Read the Declaration of Independence!

I believe everyone should read and understand the Declaration of Independence.

Being one of the documents which is still referred to to establish our current rights and the rights of our fore-fathers, everyone should know what it says.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia: Button Gwinnett Lyman Hall George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina: William Hooper Joseph Hewes John Penn
South Carolina: Edward Rutledge Thomas Heyward, Jr. Thomas Lynch, Jr. Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts: John Hancock Maryland: Samuel Chase William Paca Thomas Stone Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia: George Wythe Richard Henry Lee Thomas Jefferson Benjamin Harrison Thomas Nelson, Jr. Francis Lightfoot Lee Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania: Robert Morris Benjamin Rush Benjamin Franklin John Morton George Clymer James Smith George Taylor James Wilson George Ross
Delaware: Caesar Rodney George Read Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York: William Floyd Philip Livingston Francis Lewis Lewis Morris
New Jersey: Richard Stockton John Witherspoon Francis Hopkinson John Hart Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett William Whipple
Massachusetts: Samuel Adams John Adams Robert Treat Paine Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins William Ellery
Connecticut: Roger Sherman Samuel Huntington William Williams Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire: Matthew Thornton
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Everyone needs to read and Understand how this applied and applies to the past, today, and the future.

Do you know your Bill of Rights?

OK, I have noticed that people do not know their Bill of Rights. Do you? I am going to focus on the original 10 which are the original Bill of Rights which had to be added before certain Founding Father required to be added before thy would sign our Constitution.

Here you go:

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II 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.

Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Did you see anything you didn't know? Have you ever seen yourself not be allowed these rights? I believe this should be taught and memorized by school children across our nation, along with the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

I am usually against passing of new laws when they overlap laws already established that are not but should be enforced, however, here is something I believe should be required by law. Make it mandatory for students to memorize and recite the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights.

I can't help it.

Here is what I cannot help. I cannot help myself when I find a story so good all I can think to do is copy it and post it here.

Lets cover the bases here. This has been taken without permission from the NRA ILA.
Copied on Friday, June 20th, 2008 at 10:47pm from URL http://www.nranews.com/article.aspx?article=88

-------------------------------------------------------
If you ever needed proof that the media ignore or suppress stories that dont fit their anti-gun agenda, here it is...

M E D I A B I A S

by Marshall Lewin

If you ever needed proof that the media ignore or suppress stories that don't fit their anti-gun agenda, here it is.

When the so-called "mainstream" media completely ignore an important firearm study by the FBI, there's got to be a good reason-doesn't there?

Forget the old New York Times slogan "All the News that's Fit to Print." When it comes to the conflict between your firearms, your freedom and the media's bias against both, their slogan ought to be "Only the News that Fits, We Print."

How else could the national establishment media outlets -- right down to the last one -- have completely ignored a recently released FBI report that demolishes many of the anti-gun articles of faith that they've printed and parroted without question or conscience for years?

The 176-page report is titled "Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on America's Law Enforcement Officers."

Although it was written by three of the FBI's most respected researchers -- recipients of the University of Virginia's Jefferson Award for Research -- and although it represents the culmination of more than 15 years of inquiry into violence against law enforcement officers, the report was received by the media with abject silence.

Why? Maybe because, among other things, the FBI report shows that many of the media's banal bromides regarding guns and crime are false:

• 
  Criminals do not get their guns through gun shows.
  
• Criminals do not find "loopholes" in the law through which they get their guns.
  
• Anti-gun laws do not stop criminals from getting guns; in fact, they don't even appear to slow criminals down.
  

15 Years of FBI Research ... Ignored

The FBI has collected data on law enforcement officers feloniously killed in the line of duty since 1945, and in recent decades has made increasing efforts to analyze the data and glean lessons from it.

To that end, in 1992 the FBI released "Killed in the Line of Duty," a three-year study of 51 cases in which 50 offenders killed 54 law enforcement officers.

In each case, investigators collected all kinds of information on the incident itself. They interviewed the fallen officers' colleagues, their supervisors and the homicide investigators assigned to their murders.

They interviewed the law officers' killers. And to make sure those interviews wouldn't be tainted, they limited the cases they selected for study to those in which the offenders had exhausted all appeals.

