevin Federline, according to Web site TMZ.com.
The Grammy-winning entertainer hasn't had her children overnight since January following her forced hospitalization at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center.
At the closed-door hearing, Spears and Federline appeared before Commissioner Scott Gordon, who took the one-hour proceeding behind closed doors. The pop star and a parenting coach were questioned by Gordon.
Court spokesman Allan Parachini said that at the end of the hearing Gordon ordered the modification to Spears' visitation rights and set another status conference in the case for July 15.
Spears has turned her life around in the past few months after a year of troubling behaviour and two brief hospitalizations for psychiatric evaluation.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Recent massive volcanoes have risen from the ocean floor deep under the Arctic ice cap, spewing plumes of fragmented magma into the sea, scientists who filmed the aftermath reported Wednesday.
The eruptions -- as big as the one that buried Pompei -- took place in 1999 along the Gakkel Ridge, an underwater mountain chain snaking 1,800 kilometres (1,100 miles) from the northern tip of Greenland to Siberia. Scientists suspected even at the time that a simultaneous series of earthquakes were linked to these volcanic spasms.
But when a team led of scientists led by Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts finally got a first-ever glimpse of the ocean floor 4,000 meters (13,000 feet) beneath the Arctic pack ice, they were astonished. What they saw was unmistakable evidence of explosive eruptions rather than the gradual secretion of lava bubbling up from Earth's mantle onto the ocean floor.
Previous research had concluded that this kind of so-called pyroclastic eruption could not happen at such depths due to the crushing pressure of the water.
'On land, explosive volcanic eruptions are nothing exceptional, although they present a major threat,' said Vera Schlindwein, a geologist with Germany's Alfred Wegener Institute for Sea and Polar Research, which took part in the study.
But the new findings, published in Nature, showed that 'large-scale pyroclastic activity is possible along even the deepest portions of the global mid-ocean ridge volcanic system.' The mid-ocean ridge runs 84,000 kilometres (52,000 miles) beneath all the world's major seas except the Southern Ocean, and marks the boundary between many of the tectonic plates that make up the surface of the Earth.
When continental plates collide into each other, they can thrust up mountain ranges such as the Himalayas. But along most of the mid-ocean ridge -- including the Gakkal Ridge -- the plates are pulling apart, allowing molten magna and gases trapped beneath the crust to escape.
Sohn and his colleagues gathered their data in July last year aboard the ice breaker Oden, using state-of-the-art instruments including a mutlibeam echo sounder, two autonomous underwater vehicles and a sub-ice camera designed for the mission. Both sonar and visual images showed an ocean valley filled with flat-topped volcanos up to two kilometres (1.2 miles) wide and several hundred metres high. Blame either MMGW or Bush.
#1
It might be interesting to see if there is a correlation between these volcanic eruptions and the "melting northern icecaps" of the global warming worshipers.
#4
If it affects the salt current thingy, global warming could be all that keeps us from an ice age. Or it could just provide extra nutrients that finally end up in seal, walrus and polar bear bellies.
Compare wid the newly discovered volcanic activity ala GUAM + ROTA.
*"The plates are pulling apart" > e.g. the recent JAPAN quake as per my observation of dynamic land movements here in Guam [Agana area], + EM bursts in the skies o'er GUAM-WESTPAC.
As Zimbabwe hurtled towards its sham presidential election, Morgan Tsvangirai emerged from hiding yesterday with a message for his arch enemy: negotiate now, or never.
In a telephone interview from the Dutch Embassy, Mr Tsvangirai told The Times that the time for talking would be over if President Mugabe went ahead with the vote tomorrow. Negotiations will be over if Mr Mugabe declares himself the winner and considers himself the president. How can we negotiate? he said.
Mr Mugabe said yesterday that he might be prepared to talk after the poll, which the Government insisted would go ahead, despite the withdrawal of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader this week.
Were Mr Mugabe to approach him afterwards, Mr Tsvangirai had this message for him: Look, you refused to talk to me then, how can I talk to you now? I made these offers, I made these overtures, I told you I would negotiate before the elections and not after because its not about elections, its about transition.
You disregarded that, you undertook violence against my supporters, you killed and maimed, you are still killing and maiming unarmed civilians, the army is still out there. How can you call yourself an elected presi-dent? You are illegitimate and I will not speak to an illegitimate president.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
U.S. President George Bush is urging a strong international stand against the government of Zimbabwe, saying the presidential runoff election scheduled for later this week amounts to a sham.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has been stripped of his honorary British knighthood as a "mark of revulsion", the Foreign Office in London said on Wednesday.
