Tag Archive: United States Supreme Court

The Kalb Report – Ruth Bader Ginsberg & Antonin Scalia

Enhanced by Zemanta

California Political News

by Stephen Frank on 02/13/2014


101011-ATF guns-sm

Miracles do happen.  The most radical Leftist Federal Court in American, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, has decided a case based on the Constitution.  They ruled that the Constitution allows honest private citizens to carry guns without interference from government.  No one would predict a decision based on the U.S. Constitution from these Fidel loving lawyers.

Of course this will go to the Supreme Court.  Still it is a start.  Imagine, being allowed to protect yourself from criminals!

“The 2-1 decision says San Diego County’s system of issuing permits to carry concealed weapons infringes on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

If not reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court, the decision means law-abiding citizens will be able to carry concealed firearms in public.

“San Diego County’s ‘good cause’ permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense,” says the majority opinion, written by Judge Diarmuid O`Scannlain.”

101011-ATF guns-sm

California’s concealed weapons laws shot down

Central Valley Business Times,  2/13/14

•  Federal appellate court rules in San Diego case

•  “Impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense”
California’s laws against carrying a concealed weapon may have been shot down by a divided opinion of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The 2-1 decision says San Diego County’s system of issuing permits to carry concealed weapons infringes on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

If not reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court, the decision means law-abiding citizens will be able to carry concealed firearms in public.

Read More Here


9th Circuit: The Second Amendment Protects the Right to Carry a Gun

A big decision from the 9th Circuit today. Per Eugene Volokh:

The court concludes that California’s broad limits on both open and concealed carry of loaded guns — with no “shall-issue” licensing regime that assures law-abiding adults of a right to get licenses, but only a “good cause” regime under which no license need be given — “impermissibly infringe[] on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.”

In other words, one has the right to carry a gun. The state can elect to recognize this by permitting either “shall-issue” concealed-carry or “shall-issue” open carry, but it cannot restrict or prohibit both.

Read More Here


Court Tosses California’s Concealed-Weapons Rules

A divided federal appeals court on Thursday struck down California concealed-weapons rules, saying they violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The 2-1 ruling of a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said California counties were wrong to require law-abiding applicants to show “good cause” beyond self-defense to receive a concealed-weapons permit.

California prohibits people from carrying handguns in public without a concealed-weapons permit. State law requires applicants to show good moral character, have good cause and take a training course. It’s generally up to the state’s sheriffs and police chiefs to issue the permits, and the vast majority require an applicant to demonstrate a real danger or other reasons beyond simple self-defense to receive a permit. The 9th Circuit on Thursday said that requirement violates the 2nd Amendment.

The San Francisco-based appeals court said those requirements were too strict and ran afoul of a 5-4 landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2008 that struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban and said law-abiding citizens are allowed to have handguns in their home for self-defense.

“The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense,” Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote for the majority.

Chuck Michel, an attorney who represented several San Diego County residents who were denied a permit and who filed a lawsuit in 2009, praised the 9th Circuit Court’s ruling.

“This decision is a very dramatic confirmation of the Supreme Court ruling,” Michel said.

Read More Here


Enhanced by Zemanta



File:Supreme Court US 2010.jpg

The United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States, in 2010. Top row (left to right): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Bottom row (left to right): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Image Source :  Wikimedia . Org

Steve Petteway, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States,  PD





Supreme Court Considers Whistleblower Protections


11/12/13 03:16 PM ET EST AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is looking back at the collapse of energy giant Enron to determine who is protected from retaliation after blowing the whistle on a company’s misdeeds.


The justices heard arguments Tuesday in an appeal brought by two former employees of companies that run the Fidelity family of mutual funds. The workers claimed they faced retaliation after they reported allegations of fraud affecting Fidelity funds.


Read More Here



High court considers whistle-blower protections

Associated Press

Posted on November 12, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Updated today at 3:36 PM




WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court looked back Tuesday at the collapse of energy giant Enron to determine who is protected from retaliation after blowing the whistle on a company’s misdeeds.


The justices heard arguments in an appeal brought by two former employees of companies that run the Fidelity family of mutual funds. The workers claimed they faced retaliation after they reported allegations of fraud affecting Fidelity funds.


They argue that a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, passed in 2002 in response to the Enron scandal, protects their whistle-blower activity.


But the court spent most of an hour Tuesday discussing Enron’s bankruptcy in 2001 amid startling revelations that its top executives manipulated the company’s earnings and stock price by lying to employees and investors about Enron’s financial health.


The scandal also took down the Arthur Andersen accounting firm that failed to uncover efforts by Enron to hide its debts among spinoffs it created with “Star Wars”-inspired names like Chewco and Jedi.


Andersen was convicted of obstruction of justice for shredding documents relating to its audit of Enron, though the Supreme Court overturned the conviction in 2005.


In 2002, Congress responded to scandals at Enron and other companies by passing the Sarbanes-Oxley law.


