Liberty WalkRemember – We Are America ! |
International military operation has begun in Libya, as a result of a UN Security Council Resolution authorizing a no fly zone, and other necessary measures. Some lawmakers are questioning how Obama could make this decision, without approval. Congressman Dennis Kucinich says Obama’s unconstitutional move would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense. He explains why he thinks the Constitution has been violated.
Constitution Marker
Image by joseph a
This marker commemorates New York’s ratification of the constitution at the site.
Dwyane Wade could play overseas during long lockout
Miami Heat star Dwyane Wade said he would consider playing overseas if there is a long lockout. Miami Heat guard Dwyane Wade said Friday he would consider playing overseas if the NBA lockout stretches into next season.
Read more on Sun-Sentinel
Obama sounds a lot like the Chamber of Commerce
President Barack Obama is increasingly using the Chamber of Commerce talking points as he heads into his re-election campaign amid growing public disenchantment with his failed economic policies.
Read more on The Daily Caller via Yahoo! News
Ex-speaker latest official to raise alarm on threat of nuclear EMP attack by Tehran WASHINGTON The threat posed to the national security of the United States by Iran was likened only to the one posed by Nazi Germany in the 1930s, by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who suggested Tehran could be planning for a pre-emptive nuclear electromagnetic pulse attack on America that would turn a third or more of the country “back to a 19th century level of development.” Gingrich made the stunning statements, which echo warning of other congressional leaders and national security experts, in testimony before a subcommittee of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last week. He said the “extraordinary challenge that the current regime in Iran poses to the safety of the United States” requires “extraordinary measures to meet it.” “Not since the failure of the League of Nations in the 1930s to confront the aggression of the dictatorships in Japan, Italy and Germany have we seen the willful avoidance of reality which is now underway with regard to Iran,” said Gingrich. “There are lessons to be learned from the 1930s and those lessons apply directly to the current government of Iran.” Gingrich pointed with alarm at a report first published in G2 Bulletin that Iran had tested the firing of ballistic missiles from a merchant ship in which warheads were detonated in midair over the Caspian Sea rather than at a land or sea target. National security experts and …
Video Rating: 4 / 5
Winston Lord has been at the center of US-China relations for four decades. As a Special Assistant to the National Security Adviser, Lord accompanied Henry Kissinger on his secret trip to Beijing in 1971, which laid the groundwork for President Nixon’s historic visit to China the following year. Lord attended Nixon’s February 1972 meeting with Mao Zedong, and was involved in the negotiations which led to the signing of the Shanghai Communique. He later served as the US ambassador to China under Presidents Reagan and Bush from 1985-89, and as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia during President Clinton’s first term. In the interview below, conducted by US-China Institute Senior Fellow Mike Chinoy, Lord discusses current tensions in Sino-American relations. OFFICIAL WEBSITE: www.china.usc.edu FACEBOOK www.facebook.com
Question by Scyllis: Could legalizing gay marriage cause a moderate risk to national security? In which countries?
Afghanistan is obviously the most obvious one, where the civil govt is unstable and only has tenous contro, with a lot of its support built on popularity– any other examples where such an act would estrange the gov’t from a segment of the population so much as to jeopardize a country’s national security interests?
Best answer:
Answer by vinny_says_relax
Theres no such thing as gay marriage.
Marriage is a man and a woman…If they allow gays to marry because they ‘love’ each other then you also have to allow brothers and sisters who love each other, someone who loves their dog can marry it, marry their mother as well, pervert it all they want.
Give your answer to this question below!
Question by bluebird: How could muslims demand for their freedom of religion and freedom of speech when?
They give ZERO freedom of religion to other faiths in their own Islamic countries? How could they expect freedom of speech when they go on a killing spree for issues as silly as cartoons in their own Islamic countries? Why do they think their medieval cult is beyond mockery when ever other religion is mocked every single day? You don’t expect to treat a bunch of people who are ultra sensitive and go berserk at the slightest hint of mockery. they should learn to civilize themselves first and then demand for their rights
Best answer:
Answer by Splash RROD
It’s quite a kick in the balls, huh?
I’m glad they jailed that nut that made terrorist threats to the people that make South Park. It’s a freegin cartoon FFS!
Add your own answer in the comments!
Question by Big Beautiful Man: Is it absurd to literally apply the Constitution to situations the founding fathers could not have envisioned?