Queen Elizabeth II has approved the annulment of the honour, on the recommendation of Foreign Secretary David Miliband. "This action has been taken as a mark of revulsion at the abuse of human rights and abject disregard for the democratic process in Zimbabwe over which President Mugabe has presided," a Foreign Office spokesman said. Mugabe was awarded the honorary knighthood in 1994 by then prime minister John Major's government.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Even if its only symbolic, its more than the UN, and Human Rights peopel have done to the man that destroyed Rhodesia.
#4
All this silly symbolism isn't going to do anything. If UK isn't going to do something, then do nothing, but don't embarrass themselves with these stupid shows. The opposition leader in Zim has pulled out of the election runoff and ask for the UN to save them! Those people need to take their own destiny in their hands and not depend on the Brits or the UN. Until they use force to wrest power out of Mugabee's hands they will continue to be enslaved by him and his thugs.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
06/26/2008 11:05 Comments ||
Top||
Turkmenistan, criticised by human rights groups for its slow pace of reform, has promised a European Union delegation it will bring about more democratic change, state media reported on Wednesday.
The EU sees Central Asias top gas producer as key to its ambitions to diversify energy supplies away from Russia, which provides the bloc with a quarter of its gas needs. Brussels also wants Turkmenistan, one of the worlds most isolated states, to show more commitment to democratic reform. Turkmen Khabarlary news agency said Turkmen officials briefed visiting EU delegates on Tuesday on the countrys steps to improve human rights.
Full-scale work is under way in the country aimed at strengthening peoples welfare, democratic traditions and creating real guarantees for citizens to fulfil their personal, political, economic, social and other rights, the agency reported.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Most American bases in Europe where nuclear weapons are stored have inadequate security, a secret internal US air force review has found. The report, which was ordered after the US air force lost track of six nuclear cruise missiles last August, found that "support buildings, fencing, lighting and security systems" were in need of repair.
In some cases, it was found that conscripts with less than nine-months experience were being used to guard the nuclear weapons. Elsewhere private security guards were used to protect the bombs.
We don't have conscripts in the U.S. armed forces. That's a clue that this article is crap. Second clue: we don't have private security guards protecting nuclear weapons.
The report recommends that the US nuclear arsenal in Europe be consolidated to "reduce vulnerabilities at overseas locations". That would involve the withdrawal of significant numbers of US nuclear weapons from Europe.
The US air force does not publicise details of its nuclear arsenal, but it is believed that it has up to 350 bombs in seven bases, including up to 110 B61 bombs at Lakenheath in Suffolk. It is not clear whether Lakenheath is one of the bases that fall short of Pentagon security standards, but the report states that "most sites require significant additional resources to meet [US department of defence] requirements."
The current stockpile in Europe is only a fraction of its cold war size. Analysts say the residual arsenal, consisting of free-fall bombs rather than missiles, is of little military significance in the 21st century. "They fulfil no military function. They are a political symbol for Nato," said Paul Ingram, of the British American Security Information Council. "Withdrawing them from Europe would be the logical next step in nuclear disarmament."
Or as we disengage ourselves from NATO and the defense of Europe ...
The classified US report, entitled Air Force Blue Ribbon Review of Nuclear Weapons Policies and Procedures, was circulated internally in February. But the Federation of American Scientists, an independent watchdog group, obtained a leaked copy this month and has published it on its website.
Hans Kristensen, an FAS nuclear specialist, wrote: "The main implication of the ... report is that the nuclear weapons deployment in Europe is, and has been for the past decade, a security risk ... This contradicts Nato's frequent public assurances about the safe conditions of the widespread deployment in Europe."
The leaked review has triggered a political storm in Germany, where the Social Democrats, a partner in the governing coalition, this week called for the removal of all nuclear weapons from the country as a result of the findings. But the Christian Democratic Union, of Chancellor Angela Merkel, has argued against making any quick decisions, saying that the weapons remain a factor in Germany's defence.
In what way? Who would we use them against? I'm not an isolationist, but I see no real reason to keep American nuclear weapons of any kind in Europe. Keep them at home and make sure they're properly looked after.