The provision at issue at the Supreme Court protects people who expose the kind of corporate misdeeds that arose at Enron. But there is a dispute over whether the protection covers only employees of publicly traded companies or also applies to contractors hired by the companies.


Read More Here




Enhanced by Zemanta

Impeachment of U.S. President Albert Gore, Jr._REF: U.S. Supreme Ct_Case No. 00-949

Friday, May 3rd, 2013 | Posted by
 Veterans Today


(Editor’s note:  Only when America’s legally elected president, Al Gore, is returned to office and subjected to required impeachment proceedings, can constitutional authority in the United States be re-established.  Toward that end, all actions of the Bush (43) presidency are to be declared “null and void,” all treaties abrogated, all executive actions declared unlawful and all actions including but not limited to the establishment of the United States as a criminal empire undone.   The subsequent election of Barak Obama as president thus has no legal standing.  Gordon Duff and Lee Wanta)

Before the Supreme Court of the United States



The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the U.S.A. [hereafter the U.S. Constitution, or Constitution] are jointly the contract of specific performance between the U.S. citizens as the parties on one side of the agreement, and the U.S. government, its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors as the parties on the other side of the agreement.

The duty to take care is affirmative. So is the duty faithfully to execute the office. A President must carry out the obligations of his office diligently and in good faith. The elective character and political role of a President make it difficult to define faithful exercise of his powers in the abstract. A President must make policy and exercise discretion. This discretion necessarily is broad, especially in emergency situations, but the constitutional duties of a President impose limitations on its exercise.

The “take care” duty emphasizes the responsibilty of a President for the overall conduct of the executive branch, which the Constitution vests in him alone. He must take care that the executive is so organized and operated that this duty is preformed.

The duty of a President to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” to the best of his ability includes the duty not to abuse his powers or transgress their limits — not to violate the rights of citizens, such as those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and not to act in derogation of powers vested elsewhere by the Constitution.

Please Note : – Each of the thirteen American impeachments involved charges of misconduct incompatible with the official position of the officeholder. This conduct falls into three broad categories:

  1. exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office in derogation of the powers of another branch of government;
  2. behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office; and
  3. employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

Definition :  Political – Pertaining or relating to the policy or the administration of government, state or national …. As political theories … seek to determine or control its public policy …

(Black’s Law  6th Ed.)

Glenn Beck: “IMPEACH Obama”

by Right March on May 3, 2013     Print This Post Print This Post

Obama is GUILTY of High Crimes and Misdemeanors — Select Here to DEMAND Congress IMPEACH OBAMA!

ALERT: Glenn Beck has accused the White House of covering up suspects in the Boston terrorist attack — and is calling for President Barack Hussein Obama to be IMPEACHED.

And Rush Limbaugh says that Obama’s recent actions leading to the release of thousands of illegal alien criminals from our jails is an impeachable offense.



Beck has revealed that a Saudi national is a suspect in that bombing– but the media has covered it up:

“When I found out yesterday, who that guy is and what we have on him, and how our media was rooting for an American to be the killer. And how our president, this administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and everything else. How they have covered this up. How they have aided and abetted this guy is obscene, and it’s criminal. It’s out of control, and when America knows the full story on this, if she doesn’t stand up, and quite honestly, I think demand impeachment and the mass firing if not shutting down of agencies, we don’t stand a chance.”

According to Beck (see the video provided), we have reached the “beginning of the end for so much of this administration… This is much bigger than we thought.” A massive cover-up continues and Janet Napolitano, who Glenn feels will get jail time for her role in this cover-up, is going to be the first to fall. Will Barack Obama soon be impeached for his role in covering-up US government ties to terror in our own country?

This report from Beck contains much more new information, including news that unnamed and heroic federal law enforcement agents are deeply involved in investigating this cover-up, and several other news organizations have censored reports from their own reporters and investigators.

Before Glenn Beck’s report even came out, Rush Limbaugh, the nation’s highest-rated radio talk-show host, was already the latest public figure to suggest that President Obama could be impeached, over his actions related to the so-called “sequester.” This time, his regime decided to release what could end up being “a total of nearly 10,000 illegal immigrants from jails and prisons… before any budget cuts even went into effect!

On Limbaugh’s Feb. 27th show, stated:

“The president of the United States has opened up the jails. The president of the United States, because of budget cuts which have not happened yet, has released 500 or so illegal immigrants, and, by definition, of law, they are criminals… Janet ‘Big Sis’ Napolitano says that because the sequester is gonna cut 1% of their $2 billion detention budget, they will no longer be able to afford to detain as many as 30,000 criminals….

In what used to be considered, if we can remember this far back, normal, sane times, this is an impeachable offense. This is in direct violation of the oath of office. Defend and protect the Constitution of the United States and the people. We’re opening the doors of prisons before the sequester has even happened, before there have even been any budget cuts. This is so childish, except the consequences are real for people that live nearby these detention centers. This is on-the-ground, hard, cold reality…

Let’s not forget, thanks to Obama’s various executive orders, ICE, the immigration people, no longer detain any illegal aliens unless they’ve been convicted of a serious crime. That’s who we’re talking about here. You have to commit a serious crime before we detain you, if you’re illegal. So this isn’t just a bunch of discriminated against freedom fighters that have been wrongly jailed finally seeing freedom at all. These really are convicted criminals that are being released.”