Although the 1992 study was well received by the law enforcement community -- indeed, one sheriff gave it credit for saving the life of one of his deputies -- many felt that it was lacking in one dimension: the point of view of the officers who were killed.

So the FBI opened a new line of inquiry, this time analyzing cases in which law officers had been seriously assaulted, but not killed.

In another three-year study, the researchers examined 40 incidents (out of 625 submitted for review) that involved 52 victim officers and 42 offenders (nine cases involved multiple victims, and three involved multiple offenders).

As in the previous study, to ensure the quality of the information obtained, investigators granted complete anonymity to the victim officers, their departments and the offenders. The resulting monograph, titled "In the Line of Fire," was released in 1997.

For the third and final research report, "Violent Encounters," the FBI analysts culled 40 incidents involving 43 offenders and 50 officers froma pool of approximately 800 case submitted for consideration by agencies across the country.

Again, the victim officers and offenders were interviewed in depth. Again, extensive information was collected from the crime scenes and case files for each incident. And again, anonymity was guaranteed to all parties.

In this study, however, researchers considered additional questions, including firearm use; marksmanship training and practice; the sources of criminals' firearms; the ages at which criminals began carrying firearms; when and how they carried; prior involvement in shootings; and so on.

The "Gun Show" Charade

You'd never know it to hear the so-called "mainstream" media tell the tale, but this new FBI report shows that what the media have been saying for years about gun shows, so-called "loopholes" and the sources of criminals' firearms has been false.

A few quotes from the report here are instructive:

"[T]he federal government has passed many laws to restrict and limit firearm purchases. The offenders in this research, however, stated that none of these laws or statutes deterred them."

"Of the 33 handguns used to assault the officers who participated in the current study, 32 (97 percent) were obtained illegally. Eighteen of these were purchased or traded from other [criminals]; six were obtained during burglaries; four were taken from the victim officers during the incidents of examination; two were stolen during larcenies; one was stolen during a homicide; and one was illegally purchased from a firearm dealer in a store (straw purchase by a female associate). "None of the rifles, shotguns or handguns connected with this study were obtained from gun shows or related activities."

Indeed, while anti-gun groups and the media wring their hands, complain about "lax laws" and claim that criminals obtain firearms by exploiting deficiencies in current law, the convicted criminals interviewed for this most recent study made it clear that:

a) At the time of the incident under investigation, they were already prohibited from purchasing firearms because of criminal convictions, illicit activity, underage status and other disqualifying factors; and

b) Those disqualifying conditions didn't make a bit of difference, since the criminals didn't, and wouldn't, attempt to obtain firearms through conventional sources.

Again, some passages from the most recent FBI report sum it up succinctly:

"Thirteen of the 43 offenders readily admitted membership in street gangs connected with drug trafficking. They stated that they freely exchanged firearms within the gang and viewed them as a necessary tool not only for their criminal activities, but also for protecting their territories. None of these particular gang members obtained their weapons legally. Generally, they obtained the firearms by illegal street purchase, trade, swapping on the street, or as the proceeds of theft, such as burglaries and larcenies. Four officers were assaulted with handguns taken from them."

One of the authors of the most recent study, Edward F. Davis of the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit, told the International Association of Chiefs of Police that not one of the criminals who attacked police officers was "hindered by any law-federal, state or local-that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws."

Indeed, as one of the criminals interviewed for "Violent Encounters" explained:

"I never gave a [expletive] about the gun laws that are on the books ... I never went into a gun store or to a gun show or to a pawn shop or anyplace else where firearms are legally bought and sold and picked up a gun, ever. Because I'm a felon, I couldn't pass a background check ... That's just common sense, and I think most felons know that. I'm not going to pass a background check, and I'm not even going to try. Why? Because I can break into Joe Blow's house down the road here ... where it was relatively likely they were gonna have a piece and search the [expletive] from top to bottom until you found your gun."

When investigators asked this same offender how hard it would be to illegally buy a gun on the street, he replied:

"Sure, the black market, quote, unquote. You can get everything from a cheap little .22-caliber ... to a .50-caliber Desert Eagle that retails for twenty-two hundred bucks. You can find everything in between ... whatever you want to get ahold of."