As well as unearthing shortcomings in security in Europe, the review found the equipment used to transport nuclear weapons was aging, there were "potential vulnerabilities" in the convoys used to move them, and "stubby pencil" note-keeping was used to keep track of them.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Is the Guardian just makign this shit up as it goes and publishign it as FACT?
I was PRP and this whole thing is dead f**king wrong unless the USAF and USAEUR has completely gone to shit there. And there is no sign of that.
#2
They have a point. There is no reason to have the nukes in Europe at this point. Bush should announce they will be withdrawn and kill this before it expands into the next mem.
He should also leave it vague on if we're withdrawing just nukes or if bases will be closed as well. The timing of such can be used to screw with the green party and others in Europe who started this story for their own gain. Most Germans understand how much those American Paysets are worth and it'll cost the Greens and others if the US pulls out or if Germany has to beg for us to stay.
#5
Note, there might be private security at the main base gates, but the areas where the stuff that is 'neither confirmed nor denied' is certainly under uniform control. Not that the media could care about the difference.
The report recommends that the US nuclear arsenal in Europe be consolidated to 'reduce vulnerabilities at overseas locations'.
Cause we all know how well that worked out for General Short in Oahu when he pulled all the aircraft to one location to preclude vulnerabilities to local sabotage.
#11
NEW SCIENTIST > UK MOD: CAN NUCLEAR WARHEADS GO OFF LIKE "POPCORN"? Contempor "Single-Point" Warhead Safety mechanisms are now deemed insufficent e.g. TRIDENT SUBS.
Methinks the Brits are anticipating NUCLEAR TERROR EVENTS AS DE FACTO OCCURRING/REALISTIC IN NEAR FUTURE.
Chalk anuther 'un for 2008-2012 Post-Dubya POTUS Period.
#12
I knew, back in 1980-1990, where all the nukes in Europe were stored, and there were certainly more than 350. Nor was the Air Force the only ones that had access to nuclear weapons. There are usually nukes aboard submarines and aircraft carriers assigned to the 6th Fleet, and the Army had some as well, especially for the Pershings. As for security, nukes are guarded much differently than conventional explosives, but some of that security is usually not visible. NO ONE but US forces who have been approved for nuclear security can guard a nuclear weapons storage site. Those personnel are re-certified every 180 days.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
06/26/2008 23:38 Comments ||
Top||
Senator Barack Obama took a poke at his Republican opponent on Tuesday, saying that for Senator John McCain to talk of a psychological benefit from expanded offshore drilling is to define that policy as a gimmick.
Mr. Obama was responding to remarks that Mr. McCain made on Monday in Fresno, Calif., when he observed that even though the nation might take years to benefit from offshore drilling, exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial. Mr. Obama seized on those comments while speaking at a town hall-style meeting here.
Psychological impact? Mr. Obama said. In case youre wondering, thats Washington-speak for It polls well. He added, Its an example of how Washington politicians try to convince you that they did something to make your life better when they really didnt.
Asked in Riverside, Calif., about his remarks on the psychological effects of lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling, Mr. McCain said: I think Americans want hope. They want some trust and confidence.
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/26/2008 18:05 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
FOX NEWS > Pert argues that according to his US oil industry sources, OIL FIELDS IN THE GULF OF MEXICO COULD POTEN EXTEND ALL THE WAY FROM INSIDE THE MEXI MARITIME BORDER SIDE TO UNDERNEATH THE US STATE OF FLORIDA, + that the US NEEDS TO BEGIN DRILLING NOW LEST IT WANTS TO SEE MOSTLY FOREIGN STATE-SPONSORED OIL FIRMS LOC ACROSS THE MARITIME BORDERS SAP ALL THE CRUDE FROM THE US SIDE TO THEIRS.
#5
Way Kool...
Ima glad the court ruled that the US Constitution was OK with them.
Leftist may see this as a victory of sorts.. all they have to do is get TWO More Ruth Badr Ginsberg on a Usurper Supreme Court and our 2nd amendment rights will be take away.
Immagine the fucksticks that Obama will appoint..
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
"I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it."
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
"Today, President Bush's radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country. This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future."
#6
we find they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation� � in other words, for self-defense.
Wrong, it was based upon keeping those who are entrusted with government in line. This takes away from the intent of the founders to give the people the means to alter or abolish that government which becomes destructive of their rights.
