Kevin and

Indiana's supreme court recently ruled you have no legal right to resist an unlawful entry by police into your home.
I just don't get it. We're not only losing our rights... we're gladly giving them up.

I still don't understand why Americans are offering support to our government to drop into anyone's home, anywhere in the world, and execute them.
Do they not realize that allows them to do it to any of us as well?

So you asre saying that other amendments are because of "basic problems in the framework"? OK. I guess they are. We have a procedure to amend the constitution (except the Bill of Rights) and someone is proposing to use it. Good news. I don;t see a problem with this. The purpose of the constitution was to limit the power of the Federal Government. Further limits are a good thing.

It ceased to be that a LONG time ago.
The moment the Federal Government started its power grab, we were not longer the United "States."

I've stated time and time again that the states no longer have a voice in Washington.
The moment the states lost their voice, is the moment the Feds gained too much power.
You cannot claim to the "United States" if they states have no voice.

Visa Journey is a privately owned website not affiliated with any government agency or any official or professional immigration service. It was originally started by a group of individuals who were going through their own immigration journeys and became more 'formalized' as the site grew in popularity. Visa Journey has continued as a useful experience-based immigration support site even though the original members have now completed their own immigration journeys. Many long time members have also completed their immigration journeys but because they know how useful this site is to those who are trying to navigate the sometimes murky waters of the immigration processes, they too stay to offer others the benefit of their knowledge and experience.

GO RON PAUL!!!

All of you have missed Paul's point.
If Bush would've ordered a "hit" on Osama in a sovereign, foreign country that we're not at war with, he would've been impeached. Obama is hailed as a hero.
Why the double standard?

Please. Let's be honest.
If GWB was President the left wingers would be calling for his head/impeachment for killing an unarmed man. I mean after all, the 'war crimes' are numerous and this would be the nail in the coffin in their eyes.
I just love the change of tone because it's Obama.
Hypocrisy is amazing!

You are stupid! You do not know what's good for you! Your government loves you! They support you and know what's best for you!
Seriously. This is a load of #######.
Little by little, they take things away.
"oh you're being ridiculous, our government is just helping us. They would never do anything to control or harm us."
Wake. The. F. Up. It's all about control.
-------------
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1382135/Herbal-medicines-banned-EU-directive-comes-force.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Both herbal remedy practitioners and manufacturers fear they could be forced out of business as a result.
Some of the most commonly used products were saved after the Health Secretary Andrew Lansley approved a plan for the Health Professions Council to establish a register of practitioners supplying unlicensed herbal medicines.
However, many remedies were lost as it was only open to those who could afford the licensing process which costs between £80,000 to £120,000.
At least 50 herbs, including horny goat weed (so-called natural Viagra), hawthorn berry, used for angina pain, and wild yam will no longer be stocked in health food shops, says the British Herbal Medicine Association.
The 2004 EU directive demands that a traditional herbal medicinal product must be shown to have been in use for 30 years in the EU – or at 15 years in the EU and 15 years elsewhere – for it to be licensed.
The UK drug safety watchdog, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Agency, has issued more than a dozen alerts in the past two years, including a warning last month over a contaminated weight loss pill called Herbal Flos Lonicerae (Herbal Xenicol) due to concerns over possible side-effects.
Mr Lansley, in a written statement, said the Government wanted to ensure continuing access to unlicensed herbal medicines via a statutory register for practitioners ‘to meet individual patient needs’.
Acupuncture falls outside the EU directive and so remains unaffected.
Prince Charles, a long-standing supporter of complementary therapies, has voiced his support for formal regulation of herbal practitioners.
Up til now the industry has been covered by the 1968 Medicines Act. This was drawn up when only a small number of herbal remedies were available.
But recent studies show that at least six million Britons have used a herbal medicine in the past two years.
Professor George Lewith, professor of health research at Southampton University, said: ‘Evidence for the efficacy of herbal medicines is growing; they may offer cheap, safe and effective approaches for many common complaints.’

Or just letting people exercise their own liberties.

The only thing government has to do to be successful is grow.

Name one business out there that could succeed if they manufactured nothing, sold nothing, and got bigger every year.

Praying for Obama to shut up?

Buy bullets. Much cheaper and in a crisis are better bartering stock than gold. Stick to the most common calibers. 9mm, .45 ACP, .223, .308, .30-06, 7.62x39 are all good.

When the economy grows, so does the tax revenue - a pay raise for Uncle Sam. The problem is, whenever Uncle Sam gets a pay raise, he spends even more money, and each year the problem just keeps getting worse.
Without a balanced budget amendment, Uncle Sam cannot be trusted to act in a fiscally disciplined manner.