Another offender told FBI investigators:

"No, we ain't going to no store to buy [guns]. I mean, you know, you got everybody out there doing their thing as far as being a criminal. You got guys out there that sell drugs. Guys out there that do burglaries and all that stuff. So, there is some gun sellers out there ... it's almost easy as being able to find drugs."

"Almost as easy as being able to find drugs."

Consider for a moment exactly what that means.

The drugs to which the criminal was referring are completely illegal. They're outlawed throughout the u.s. under numerous federal and state laws that impose stiff, mandatory sentences for distribution, and in many cases simple possession.

Thus, if anything, illegal drugs should be harder to obtain than firearms -- not easier. But they're not.

So even if firearms were one day outlawed completely -- as narcotics currently are -- criminals could still get them as easily as a dime bag.

By refusing to admit that, by refusing to publish the truth that FBI researchers spent 15 years to uncover, the national media don't just divert attention away from the real problems and allow them to grow worse.

They also diminish our liberty and dishonor the brave men and women in blue whose sacrifices served as the reason for this research-and who gave their lives to protect our families and our freedom.

That's a disgrace.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I invite everyone to Google "NRA NEWS" and look around. If you're on the fence regarding guns and their impact on society and crime read what is there. If you still are not convinced, check out a non-NRA related book(sp) by John Lott titled "More Guns, Less Crime".

Cheers

If you think I was wrong...

My prior post explained how in a older, but now removed web page of the Soros group discussed using felons to vote to increase chances of Obama winning the Presidential election. Well, here is a story which broke after my post.

Here you go. Someone is pushing this agenda. I hope they fail.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Post
Groups Push to Restore Va. Felons' Voting Rights

By Tim Craig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 17, 2008; B01

RICHMOND -- Civic and social organizations are teaming with Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine to try to add thousands of nonviolent offenders to the voting rolls in time for the November election, a move that has angered Republicans who say the effort is designed to help Democratic Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign.

Under Virginia's constitution, people convicted of a felony automatically lose their right to vote for life, which has resulted in an estimated 300,000 residents being disenfranchised, even though they are not in prison.

But a Virginia governor can restore a felon's voting rights. Under a process set up by former governor Mark R. Warner (D) , felons convicted of nonviolent crimes can apply to have their voting rights restored if they have a clean record for three years after their sentence has been completed. People convicted of violent felonies, which in Virginia includes selling drugs, have to wait five years.

Earlier this year, Kaine (D) promised that his administration would expedite a review of applications from nonviolent felons who submit their papers by Aug. 1.

The former inmates would be able to register in time to vote in the November presidential contest between Obama (Ill.) and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive GOP nominee. The felons also would get their rights back to sit on a jury and hold public office.

"The whole name of the game is once they get out and once they serve their time and they have demonstrated they want to get into mainstream society and be good citizens, it's just fundamental to that, they have their civil rights restored," said Bernard Henderson, deputy secretary of the commonwealth, whose office is charged with processing the applications.

Only Virginia and Kentucky require an act of the governor to restore voting rights to felons. The vast majority of states, including Maryland, automatically restore voting rights after a sentence is completed. The District allows felons to vote upon release from prison. Maine and Vermont even allow felons to vote from jail.

The Kaine administration's efforts come as a coalition of groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP, have launched an ambitious drive to get convicted felons information on how they can apply to have their voting rights restored.

The groups have taken out newspaper ads, spread the word through churches and gone door to door, urging felons to apply to Kaine.

"A lot of felons operate under the miscomprehension that loss of their voting rights is permanent, so what we are doing, is saying, 'No, no, no, there is a way,' " said Gwinnett Hagens, executive director of Democracy South, a Virginia Beach social justice organization that is reaching out to tens of thousands of unregistered voters in Hampton Roads.

Henderson isn't sure how many applications to expect but said, "It is going to be a challenge for us if we get absolutely swamped, but we will divert staff to do this."

Kent Willis, executive director of the Virginia branch of the ACLU, and other activists say the campaign to register more felons is a civil rights issue, not a political one.

"Virginia's situation is extremely punitive, and we are working within the system to get as many folks as possible their rights restored," said Adisa Muse, director of the Virginia Voter Restoration Project.

Although they don't dispute Kaine's authority to grant pardons and clemency to criminals, some GOP legislators are skeptical of the efforts this year to get felons onto the voting rolls.