Many people like to say they are for strict interpretation of the Constitution. Fine. However, there are many problems, issues, and situations that aren’t directly dealt with by the Constitution and/or were in fact totally inconceivable to the founding fathers.
For example, the internet. While it certainly affects interstate commerce and thus the Constitution would say that Congress has the power to regulate it, is that really what the founding fathers intended? How could we possibly know what they would have wanted or if they would have written the Constitution the same way if they had taken that into account?
Why should we assume the wisdom of a document at face value in any situation when the realities it is applied to could not have been predicted by its makers?
Best answer:
Answer by Liberal AssKicker
Is it that easy for liberals to cast aside the constitution?
What the hell kind of stupid excuse is that? Modernization = no more law?
What do you think? Answer below!
Kenya once again made history with the approval and promulgation of the New Constitution. The document has heralded with it a great enthusiasm to fight corruption and establish statesmanship among the current kingpins. This has translated almost automatically to the government working with an efficacy never witnessed in many countries of the world. But this efficacy also represents a sharp and an unprecedented shift from the previous order. The past paradigm had things being done more mechanically, and more personally- this new shift, representing a greater capitalistic stance with a less personal approach might just prove itself more devious to us during our formative years.
It is of course past reasonable argument that the new constitution is among the best constitutions of the world. The question here is not about how good the document is, and how much it will benefit the ‘sons of our sons’, but we have to develop an understanding to answer the rhetoric, ‘is Kenya ready for the best document?’ Are we ready to see all of our Ministers fall down in the axe of graft? Are our MP’s and senior civil servants going to gracefully accept defeat for the greater good? Which is easier, to accept meekly that you were corrupt in the past and step aside, or charging your misinformed supporters with conspiracies of how you have been targeted in graft?
Mr. Ruto, for instance, enjoys a religiously fanatic following that is second only to Mr. Odinga’s. His followers are ready to do much evil in defence of their leader, and his political future in the new constitution is highly unlikely. Ruto, being engaged in two criminal suits, compounded with the possibility of him having to face The Hague, erodes the possibility of him ever again having a public life once the new constitution is fully implemented.
With the current judiciary, or even the more efficient judiciaries of the West, it is against the acceptable level of probability that his cases will be concluded in under one and half years. Even greater is the probability that the Kalenjin bigwig will be found guilty. Both the two, whichever happens first, will confound Mr. Ruto to being a Member of Parliament come 2012. And how will it be seen in the eyes of the Kalenjin? It will much more likely provoke great distress (to the least) in the North Rift that the Eldoret North MP will be unable to vie for governorship or a senatorial portfolio.
With the newfound vigor in the KACC to fight corruption and its precipitates among the national leaders, the Ruto scenario might water down to all the current crop of Ministers. Having the Ministers criminally charged in a court of law will mean that they are grounded to be Members of Parliament at best. Try to imagine a Kenya without its current opinion makers- Ngilu, Mudavadi, Kosgey and many more to be implicated. Will this go down well with most of the Kenyans?
We have always wanted change. Yes change is something to be desired, and has now come, but the change might just be counterproductive. The older order of things, though inefficient and laced with greedy and corrupt leaders, might better have been phased out more gradually. At this rate, it is unpredictable that we shall have general elections in August 2012, let alone a peaceful one.
Nelson Ndalila is an author and a blogger. Follow his blog here:
Article from articlesbase.com
Question by Robert S: At what point could a sitting President be considered a threat to national security?
Clearly, the individual would have been voted into office by the people. At least that is how it is supposed to work, no matter the levels of media bias and blind support the candidate may have had at the time. But, who would be held responsible for making a claim that the elected Presidents policies, perspectives, connections, lack of experience, lack of broad focus on national issues, or just plain direction could be considered a threat to our national security?
What a broad spectrum of damaging ramifications would result. Yet, who holds that responsibility to say, things are just plain wrong?
Best answer:
Answer by Caribou “QUIT” Barbie™
You can.
March on Washington D.C. and do it yourself and see what happens.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Question by Guru S: What kind of thesis could I use for national security vs personal freedom?
I’m writing about why we need a balance. Heres my thesis but I dont think its very good. The issue of national security versus personal freedom is an intricate one, and a delicate balance of both is crucial.
Best answer:
Answer by travis a44
is very intricate*
other then that i think you did well.
i believe in strong personal freedom. but i write your paper for you. you have your own opionion
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
 |
Copyright © 2024. Liberty Walk. All rights reserved |