Maybe another war will help stimulate the economy.

It's Their War, Not Ours
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Tuesday - March 8, 2011
Before the United States plunges into a third war in the Middle East, let us think this one through, as we did not the last two.
What would be the purpose of establishing a no-fly zone over Libya? According to advocates, to keep Moammar Gadhafi from using his air force to attack civilians.
But if Gadhafi uses tanks to crush the rebellion, as Nikita Khrushchev did in Hungary and the Chinese did in Tiananmen Square, would that be OK?
What is the moral distinction between using planes to kill rebels and running over them with tanks? Do we Americans just want to see a fair fight?
To establish a secure no-fly zone, we would have to bomb radar installations, anti-aircraft batteries, missile sites and airfields, and destroy the Libyan air force on the ground, to keep the skies secure for U.S. pilots.
These would be acts of war against a nation that has not attacked us.
Where do we get the legal and moral right to do this? Has Congress, which alone has the power to declare war, authorized Barack Obama to attack Libya?
The president may respond to an attack on American territory or U.S. citizens, but Libya has not done that since Lockerbie, more than two decades ago.
Since that atrocity, George W. Bush and Condi Rice welcomed Gadhafi in from the cold, after he paid $10 million in blood money to the families of each of the Lockerbie victims.
What, then, is our present justification for attacking Libya?
The U.N. Security Council has not authorized military action against Libya. No NATO ally has been attacked. Why is Libya not a problem for the Arab League and the African Union, rather than the United States, 5,000 miles away?
Last week, the Senate whistled through a nonbinding resolution urging the creation of a no-fly zone. Call it the Sidra Gulf resolution.
But what are U.S. senators doing issuing blank checks for war eight years after George W. Bush cashed the last one to commit the historic blunder of invading Iraq? Do these people learn at all from history?
That war cost the Republican Party the Congress in 2006 and presidency in 2008. Far worse, it cost the country 40,000 dead and wounded, a trillion dollars, and the respect of hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims who saw the war as an imperial attempt to crush a nation that had done nothing to the United States.
Assume we attack Gadhafi's air defenses, and in the collateral damage are a dozen children -- like those kids collecting sticks on that hillside in Afghanistan -- and Al-Jazeera spreads footage of their dismembered bodies across the Middle East, as commentators rail, "The Americans are killing Muslims again, this time for Libya's oil." The pro-democracy demonstrations across the Middle East would instantly become anti-American riots.
If we destroy Gadhafi's air defenses, could we simply let the rebels and regime fight it out? If Libyans, seeing us intervene, rose up against Gadhafi, could we let them be massacred as Bush I let the tens of thousands of Shiites be massacred who rose up in 1991 against Saddam after Bush urged them to do so?
If we attack Libya, we could not let Gadhafi prevail and plot revenge attacks on U.S. airliners. Having wounded the snake, we would have to go in and kill it. And the interventionists know this, and this is what they are all about.
Never strike a king unless you kill him. In for a dime, in for a dollar. If we declare a no-fly zone, we have to attack Libya. And if we attack Libya, an act of war, we have to see that the war is won.
And after that victory, we could not wash our hands and walk away. We would have to ensure the new government was democratic and a model to the Muslim world, as we are trying to do in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Do we really want to adopt another Muslim country?
Don't start down a road the end of which you cannot see or do not know. There is no vital U.S. interest in whether Gadhafi wins or is deposed. We ought to stay out. This is their war, not ours.
Churchill once said: Take away this pudding, it has no theme.
What is the theme, where is the consistency in U.S. policy?
We backed the dictators Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, who were as autocratic as Gadhafi, whom we demand be deposed.
We support the dictator in Yemen, the absolute monarch in Saudi Arabia, the king in Bahrain, the sultan in Oman and the emir in Kuwait, but back pro-democracy demonstrators in Iran, though there have been more elections in Iran than in all those other nations put together.
America has taken a terrible beating for what she has done and tried and failed to do in that region for a decade.
Let the "world community" take the lead on this one.
Tell them, this time, the Yanks are not coming.
SOURCE: http://buchanan.org/blog/its-their-war-not-ours-4618

How about eliminating pennies? Them suckers are worth less than the what goes into making the coins.

If a Muslim can...why not a Mormon?

After two years and trillions of dollars and we just now get below 9%. Obama should be so proud!!!

In a perfect world.
In our world, wealthy oil company execs are deploying the armed forces of the government they own to protect their assets.

The only true morons are the ones that actually bought the #######. True idiots.