"I don' t know a lot of young Republicans who end up being felons," said Del. C. Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah). "Clearly the groups that are soliciting these felons to get their rights restored are predisposed to be in support of Obama, and I am sure this registration effort is designed to help their candidate."

The effort comes as Obama, who views Virginia as a key battleground state this fall, is trying to register tens of thousands of new voters in the state this summer.

Some political strategists say former inmates are the largest block of unregistered voters over age 18 in Virginia. The Sentencing Project, a Washington-based group that supports criminal justice reform, estimates that 20 percent of Virginia's black population is ineligible to vote because they are in prison or have a past felony conviction.

Amy Brundage, an Obama spokeswoman, said there is "no organized effort to target ex-offenders" in Virginia. But some Obama workers are providing information to felons about how they can get their rights restored.

"If you are in areas where there are large numbers of unregistered voters, one of the reasons you see that is they are ineligible because of felony convictions," said Kristin Szakos, co-chairman of Charlottesville Area Obama Volunteers, adding that canvassers carry "restoration of rights" forms.

Kaine, one of Obama's national co-chairmen, maintains that his decision to quickly process the applications this year has nothing to do with the presidential election.

"We follow the same basic protocol for nonviolent individuals who have been finished with whatever their sentence," said Kaine, noting that Warner restored voting rights for about 3,500 nonviolent offenders when he was governor.

Del. William R. Janis (R-Goochland) said he thinks the "election is clouding every decision the governor is making."

"There shouldn't be a wholesale, automatic restoration of voting rights to a class of felons for the sole purpose of swelling the voting rolls prior to the November elections," Janis said.

But Henderson, who said he is so far receiving only about 35 applications each week, notes that many of the applications come from felons seeking to have their gun rights restored. A court, not the governor, has to restore that right, but many judges want felons to first get their voting rights back.

Gun owners are considered a vital part of the GOP base in Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

So, if you thought I was mining for BS to post, here is proof I was just reporting what I had found.

Be afraid people, be very afraid.

Intent and Actions

Earned Loss of Rights and Liberty

I am a firm believer that we all know ourselves and decide to undertake certain actions, or said another way, we decide how we are going to live everyday. I know I am not going to commit a crime when I wake up, as also I know I am not going to commit a crime in the future. How can I say this? Easily.

I may not have what you have, but I also do not want it. OK, there is theft, and I am not tempted. I have personally held and had over $20,000.00 in my hands, and I knew who it belonged to, and who it was from. Never did I fail in protecting my friends interest, nor the involved parties.

I may dislike you, but unless you attack me and I fear my or my families safety, you are safe around me. I know this as fact in my life. I will defend myself and those around me. I have taken oaths my entire life to do for the good of all through treating each other right. You do need to fear me if you break our laws. I, as well as most others will call the police, or deal with you. This is fair, as well as protected under the law. As long as I do not violate your rights, I am fine.

I also will never betray my country or its people, and hate anyone who would.

Why am I saying this? Because, some in our nation wake up with the intent on hurting you, robbing you, betraying you, and with no regard for anyone but themselves. Those who are deemed as one of these unwanted, untrusted people have shown they cannot handle our world.

In courts they are labeled felons. Felon is a label which is earned. You do not just become one, nor are you suddenly made one. It is a label only by ones actions does one deserve to wear it.

So, part of our punishment for those deemed felons is the revocation of the right to vote. This is only fair. Now, think honestly, do you want every criminal that is a felon to decide your future? They already did something so bad that the courts sent them to prison, and stripped them from that point forth of many of the rights you and I enjoy every day. These are good things for all of us whom do not want to be a victim to their disregard for our own rights.

I support this. Hell, it should scare the hell out of anyone who cares about those around them if the idea a rapist could go buy a gun without any checks. Imagine your true and worthy fear, and then empower these people to do to you what they please. Would you be safe? How about your loved ones and friends.

So, there are people who want to restore these and other rights to felons. I see them as either naive or with perhaps ill will to those of us enjoying our lives as we live them. You decide. Vocal supporters of many democrat presidential candidates, Soros had the following to say. This is from a cashed file online posted originally by Open Society Institute.