RUSH IS CORRECT — now we have another impeachable offense by Barack Hussein Obama!



Of course, this comes hot on the heels of the latest impeachable offenses by President Obama — this time, this time, trying to impose gun control on our country. The American people have been successful (so far) in stopping Congress from passing new laws that would violate the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution… but now Barack Hussein Obama is threatening to impose “gun control” by Executive Order in order to BYPASS Congress!

At his press conference recently, Obama floated the possibility of using “executive action” to enact policies aimed at “reducing gun violence,” stating that, “I’m confident that there are some steps that we can take that don’t require legislation and that are within my authority as president.”

In response, a U.S. Congressman is now threatening to IMPEACH OBAMA if he takes such actions against gun rights. Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) has threatened that he would file articles of impeachment against President Obama if he institutes gun control measures with an executive order:

“I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment… Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible. Under no circumstances whatsoever may the government take any action that disarms any peaceable person — much less without due process through an executive declaration without a vote of Congress or a ruling of a court.”

Stockman warned that such executive orders would be “unconstitutional” and “infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.” He concluded by claiming that an executive order would be not just “not just an attack on the Constitution,” but also an “attack on Americans. If the president is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist,” he said.



Apparently, more and more Americans are starting to agree with Rep. Stockman — and with YOU! A new scientific poll is out, that shows nearly HALF of Americans are now in favor of IMPEACHING BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!

The new WND/Wenzel Poll is stunning in its details:

  • 44% say Obama should be impeached for his campaign for amnesty for illegal aliens
  • 46% say he should be impeached launching a war in Libya
  • 43% say he should be impeached over his deciding on his own what is and is not a Congressional recess appointment
  • 51% say he should be impeached over his appointment of dozens of “czars” without any congressional oversight or approval
  • 44% say Obama should be impeached for his fight with Arizona over enforcing immigration laws
  • 40% say he should be impeached for how the Defense of Marriage Act was handled
  • 60% disagree with his drone killings of American citizens overseas
  • 47% — including 1 in 6 Democrats — rate Obama’s job performance as “poor”

We’re getting closer and closer to a majority of Americans who agree that Obama deserves to be impeached…


But what has Barack Obama already done to deserve IMPEACHMENT?

Constitution Lawyer Michael Connelly recently published a comprehensive list of what he calls his “dirty dozen of impeachable offenses” committed by President Barack Hussein Obama — “offenses that subject him to being impeached by the Congress of the United States”. He emphatically states, “President Obama has actively attempted to subvert, ignore, and completely destroy large parts of the Constitution. I believe the President of the United States is well aware of what he is doing, and it is completely intentional.”

Connelly’s “dirty dozen” list has been viewed online more than 25 MILLION TIMES — it’s time to force Congress to TAKE ACTION and IMPEACH OBAMA, once and for all!

Constitutional Attorney Connelly listshis “dirty dozen” of Obama’s impeachable offenses:

  1. President Obama has appointed numerous people to cabinet level positions without the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, as is required by the Constitution.
  2. The push by Pres. Obama to pass healthcare legislation in the Congress of the United States that he was fully aware was unconstitutional.
  3. Despite the fact that the United States Senate refused to pass the Cap and Trade bill, the President has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to use regulations to implement key portions of the bill, including those regulating so-called greenhouse gases… in direct defiance of the will of the people of the United States, the will of Congress, and the Constitution.
  4. Obama has placed a moratorium on offshore oil drilling or exploration off both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the United States and in parts of the Gulf of Mexico. He has also prohibited new drilling exploration on federal land in any states in the United States… in direct defiance of several court orders issued by Federal Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans.
  5. Instead of allowing American companies to drill for oil domestically, Obama hasbetrayed the American people and authorized loans of billions of dollars to countries like Brazil and Mexico so that they can drill for oil, and then sell that oil to the United States. Obama has also refused to approve the keystone pipeline from Canada to the United States that would not only lessen our dependence on oil from countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, but create thousands of new jobs in the United States. The decision on the pipeline is one that belongs in the hands of the members of Congress, not the President.
  6. President Obama has abdicated his responsibility to enforce the laws of the United States against illegal immigration. He has virtually declared our southern border an open border by declaring certain areas of federal land in states like Arizona as off-limits to federal, state, and local authorities… He has also ordered the border patrol not to arrest most illegal immigrants entering the country, and has stopped deportation proceedings against thousands of people in this country illegally. He is in effect instituting the so-called “dream act” bypassing the Congress of the United States which has sole authority over immigration matters.
  1. The President and his Attorney General Eric Holder have clearly violated their oath of office by joining with foreign countries such as Mexico, Bolivia, and Columbia, in lawsuits against the sovereign states of Arizona, Georgia, and Alabama to stop them from enforcing the federal immigration laws.
  2. President Obama has ordered the Federal Communications Commission to adopt regulations giving the federal government control of the Internet and its contents, including providing Obama with a kill switch that gives him authority to shut down the Internet if he sees fit. This is in direct violation of a decision by the United States Supreme Court that the FCC has no Constitutional authority to control the Internet.
  3. Obama has unilaterally declared that the Defense of Marriage Act passed by the Congress is unconstitutional, and further declared that he will not have the Justice Department defend it against lawsuits. His administration has also refused to enforce laws against voter intimidation and federal law that requires states to purge their voter registration lists of deceased individuals and those that are registered illegally. In addition, the Justice Department is refusing to allow states to enforce laws requiring proof of identity by voters at the polls. Obama has essentially said that he is the supreme ruler of the United States, and that the Congress and the Federal Judiciary are irrelevant.
  4. It has been widely reported that acting through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms the Obama administration was involved for months in getting legitimate and law-abiding gun store owners along our southern border to supply weapons to straw buyers who the government knew would deliver them to the drug cartels in Mexico. The administration has, in effect, armed our enemies, and one border patrol agent has already been killed by one of these weapons. Now, Obama continues to impose gun control laws by Executive order so he will not have to deal with Congress. The administration is also refusing to cooperate with the committees in the House of Representatives that are investigating the entire operation. It is even defying Congressional subpoenas.
  5. The President of the United States is not authorized by the Constitution to take our nation to war without the consent of the Congress of the United States. The President committed members of the United States military to combat missions in a foreign country (Libya) without the consent of Congress. He based his authority on a United Nations resolution, and a resolution by the Arab League. Now, administration is taking the position that it can ignore Congress as long as it has United Nations approval or NATO approval. The White House also insisted that language be included in the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that gives the President sole authority to order the military to arrest and indefinite detain American citizens on U.S. soil if the President suspects them of terrorist ties, followed almost immediately by another unconstitutional executive order titled the National Defense Resources Preparation order. It includes language that appears to give Obama the authority to declare martial law in peacetime, and take over the allocation of everything from food and fuel to transportation and health care. This violates the Constitution in a number of different ways.
  6. Since taking office the President has used executive orders, laws pushed through Congress in the dark of night, and administrative actions by his departments to nationalize and control automobile manufacturers, banks, insurance companies, and portions of the healthcare industry. This is designed to take our country from a free enterprise economy to a socialist economy. There is absolutely no authority in the Constitution of the United States that allows the President to do this.

This “dirty dozen” list of impeachable offenses committed by Barack Obama is just the TIP OF THE ICEBERG! It’s time to GET HIM OUT OF OFFICE!


There are SO MANY impeachable offenses that have been committed by Barack Hussein Obama…


It’s THE LAW that every year, the President is REQUIRED to submit a budget to Congress. He is REQUIRED BY LAW to submit a budget no earlier than the first Monday in January, and no later than the first Monday in February.

The law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a)) reads: “On or after the first Monday in January but not later than the first Monday in February of each year, the President shall submit a budget of the United States Government for the following fiscal year.”

So, President Obama sent his budget to Congress by February 4th… right?

WRONG. In fact, the White House is now saying Obama’s budget “will probably come out April 8.” And it’s NOT the first time this has happened — in fact, it’s the FOURTH time in five years the president has FAILED to submit a budget on time!

Obama’s NEVER late on picking his Final Four bracket teams… but he’s almost ALWAYS late on obeying the LAW and submitting a budget to Congress in time!

Do you GET that? President Barack Obama has BROKEN THE LAW over and over and over and over again — with impunity! It’s not a felony… but it IS a misdemeanor… which is an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE!

This is only the latest reason to impeach Obama — and we’re not the only ones calling for his impeachment!

Add another big name to the list of people who believe that Barack Hussein Obama has met the Constitutional requirement of “high crimes and midsdemeanors”, and should therefore be IMPEACHED. This time, it’s rock legend and gun-rights defender Ted Nugent:

Referring to Obama, Nugent says, “There’s no question that this guy’s violations qualify for impeachment. There’s no question.”

He blasted “the criminality of this government, the unprecedented abuse of power, corruption, fraud and deceit by the Chicago gangster-scammer-ACORN-in-chief. It’s so diabolical…”

He called the probe into the fatal onslaught at the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, “the most recent outrage” worthy of the Obama administration.

“When you’ve got the secretary of state of the United States of America who was brought in for questioning regarding the murder, the slaughter, the predictable slaughter of four American citizens in Benghazi, what kind of subhuman numbnut would not know you need security in Benghazi 24/7?” Nugent asked.

“And why does Hillary Clinton know that she’s got the backing of the president and the government overall when she has the audacity to scold those elected officials who ask proper questions. The hearings are over. Nothing [is the result]!”