"This 157 page SCOTUS decision is going to be argued worse than if you put 1000 Civil War buffs in a room and asked them to decide how Lee could have won at Gettysburg."
#8
'I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window...'
Wow. Just wow. "Precedent" trumps a Constitutional amendment in her world?
#12
I keep wondering why the people of Zimbabwe don't get rid of Mugabe or why the people of Myanmar don't get rid of the generals who shot their monks and would not allow international relief workers to help them after their cyclone. Then I think, oh, right...their constitutions don't give them the right to bear arms.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
06/26/2008 14:42 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
'I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent.
An interesting anecdote on DiFi. When she was Mayor of San Francisco there was a big Grab-the-Guns™ effort. I called the Mayors office and spoke with one of her minions about "gun facts" and The Constitution! The minion coldly informed me that DiFi was not interested in facts or the Constitution, she was interested in outlawing all gun ownership.
The day we can exercise our Constitutional right to remove these cretins won't happen soon enough for me.
First the traitors, then the enemy!
#14
Yeah, and you want to know about crime in DC? It's all about drugs. Secure the damn border and the crime rate goes down.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
06/26/2008 14:44 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Amazing. The language of the second ammendment is probably some of the clearest language of a fairly clear document, and yet 4 out of 9 SCOTUS justices can't figure it out. Sure gives me confidence in the rest of their decisions.
The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.
Thats pretty damn big - makes "home is your castle" and "no duty to retreat" laws the norm, instead of an affirmative defense.
That is, if someone is in your house and threatening you, your family, or your property (robbery), you have no duty to retreat and you have every right to shoot and kill them.
This is a huge change in many places where you are assumed to have committed a crime by shooting that burglar (usually "use of a firearm" type charges), and must defend yourself against charges.
Since you have the RIGHT to defend your self, family and property. you cannot be charged with a crime and be forced to defend yourself with "self defense" unless they police can first prove you were outside of your rights.
This is a very important part of the decision, one that will provide the basis for a lot of legal challenges of overly gun restrictive laws.
#17
This passage is very interesting. It verifies P2k's remark.
"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those in common use at the time. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military serviceM-16 rifles and the likemay be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendments ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."
Wankers.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
06/26/2008 15:47 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Under Common Law - which still is of reference in US precedent case applications - governments promoted an armed populace. In England, given a criminal complaint, a local Justice of the Peace would raise "Hue and Cry" (Hetusium et clamor) and that would mobilize everyone in compulsory service until complete efforts were made to find the culprit. Professional policing didn't really exist until created in England's Peel administration. His reform efforts were widely copied throughout the world. Currently cops think they should have a monopoly on arms, even though they can't be everywhere and conduct very little crime prevention. In criminal law, Self Defense is an absolute right. However, having an instrument to effect that right must be relative, because the issue of potential abuse rises. Restriction of gun possession by felons, mental defectives, persons under protection orders, etc, is essential. But, the law as it is, requires that the state bear the onus of proving that restriction is warranted.
It is time to settle this issue once and for all, and then place a constitutional prohibition against judicial review. If SCOTUS can't settle law, then they are worthless.
#20
As a resident of DC, I was very pleased with this ruling, although it really should have been a 9-0 decision.
The notion that the framers of the Bill of Rights were somehow only referring to the states' right to arm a militia and not the right of the individual to keep and bear arms is totally insane. Whoever believes such nonsense has no idea what our Founding Fathers were thinking when they wrote the 2nd Amendment, which is a shame as there are plenty first person accounts of exactly that.
Unfortunately, given current federal gun laws (as I understand them) that make it illegal to carry a firearm over state lines and require you to provide proof of residency in the state in which you purchase a firearm, I think it will be quite some time before I can exercise my 2nd Amendment right in the nation's capitol.
I have no doubt the Fenty administration and the DC government will drag their feet on all of this and set-up as much red tape as humanly possible to impede and restrict legal gun ownership here. And that really chaps my ass.
#21
both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window.
(Paging Jethro Bodine, Jethro Bodine to the Ciphering room)
Let's see now 2008 minus 1776 is 232 Years "Precedent" They want to ignore in favor of a much lesser 70 years of "precedent"
I translate this as we done it, and you can't do nothin about it, What do you mean "Yes you can", Just because we broke the laws, doesn't mean that you can fix it now, Nope, Nope gotta leave it the way we want it, NOT what the Constitution says (Very plainly)(Squeal of stuck Pig)
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
06/26/2008 22:46 Comments ||
Top||
#22
"But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."