Page Link
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:UOjpCDYcQCcJ:www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/events/disenfranchise_20060620/summary+How+many+felons+in+US&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us
Copied on June 17th, 2008 from the above link. No items were changed.

The following is a summary of the forum "Felon Disenfranchisement: Costs and Consequences," held at the Open Society Institute's New York office on June 20, 2006.

Moderator Kirsten Levingston, director of the Criminal Justice Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, began by noting the following statistics:

• 
  5.3 million people in the United States are denied the right to vote because of felony conviction.
• 
  Nearly 600,000 veterans are denied the right to vote.
  
• Thirteen percent of African American men cannot vote due to a felony conviction.
  
• Eighty percent of those polled in a national survery supported restoring voting rights for people who have completed a felony sentence.
  
• Five states still permanently disenfranchise people who have been convicted of a felony unless the government approves restoring an individual's right.
  

Levingston asked author Sasha Abramsky how he became interested in the topic of his book, CONNED: How Millions Went to Prison, Lost the Vote and Helped Send George W. Bush to the White House (The New Press). Forty or fifty years ago, Abramsky said, felon disenfranchisement wasn't a big practical question; there simply weren't that many people in prison. Today, over two million people are incarcerated in the United States, while approximately seven million are involved in the criminal justice system at any one time. What happens, he wondered, when you remove that many people from the voting process? What does it mean when you have very close election victories by conservative candidates?

Levingston then asked Jeff Manza, co-author of the book Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Society (Oxford University Press), about the practical implications of felon disenfranchisement. Using Department of Justice demographic information, Manza said, he was able to estimate how many felons would have voted and how they would have voted. Evidence indicated that in a number of close races, the Republican winner might well have lost had all citizens been allowed to vote.

Monifa Bandele, field director of the Right to Vote Campaign, discussed how felon disenfranchisement has affected people in the communities she works with. Bandele has observed three levels of impact:

• 
  the family: if heads of households vote, their children and other relatives are more likely to vote;
  
• the community: these groups are bypassed by politicians if residents don't or can't vote;
  
• the macro-level: if millions of people are blocked from voting, their demographic becomes less important politically.

Joseph "Jazz" Hayden remarked on the status of his lawsuit, Hayden v. Pataki, and what motivated him to file it. Only Maine and Vermont allow prisoners to vote, Hayden said, but "since we are all citizens of the United States, once you commit a crime you do not cease to be a citizen." The contradiction was so glaring, he said, it had to be addressed. In 2000, he filed a class-action lawsuit on grounds that the Voting Rights Act is being violated and that this in turn dilutes and weakens the community vote.

After 11 months, the lawsuit had a hearing. The court decided against the prisoners' claims. Lawyers are considering whether to go to the Supreme Court, but this is unlikely given the present conservative slant of that body, Hayden said.

Levingston asked Marc Mauer, executive director of The Sentencing Project, about the impact of disenfranchisement at the jail level, where people haven't been convicted of a crime. Mauer stated that there are approximetely 700,000 inmates around the country who haven't yet had a trial, or who were convicted of a misdemeanor. They are eligible to vote but likely will not, Mauer said. They are unaware they have the right, and prison staff are unlikely to make arrangements for them to vote.

Abramsky addressed the perception that formerly incarcerated people are not interested in getting the right to vote. Conservatives are often adamant, he said, that felons do not want to vote. As part of his research Abramsky spoke with convicted felons, most of whom expressed a desire to vote. While conservatives claim that this population, if allowed to vote, would form large criminal voting blocks, Abramsky said that what they really want is to have a say in policies that affect them, such as those regarding schools, tax policies, and war.

Manza polled Americans about whether they thought people with felony convictions should be allowed to vote. He found two trends in public opinion. Over the last 40 years Americans have shown increased willingness to punish criminal offenders more harshly. Yet Americans have become much more supportive of civil rights and civil liberties for all groups, including unpopular ones. Manza's study found that Americans support restoring the right to vote for everyone except for current prison inmates (only about a third support this).

Levingston asked Hayden about his comparison of the felon disenfranchisement issue with "Juneteenth," referring to the disconnect between abolition and the prolonged practice of slavery in some parts of the country. Just as slaves were not made aware that they were free long after emancipation, one of the biggest obstacles to restoring people's right to vote is that they are unaware of the laws or of the process required to restore voting rights. There are possibly millions in the country who are eligible to vote but do not excercise that right because they have not been notified, Hayden said.