Read More Here


Video Obama Backup Gun Grab UN Treaty Confiscation Vote Soon          

Image Source                                                                                                                                              Image  Source

Wednesday, 28 November 2012 22:22 posted by JamesR Smiley

PEOPLE, PEOPLE, PEOPLE, listen up Americans! The United States Supreme Court has already answered this issue in 1957 LANDMARK PRECEDENT case, “Reid v Covert”. In a 6-2 decision with Justices Hugo Black, John Harlan, Chief Justice Earl Warren, Felix Frankfurter, William J. Brennan Jr. and William O. Douglas all voted AFFIRMATIVE and stated in majority opinion: “The United States IS ENTIRELY A CREATURE OF THE CONSTITUTION. It’s POWER AND AUTHORITY HAVE NO OTHER SOURCE. It can ONLY act in accordance with all the LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY THE CONSTITUTION…NO agreement with a FOREIGN nation CAN CONFER POWER ON THE CONGRESS OR ON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS FREE FROM THE RESTRAINTS OF THE CONSTITUTION.” The Court went on to add: “an international agreement that is INCONSISTENT WITH THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS VOID UNDER U.S. DOMESTIC LAW, the same as ANY OTHER FEDERAL LAW IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION.”—- ALL AMERICANS SHOULD UNDERSTAND—Presidents, Congress and federal officials ARE EMPLOYEES OF WE THE PEOPLE–their EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT IS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. NO ACT OF CONGRESS OR TREATY SIGNED BY SAME CAN OVERRIDE BILL OF RIGHTS IN OUR CONSTITUTION!! IT’S TIME TO LET THEM KNOW THAT WE THE PEOPLE KNOW!!


Arms Trade Treaty


Published on Mar 27, 2013

Joe Wolverton, a writer for The New American, is at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, covering the Arms Trade Treaty that has been worked on this week by various parties.

More news at:


This  war  on the  2nd  amendment has been going on  for over a decade. So don’t let the BS   fool you  , it isnt  just  Obama  who has been conspiring  to  destroy the  2ndamendment.   Just  remember what  happened in   New  Orleans after Katrina. That  was not   Obama.  So  open  your  eyes  and step lively.  You  need  to  be able to  look beyond the  Right/Left  Paradigm or you  will be lost  in the shuffle.


MILLER: U.N. threatens to override Second Amendment

Arms Trade Treaty puts American gun owners in peril

By Emily Miller

The Washington Times

Thursday, March 21, 2013

  • President Obama addresses the 67th session of the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 25, 2012. (Associated Press)Enlarge PhotoPresident Obama addresses the 67th session of the United Nations General Assembly … more >
Around the Web

While President Obama lost a round this week on his gun-control agenda in Congress, he’s making up for lost ground by pursuing a broader gun grab at the United Nations.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said there was not enough support to give Sen. Dianne Feinstein the stand-alone vote she demands on the “assault weapon” ban, but the upper chamber may soon be the deciding factor in whether the United States ratifies an international treaty that could strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights.

SPECIAL COVERAGE: Second Amendment and Gun Control

On Monday, the United States joined in the nine day conference in New York to finalize negotiations of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The treaty is intended to regulate the global trade of conventional weapons, but depending how the final document is worded, it could put at risk Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.

The countries were negotiating the draft last July, but stopped when the U.S. asked for a delay. Many believe Mr. Obama pushed the issue past Election Day in order not to further alienate gun owners. Now that he has more “flexibility” in his second term, the U.S. is back at the table.

Secretary of State John Kerry has encouraged reaching consensus by March 28. “The United States is steadfast in its commitment to achieve a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty that helps address the adverse effects of the international arms trade on global peace and stability,” he wrote in a statement Friday.

Mr. Kerry only modified his enthusiasm with a nod to public disapproval by stating that, “We will not support any treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution, including the Second Amendment.”

The National Rifle Association (NRA) strongly opposes the treaty because the draft includes civilian firearms under what is called the “scope” provision of the draft. NRA representatives in New York are finding strong resistance from non-government organizations and leftist states to removing the civilian firearm provision.

Read Full Article Here


MILLER: Second Amendment attack backfires

Gun owners shine a spotlight on hypocritical attacks on their rights

By Emily Miller

The Washington Times

Thursday, December 27, 2012

  • David Gregory holding a 30-round magazine at NBC's Washington bureau (NBC/Meet the Press)Enlarge PhotoDavid Gregory holding a 30-round magazine at NBC’s Washington bureau (NBC/Meet the … more >

Gun grabbers have been exploiting the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., to pursue their long-standing agenda of disarming America. Law-abiding and responsible gun owners are fighting back against the onslaught.

NBC anchor David Gregory acted on Sunday as if D.C. firearms laws didn’t apply to him. He brandished a 30-round rifle magazine on “Meet the Press” during an interview with National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. “Isn’t it just possible that we could reduce the carnage in a situation like Newtown?” Mr. Gregory asked while waving the prohibited object.