Did you miss the last part there Deac?
Scalia is raising the "limitation" and military weapons reasoning the anti-gun people use, specifically to demolish it as unimportant and inapplicable. Basically the clause I posted above means that future courts CANNOT go back and use the "military" weapons and "fit" of the militia clause to abrogate the INDIVIDUAL rights that this ruling very clearly establishes as primary - the right to use guns "to defend self, family and property".
You read the set up as if it was the point - its not - it was a setup for teardown.
Be sure you read it carefully - lawyer-ese can sound just the opposite of what it is.
Hat tip Drudge. I fear for the Second Amendment. Get ready.
The U.S. Supreme Court today did not release its long-awaited ruling on whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. That means the potentially landmark decision will almost certainly come tomorrow morning when the court is planning to issue the last of its rulings for the term. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which was argued nearly four months ago, could settle the decades-old debate over whether the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own firearms.
That the Court has left this to the last day of its term suggests that they'll find that the 2nd applies only to militias and is limited only to states. Justice Kennedy will swing with the other four liberal justices, and no doubt he'll find some 'emerging international consensus on gun control' to satisfy him.
If this is the way the ruling goes, I expect a new constitutional amendment to be introduced in Congress if Republicans have brains (hah) it will be filed the very next day and debated in, say, mid-October. And I can imagine Obama trying to get out of the way.
And if a new amendment isn't filed in the Congress, look for states to step up and propose such an amendment by calling for a new constitutional convention (via Article V). That would make politics very interesting.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
An oligarchy will not be accepted to run this country. Period. Even Ruth 'Buzzy' Ginsberg isn't stupid enough to think it can, regardless of Kennedy's mutterings about international law. I expect DC v Heller to be 6-3 for individual gun rights. It will be an extra hot 4th if not.
#2
Usually each justice gets to write at least one opinion. Scalia is the only one to not do so yet. IF Scalia is writing the Heller opinion, then it will be a good result.
#3
As I recall a constitutional Convention would basically put the entire constitution up for grabs. They can make any changes they want and force it to the states as a 'package'.
Can you imagine a consitution written by the current Senate and House leadershit? Ried? Murtha? Queen Nancy? Even the Repubs would make a mess out of things.
#4
Congress can do NOTHING to a constitutional convention - its called by and run by THE STATES. It is a federalism mechanism for the states to correct the central government when the feds become too power heavy and unable or unwilling to act properly by putting amendments to the States through the Congress.
#5
If I had to guess, I'd say "narrowly drawn ruling that holds for the individual right while leaving the door open for some degree of local &/or state regulation". The liberal wing's not stupid enough to push through a decision that would dramatically increase the odds that not only McCain would get elected, but also deliver both houses of Congress back to the Trunks.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
06/26/2008 2:31 Comments ||
Top||
#6
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.
Posted by: Black Charlie Unamp8314 ||
06/26/2008 2:46 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Sounds like the 2nd has 2 clauses
1) Well regulated Militias to protect the state
2) People have the right to bear arms
I think if it was only militias, it would say only militias have the right to bear arms.
Posted by: Black Charlie Unamp8314 ||
06/26/2008 2:47 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I expect a ruling that affirms individual rights. I expect the struggle has been over the degree of applicability re: the 14th.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
06/26/2008 6:54 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Either way, it is long past time for the SC judges to be held accountable to the people. They need to have term limits and be able to be voted in and out by the people.
#10
The great Karnak predicts, the court couldn't reach a decisive decision, so they punt to Congress for 'definition' which will then engage in a multi year legal process again for another court to clarify as they read the tea leaves as to what they can pull off in arranging a dictation when omens are favorable. Heh.
#11
5-4 (guess who the 4 were...uh huh) protecting OUR self-defense right. YEAH!
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/26/2008 10:24 Comments ||
Top||
#12
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Asshole
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/26/2008 10:25 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Quotes from the opinion:
Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
the most natural reading of keep Arms in the Second Amendment is to have weapons.
The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.
Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.
#15
You right OS - the states determine who goes to any Consitutional Convention.
But I can't help to think that they would send 'professional career politicians' - much like the current crop of crooks in congress. And often after a long 'election' in their state involving lots of organization (read: Democratic or Republican party) and money.
Personally I don't trust either party to touch the constitution.