Mauer addressed the international implications of the issue. As with the death penalty, the United States is by far the exception with regard to the practices of the rest of industrialized world, he said. But Mauer pointed to a few encouraging developments: for example, a group of organizations has called on the UN Human Rights Committee to confront the United States regarding felon disenfranchisement.

Some encouraging news has emerged in the United States, Bandele said, citing three areas:
Litigation: several lawsuits have challenged states' laws that prevent people from voting.
Push for policy change: public education is increasing awareness so that the public will put pressure on elected officials to change the laws.

Compliance: 5.3 million people are legally disenfranchised; that number doubles when we talk about noncompliance in states where people are allowed to vote but essentially prevented from doing so because they are asked to present nonexistent documents, or are incorrectly told they do not have the right, or where there is widespread ignorance of the laws even among elections administrators. For example, Bandele noted developments in New York State. Systematically, she said, election boards were not providing correct information regarding voting rights. This has been corrected through better education and information.

Levingston asked Abramsky how those in power have reacted to the ease with which people lose the right to vote. In some states there is a good-faith effort to get people to vote when they've finished their sentences, he said. In others, "there is absolutely no momentum toward reenfranchisement." For example, Mississippi has a very efficient disenfranchisement process, Abramsky said. When convicted of a qualified felony (not all felonies result in disenfranchisement), the individual is immediately removed from the voter rolls. Mississippi claims to have a reenfranchisement process, which is as follows: An individual must go to his or her state representative and convince them to personally author a bill reenfranchising that individual. Both houses of the legislature must then be convinced to pass the bill, and the governor has to sign it. This means that every year, only 10 to 12 people have been reenfranchised in Mississippi, while at the same time thousands are being disenfranchised.
In states like this there is a "secondary disenfranchisement": there is no reenfranchisement process comparable to the massive disenfranchisement efforts. Even though in theory people can vote, Abramsky said, in practice it is a diminution of their voting rights.

--------------------------------------

Why would an article like this be removed from your site if you believed in it enough to post it, and not only post it but offer Multimedia links to it originally? This was not something which accidentally ended up on line.

The next question would be why is it gone? You decide.

Felons do not deserve the right to vote, no more than they deserve the right to own guns. This was lost. Not only lost, but willfully given away one day when they awoke and decided to go and commit a crime. Which crime was it? Murder, Rape, or something worse?

Think about that.

Help our Warriors out!

Here is a great way to help the Wounded Warrior Project. Enter for a chance to win this custom Jeep.

Go to Warrior Jeep to find out how to win and help others!

Boycott Toronto!!!!

OK everyone, it time to get the word out. Toronto needs to feel what happens when all gun owners ban travel to a city.

To learn more, go to http://www.torontothebad.com/ .

Here is what the Mayor of Toronto has to say about America Gun Owners.

• About American Firearms Owners
  
• The U.S. is exporting its problem of violence to the streets of Toronto,
  ... this should come as no surprise, there’s a complete lack of common sense in the US and its easier for a Canadian to drive down to a place like Ohio and go to a gun show and bring it back in.
  
• "It's a sign that the lack of gun laws in the U.S. is allowing guns to flood across the border that are literally being used to kill people in the streets of Toronto,"
  
• There’s a heck of a lot of Americans who believe in common sense gun control. Maybe they’ll wake up and discover that they’re exporting literal death to the streets of Toronto and other Canadian cities.
  
• The law must be changed and we have to continue to work with American mayors to stop the flow of guns across the border into Canada,
  
• There are two sources: They're from Canada and the United States. The Canadian guns sometimes are from registered gun owners, as we sadly saw last week, often are from guns stolen from so-called collectors. And it's time to close those loopholes. And we must be much more aggressive to stop the guns coming from the United States.
  
• We've got ongoing work with U.S. jurisdictions and that's important as something we can do. We've ask our legal department to explore every avenue of what we can do to get at the supply of guns and ammunition.
  
• We need to take a strong stand about it and make it a big issue between Canada and the US so the Americans choose to make a different choice about it.
  
• I’ve lived in the States, I went to university in the States and I don’t think there’s a place for guns there either...