A ruthlessly enforced city ordinance makes it unlawful to possess magazines with greater than a 10-round capacity. NBC staff had contacted the Metropolitan Police Department in advance seeking permission to violate the city’s rules for the stunt. According to a spokesman for Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier, the request was denied. Mr. Gregory went ahead anyway.

So far, Chief Lanier’s office will only say it has “launched an investigation” into the matter. Several law enforcement sources say that if anyone other than a network news anchor had done this, a warrant already would have been drafted for the perpetrator’s arrest for a crime that carries a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine and one year in jail.

“This is the problem when you have anti-law-enforcement liberals running the city,” said Kristopher Baumann, head of the D.C. police union. “The laws they create are for the little people, and they don’t ever expect those laws to apply to them.”

Thousands of Americans have grown so tired of the hypocrisy that they’ve started a petition on the White House website seeking the deportation of Piers Morgan, the British host of CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight” who has lectured the nation about how only the police and military can be trusted to possess scary-looking rifles and “high-capacity magazines.”

Guests on the program who stand up for the Second Amendment are lambasted. For instance, Mr. Morgan recently asked Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt, “You are an unbelievably stupid man, aren’t you?” It’s not surprising the petition to send the anchor back to his homeland has received more than 84,000 signatures.

 Read Full Article  Here


Monday, 26 November 2012 17:21

UN Global Gun Ban Flimflam

Written by 

The New American

On November 7, the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly voted 157-0 (with 18 abstentions) in favor of Resolution L.11 that will finalize the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in March 2013.

China, the United Kingdom, and Germany all voted to move the historic measure toward passage.

As we have reported, when the treaty was being deliberated in July, the United States was the only obstacle preventing the global arms control regulations from being imposed on the world.

Miraculously, however, all the points of the agreement Secretary Clinton found so distasteful in the summer were made so much more palatable after President Obama’s reelection, and every single attack on the right to bear arms remains in the version of the treaty approved on November 7.

Within hours of his securing his reelection, President Obama placed a late night call to the U.S. United Nations delegation ordering them to vote in favor of a passage of L.11.

As soon as news of the U.S. policy 180 was confirmed, a new round of negotiations on the treaty was scheduled for March 18-28 at the UN headquarters in New York City.

That was immediately followed by a press release sent out early the next morning from the United Nations General Assembly’s First Committee proclaiming the good news of President Obama’s go-ahead for the gun grab and setting the agenda for the next gun control conference.

Also kindling discussion among delegations was a draft resolution aimed at building on the progress made toward the adoption of a strong, balanced and effective arms trade treaty. That text would decide to convene the “Final United Nations Conference” for the creation of such a treaty in March 2013.

Also by that resolution, the draft text of the treaty submitted by the conference’s president on July 26 would be the basis for future work, without prejudice to the right of delegations to put forward additional proposals on that text.

The U.S. government was now placing its full weight behind convening a “Final United Nations Conference” for the proposal of a treaty imposing worldwide gun control regulations.

In July, 51 senators sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton encouraging them to “not only to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure — if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference — that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense.”

The failure to pass an acceptable version of the treaty in July is in the president’s rearview mirror, however, as Reuters reports that “adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty” could be imminent.

Reuters quotes Brian Wood of Amnesty International:

After today’s resounding vote, if the larger arms trading countries show real political will in the negotiations, we’re only months away from securing a new global deal that has the potential to stop weapons reaching those who seriously abuse human rights.

The definition of an “abuse” of “human rights” will be left up to a coterie of internationalist bureaucrats who will be neither accountable to nor elected by citizens of the United States.

Read Full Article Here



It’s about  damn time !!



Sunday, 24 March 2013 07:00

Senate Votes to Keep U.S. Out of UN Arms Trade Treaty

Written by 

In the pre-dawn hours Saturday, the Senate approved a measure “to uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”

By a vote of 53-46, the Senate passed the amendment to the budget bill sponsored by Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.).

This reporter is in New York covering the negotiations at the UN aimed at drafting a treaty calling for the eradication of small arms trade, sale, and transfer by anyone other than UN-approved governments.

“We’re negotiating a treaty that cedes our authority to have trade agreements with our allies in terms of trading arms,” Inhofe before the vote on his amendment. “This is probably the last time this year that you’ll be able to vote for your Second Amendment rights.”

According to a story in The Hill, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) proposed his own amendment “that clarified that under current U.S. law, treaties don’t trump the Constitution and that the United States should not agree to any arms treaty that violates the Second Amendment rights.” Leahy’s amendment also passed.

A resolution of similar intent sponsored by Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) is currently pending before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Moran’s measure declares that it is the sense of Congress that:

the President should not sign the Arms Trade Treaty, and that, if he transmits the treaty with his signature to the Senate, the Senate should not ratify the Arms Trade Treaty; and

until the Arms Trade Treaty has been signed by the President, received the advice and consent of the Senate, and has been the subject of implementing legislation by Congress, no Federal funds should be appropriated or authorized to implement the Arms Trade Treaty, or any similar agreement, or to conduct activities relevant to the Arms Trade Treaty, or any similar agreement.