I shudder to think who my own state (Washington State) would send. ?Baghdad Jim (McDermitt)? Comrade (Patty) Murray? Why not the idiots elect them to Congress they may well elect them to a Consitutional Convention.
In any case its a moot point (thank god). Could have been real bad if Kerry had been elected last time.
#17
Pelosi Says D.C. Should Continue Gun Regulation
@ 12:29 pm by Andy Barr
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says that despite the Supreme Court decision to strike down its gun ban, the District of Columbia will still be able to regulate firearms.
"I think it still allows the District of Columbia to come forward with a law thats less pervasive," Pelosi said at her weekly briefing Thursday. "I think the court left a lot of room to run in terms of concealed weapons and guns near schools."
- Mike Soraghan
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/26/2008 13:08 Comments ||
Top||
#18
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.
To me it means that the framers are first stating the fact that the individual states need militias in order to survive. These militias need to be created at a moment's notice, and in order to do that the people need to be able to have arms in their house and know how to use them. People can't learn how to use them overnight, so they need to be able to play with them when they want to, too. I'm pretty sure that the framers knew that when everyone has a gun that there were going to be problems, but they also probably knew that the benefits would outweigh the problems. They probably knew without thinking that good people were going to use them to defend themselves from bad people because that would be a good practical use for them. The framers lived in times that demanded that they think practically, and probably did not envision that as life got easier that people would create problems for themselves to solve as liberals seem to like to do. They probably thought the second amendment was self evident except to the most profoundly challenged, who wouldn't be populous or influential enough to screw things up, so they stopped there. Had they been long-lived enough to see what we are dealing with today, they would probably be shooting every liberal they could find until things normalized again.
#8
I'm with Dr. Steve and 'Spook on the Palin-Jindal (or is it Jindal-Palin?) thing.
Right now, I think Bobby Jindal is desperately needed in Louisiana, and I'd hate to pull him out of there before the cleanup is done. Also, the Hillary! feminists who think their girl got gypped by the male-chauvinist-pig Dem establishment might be just that much more likely to vote McCain if he has a woman running mate--especially if Obama picks a standard-issue Mk.1 Mod.0 liberal white guy as his running mate.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/26/2008 14:23 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Governor Palin needs a new hairstyle, though. That one is a little too high school prom up-do. Contact lenses, too -- glasses are more fashion statement than mark of intelligence these days. Otherwise, love the photo surrounded by the troops.
One of our objections to Candidate Obama is his lack of experience. Governor Jindal only just was sworn into office; give him time to learn the lessons of the office before moving him to a bigger arena.
#11
Governor Palin needs a new hairstyle, though. That one is a little too high school prom up-do. Contact lenses, too
The updo has its advantages. And I kinda like the glasses . . . .
Posted by: William J. Clinton ||
06/26/2008 15:17 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I don't care what she looks like as long as she can make good, sound decisions.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
06/26/2008 16:16 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Let it be noted for the record that aside from a couple of drill double entendres (well maybe single) the first appearance comment was from a woman. And in that picture she looks to me like someone who could mean business. Nice firm jaw. And keep the glasses. They mean you aren't into cosmetic falsification BS like baldy Biden.
#14
I didn't mean it to be catty, Nimble Spemble. I don't doubt her competence -- Alaskans tend to be sticklers for that, something to do with all freezing to death if one screws up, I believe -- but when Governor Palin comes to the South Forty-nine she needs to look the part as well be it.
Democrats still remember the moment that dogged Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential race. Asked whether he would support the death penalty for someone who raped and killed his wife, the former Massachusetts governor gave a dispassionate, almost clinical, recitation of his opposition to capital punishment, arguing there was no evidence of a deterrent effect.
If there were any doubt, Barack Obama made clear at a news conference today that he won't fall into that trap. Asked about today's US Supreme Court ruling that sentencing someone to death for raping a child is unconstitutional, Obama said he disagreed with such a broad ban.
'I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes. I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime,' he said, adding that if a state determines the death penalty should apply in such cases, they should be allowed to impose it.
The high court's ruling invalidates laws in six states that allow the death penalty if child rape cases when the child is not killed.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#7
If Obama's track record is any predictor, i expect him to issue a 'clarifying' remark tomorrow that really and truly explains what he meant really, really, and truly when he said what he did earlier. This POS can't say anything right or just once.
what a piece of work.
#8
Yeah, but he sounds good either way, right or wrong. I mean he's just so articulate and his oratory skills are a true breath of fresh air after 8 years of having to endure Bush butchering the English language.
After all, isn't that what's really important? You know, sounding good no matter what you say? (According to many of my liberal acquaintances, it apparently is.)
#4
ION WAFF.com > ISLAMISTS "FAIR SHARE" ON THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL? The 57-member OIC org demanding a PERMANENT SEAT on the UNSC despite Islamic states already having representation.
Former President Clinton on Tuesday offered to help Barack Obama win the White House, although what work he'll do for his wife's former rival remained uncertain. 'Hey, Homey, I can set you up with all the hot chicks you need. That wife of yous is HOT! I can raise a lot of money, to, if you catch my drift.
The Obama campaign is still smarting over some of Bill Clinton's criticism in the primary race, while the last Democratic president remains a popular political draw. But before the two can work together, they have to speak. Just look what I did for Hillary's campaign.
Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have taken steps to join efforts in the last three weeks - she met with him privately, endorsed his campaign and will campaign with him Friday. But the former Democratic president and the man running to be the next one haven't talked since the campaign ended. 'I wouldn't talk to Bill Clinton if he gave me a million bucks. What's this? Bill says, A million bucks. 'Bill, old Pal. How's it hangin'?
Obama said the only reason they haven't spoken is because Clinton is traveling overseas. He praised the former president and said he's 'looking forward to setting up a long conversation.' I wouldn't hang around Bill too long.It could be a trap.
'He's as smart as they come. He's a great strategist. We're going to want him campaigning for me,' Obama said Tuesday.
In Zimbabwe ...
Speaking to reporters as he flew from Las Vegas to Los Angeles for a fundraiser, Obama said he was not certain what Clinton's role would be, but said he was eager to have the former president's help and support. Put him in charge of cigars.
'I think that just having somebody who knows American politics as well as he does and continues to be such an enormous draw will be hugely helpful,' Obama said. 'He's got a great following, including among a number of my supporters.' Find out what it'll cost ya, first. You may not want to pay the price. And watch your back.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the 42nd president came up in a phone call between Obama and Hillary Clinton on Sunday. They talked about how Obama should connect with Bill Clinton in the future, Burton said.
Bill Clinton extended his support to Obama for the first time Tuesday in a one-sentence statement from spokesman Matt McKenna. 'President Clinton is obviously committed to doing whatever he can and is asked to do to ensure Senator Obama is the next president of the United States, as long as he gets something good out of it' McKenna said.
It's not clear what Obama might ask him to do. The campaign wasn't specific when asked. 'A unified Democratic Party is going to be a powerful force for change this year and we're confident President Clinton will play a big role in that,' was all Burton would say.
Bill Clinton will not attend Friday's rally with his wife and Obama in the symbolic town of Unity, N.H. McKenna said the former president is in Europe this week to celebrate Nelson Mandela's 90th birthday, give speeches and work for the William J. Clinton Foundation.
Hillary Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee issued a statement after her husband's that didn't mention him. 'Senator Clinton is very pleased with how quickly the party is coming together after the primaries, and she will continue to do everything she can to unite Democrats behind Senator Obama as our nominee,' Elleithee said. There's more but irrelevant to the first part.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
06/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
NEW DELHI - Crisis talks between India's ruling Congress party and its left-wing allies ended Wednesday without them resolving a dispute over a nuclear energy deal with the United States, officials said. The parties, however, agreed to meet "in due course" for more negotiations over the pact with Washington, a divisive accord that has threatened to bring down the government and send India into early elections.
Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee told reporters the government coalition partners discussed "all aspects" of the deal, which would open India to long-denied Western nuclear energy technology. Mukherjee, who led the 90-minute meeting between his Congress party and its anti-American communist partners, who are fiercely opposed to the deal, said the two sides will hold further talks.
"The next meeting of the committee to be convened in due course will finalise its findings," he told reporters, declining to reply to questions.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
Renowned European non-governmental organisation Institute of Peace and Development (INSPAD) has announced a Peace Award 2008 for former prime minister Benazir Bhutto. INSPAD is working for conflict resolution, human rights, social justice, inter-faith and cultural dialogue, sustainable development and religious peaceful co-existence in Europe and Pakistan.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
She played the terror card the same as every other Pak leader.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert averted a major crisis on Wednesday, reaching agreement with his Labour allies for them to reverse a decision to vote to dissolve parliament, a move that could have brought down the government. Under the accord, Olmert agreed to a demand that his Kadima party hold primary elections by September 25 and Labour undertook not to back opposition efforts to bring down the government, parliamentary sources said.