Representative Mike Kelly (R-Penn.) has offered a companion measure in the House.

Both the Moran and Kelly resolutions declare that the Arms Trade Treaty “poses significant risks to the national security, foreign policy, and economic interests of the United States as well as to the constitutional rights of United States citizens and United States sovereignty.”

The measures also points out that UN gun grab “fails to expressly recognize the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms and the individual right of personal self-defense, as well as the legitimacy of hunting, sports shooting, and other lawful activities pertaining to the private ownership of firearms and related materials, and thus risks infringing on freedoms protected by the Second Amendment.”


Read Full Article Here


Below is the list of Democrats that voted against the amendment and in favor of the UN being given the power to overturn the U.S. Constitution.

Baldwin (D WI)

Baucus (D MT)

Bennet (D CO)

Blumenthal (D CT)

Boxer (D CA)

Brown (D OH)

Cantwell (D WA)

Cardin (D MD)

Carper (D DE)

Casey (D PA)

Coons (D DE)

Cowan (D MA)

Durbin (D IL)

Feinstein (D CA)

Franken (D MN)

Gillibrand (D NY)

Harkin (D IA)

Hirono (D HI)

Johnson (D SD)

Kaine (D VA)

King (I ME)

Klobuchar (D MN)

Landrieu (D LA)

Leahy (D VT)

Levin (D MI)

McCaskill (D MO)

Menendez (D NJ)

Merkley (D OR)

Mikulski (D MD)

Murphy (D CT)

Murray (D WA)

Nelson (D FL)

Reed (D RI)

Reid (D NV)

Rockefeller (D WA)

Sanders (I VT)

Schatz (D HI)

Shaheen (D NH)

Stabenow (D MI)

Udall (D CO)

Udall (D NM)

Warner (D VA)

Warren (D MA)

Whitehouse (D RI)

Wyden (D OR)


Don’t get  to comfortable , you  see  Obama is not taking  NO for an answer!!


US demands vote on United Nations arms trade treaty next week

By Julian Pecquet – 03/29/13 06:00 AM ET
The Hill

The Obama administration is demanding that the U.N. General Assembly vote on an arms trade treaty opposed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) next week, abandoning its earlier insistence on consensus.

The conference drafting the text broke up Thursday afternoon without reaching a deal after North Korea (DPRK), Syria and Iran objected. The United States immediately joined 11 other countries demanding a vote in the General Assembly after the president of the conference delivers his report on Tuesday.

“The U.S. regrets that it was not possible today to reach consensus at this conference on an arms trade treaty,” said Tom Countryman, the assistant secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation and head of the U.S. delegation to the Arms Trade Treaty Conference. “Such a treaty would promote global security, would advance important humanitarian objectives, and it would affirm the legitimacy of the international trade in conventional arms.”

He said the text that failed to reach consensus Thursday was “meaningful,” “implementable,” and “did not touch in any way upon the constitutional rights of American citizens.”

“We look forward to this text being adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in the very near future,” Countryman told reporters in a conference call Thursday night. “It’s important to the United States and the defense of our interests to insist on consensus. But every state in this process has always been conscious of the fact that, if consensus is not reached in this process, that there are other ways to adopt this treaty, including via a vote of the General Assembly.”

Countryman said a vote is expected as early as next week. That could be delayed if states reopen the treaty for further changes, however.

“The United States will vote in favor,” Countryman said. “We think an overwhelming majority of states will vote in favor. I’m happy to vote the opposite direction of such states as Iran, North Korea and Syria on this text.”

The treaty would require that states institute internal mechanisms for ensuring that their exports of conventional weapons aren’t likely to be used to violate humanitarian law. The treaty is opposed by the National Rifle Association and a majority of U.S. senators, but the administration says it would have no impact on domestic Second Amendment rights.

Read Full Article Here



UN’s arms trade treaty blocked


Published on Mar 28, 2013

Attempts by the United Nations to negotiate the world’s first global arms treaty have been blocked by Iran, North Korea, and Syria. The treaty has been in the works for nearly a decade, but negotiators could not convince the three countries to approve the draft. Al Jazeera’s diplomatic editor James Bays reports from United Nations headquarters in New York.


Millions will not comply to UN disarming the militia


Published on Mar 3, 2013

A Republican lawmaker in Idaho has proposed an amendment to the state Constitution that would require all adults to be militia members.

A proposed disaster emergency ordinance in Guntersville, Ala., would give police overreaching power to disarm individuals in the event of an Emergency. Shotguns could be banned under Colorado Bill. Opponents of New York’s new gun control law plan to lobby lawmakers and rally at the Capitol.

Gun rights supporters want the public to become more aware of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

They gathered on Friday at Duke’s Sport Shop in New Castle to learn about the issue, which some believe could alter the country’s Second Amendment.

U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pennsylvania, explained that ATT is a set of global rules to help government regulate arms transfers.

He believes it could harm the country’s gun policy and some gun shop owners agree.