So the government will fall September 26th instead, and by Kadima's hand, not Labour's ...
The deal between Olmerts centrist Kadima party and Labour, which is headed by Defence Minister Ehud Barak, was reached just hours before the motion to dissolve parliament was to be submitted in a preliminary reading.
Kadimas leadership is now scheduled to meet by July 10 to fix a date for the primaries, which will choose a party chief and were expected to pit Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz and possibly Olmert. On Monday, 15 of the 19 Labour MPs had voted in favour of Baraks decision to support the dissolution bill on Wednesday.
Barak had also threatened earlier this month to quit Olmerts coalition government if the prime minister did not resign over suspicions he had illegally accepted cash from a US businessman. Labour is Olmerts key partner in government and without its support the prime ministers fragile coalition would not have the required 61 seats for a majority in the 120-member parliament. Olmert has not ruled out running in the primary, but political analysts doubt he would be able to draw enough support. He has lost popular legitimacy, said Hanan Cristal, a political commentator with Israeli public radio.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
More than 30,000 Myanmar refugees from camps in neighbouring Thailand have been resettled in other countries, the United Nations said Wednesday, calling it the worlds biggest such effort.
Since the programme began in January 2005, 30,144 refugees have left the camps for new lives overseas, the UN refugee agency UNHCR said in a statement. Some of the refugees have been here for nearly two decades. Some were born in refugee camps, grew up there and are now raising their own families in refugee camps, said UNHCRs regional representative Raymond Hall. For them resettlement offers a way out of the camps and the opportunity for a fresh start in life.
Almost all of the resettled refugees had been living in nine camps strung along Thailands border with Myanmar, where more than 123,000 still live. Most of them belong to the ethnic Karen minority, which has been battling Myanmars military regime for decades. The United States has accepted the vast majority of the refugees, resettling nearly 21,500 of them in cities around the country.
Australia received more than 3,400, and Canada has taken in more than 2,600. The others have gone to New Zealand and Europe, UNHCR said.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Here on Guam, another bunch of likely CHINESE illegals had covertly snuck in the beaches of Northern Guam. 'TIS A HANDFUL(S) NOW, BUT IN TIME WIL BECOME SCORES, 00's, + 000's AT A TIME [Kamikaze/One-Way Transport Planes-Ships], AND NOT JUST CHINESE EITHER, vv GLOBAL WARMING,
"EARTH/LAND CHANGES", + VARI ENVIRONMENTAL CRISES e.g. PAN-ASIAN FOOD-WATER CRISES STARTING 2010-2020.
JOHN PAUL JONES [old St. Francis School-Church, Yona] > SILLY MORIARITY, OSAMA HAS NOT YET BEGUN TO FIGHT/WAGE NUCLEAR JIHAD-TERROR YET!
#1
The one high point of the photo essay is the code pink girl looking at the commies like she is sniffing shit. The commies are even too f*cked up for the code pinkos.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
(Xinhuanet) -- Pop star Britney Spears on Tuesday was granted in a court hearing overnight visitation rights with sons Sean Preston, two and half years, and Jaden James, 21 months, who are in the custody of her ex-husband, Kevin Federline, according to Web site TMZ.com. 
U.S. President George Bush is urging a strong international stand against the government of Zimbabwe, saying the presidential runoff election scheduled for later this week amounts to a sham.
Most American bases in Europe where nuclear weapons are stored have inadequate security, a secret internal US air force review has found. The report, which was ordered after the US air force lost track of six nuclear cruise missiles last August, found that "support buildings, fencing, lighting and security systems" were in need of repair.
Better now, TW? ;-) 
Former President Clinton on Tuesday offered to help Barack Obama win the White House, although what work he'll do for his wife's former rival remained uncertain.
NEW DELHI - Crisis talks between India's ruling Congress party and its left-wing allies ended Wednesday without them resolving a dispute over a nuclear energy deal with the United States, officials said. The parties, however, agreed to meet "in due course" for more negotiations over the pact with Washington, a divisive accord that has threatened to bring down the government and send India into early elections.