Kelly said people opposed to the ATT can sign an online petition.

“I think a lot of people don’t really know that’s actually going on right now,” said Duke’s Sports Shop Manager Mike Fotia. “It could impact everyone in the U.S. who owns a gun. It could impact the Second Amendment.”

Gun rights supporters want the public to become more aware of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

UNITED NATIONS (TRNS) — A proposed U.N. treaty to regulate international arms sales would likely have no impact on U.S. domestic gun laws, according to a white paper released by the American Bar Association earlier this week.

The report by the ABA’s Center for Human Rights, which comes less than three weeks before U.N. members states are set to resume negotiations on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), seemingly weakens claims by the National Rifle Association and other groups that the treaty poses a great risk to Second Amendment rights.

The Obama administration backed away from the ATT negotiation conference last summer after the American gun lobby and members of the US Senate and Congress alleged the deal threatened private ownership of firearms for American citizens.

But the American Bar Association’s latest analysis of the ATT concludes that while the treaty would impose obligations on the U.S. government to block international arm transfers to suspected human rights abusers, war criminals, and terrorists, it “would not require new domestic regulations of firearms.”

“If the United States signs and ratifies the ATT, in its most recent iteration in the President’s text of 26 July 2012, the United States retains the discretion to regulate the flow of weapons into and out of the United States in a manner consistent with the Second Amendment,” reads the white paper.

The ABA report also found that the majority of weapons covered by the Arms Trade Treaty do not enjoy Second Amendment protections, citing the Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, that “the Second Amendment applies only to firearms that are ‘typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,’ but not to ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.”

It says the current version of the agreement would cover the international transfers of all conventional weapons, including tanks, armored vehicles, attack helicopters, combat aircrafts, artillery systems, and missile launchers, as well as small arms and light weapons.

The National Riffle Association has energetically lobbied against the inclusion of small arms and light weapons in the ATT, blasting treaty negotiators for targeting “civilians weapons” it says are protected by the U.S. constitution.

However, the ABA white paper notes that District of Columbia v. Heller does not extend Second Amendment protections to “small arms and light weapons” such as short barreled shotguns, machine-guns, and automatic M-16 rifles.

It says that even though constitutional protections apply to some weapons classified as “small arms and light weapons,” the Second Amendment does not cover activities like importing and exporting arms.

“The Second Amendment is generally inapplicable to arms exports. Though the amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” it does not protect the right to supply arms to persons who are not themselves among “the people” of the United States,” says the ABA report.

But conservative groups and gun rights activists remain unconvinced, and maintain that possible future amendments to the ATT might eventually infringe on American gun laws.

The Arms Trade Treaty negotiations conference is set to resume at the U.N. headquarters in New York March 18-28th.


The scene of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City

The scene of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City
Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:37AM GMT

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

Ellen Mariani’s petition to the Supreme Court sought to reinstate her wrongful death lawsuit against US government officials and others – a suit which had been denied, at lower levels, on the grounds that she had no standing to sue those responsible for her husband’s death! In fact, Ellen Mariani was cheated by lawyers who were secretly working for the other side, and by judges with massive conflicts of interest.”

On Tuesday, February 19, 2013, the United States Supreme Court slammed its door in the face of the last 9/11 family member seeking justice through the American legal system.

Ellen Mariani, whose husband Neil was murdered on September 11, 2001, had turned down more than a million dollars in government hush money to pursue the real 9/11 criminals in federal court.

After eleven years, two separate lawsuits, and an unbelievable series of encounters with corrupt lawyers and Israeli-American judges, Ellen Mariani has finally heard from the United States Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court’s message is loud and clear: There will be no truth, and no justice, concerning 9/11… at least not in the US court system.

Ellen Mariani’s petition to the Supreme Court sought to reinstate her wrongful death lawsuit against US government officials and others – a suit which had been denied, at lower levels, on the grounds that she had no standing to sue those responsible for her husband’s death! In fact, Ellen Mariani was cheated by lawyers who were secretly working for the other side, and by judges with massive conflicts of interest.

Vincent Gillespie of the Ellen Mariani Legal Defense Fund explains: “It’s politics. They don’t want any 9/11 cases to go forward… If this had come to trial, there’s all kinds of evidence that could have come out.”

Ellen Mariani’s case, like almost all 9/11-related litigation, was channeled through the courtroom of Judge Alvin Hellerstein. Gillespie charges:

“One of the problems was Judge Hellerstein. He’s an immense problem. First, we have Israeli defendants here. ICTS (the airline security company established in 1982 by members of Israeli intelligence) is one of the defendants. And Hellerstein is a Zionist Jew with all kinds of connections to the Jewish community. His sister lives in Israel, his son works in an Israeli law firm, he’s involved in a couple of Jewish organizations in New York. His wife is involved in a Jewish organization. Just that by itself is going to create a conflict of interest. He’ll want to protect Israeli defendants.”

Israeli defendants? Were there Israelis involved in 9/11?

Gillespie explains: “There were over 180 Israelis arrested on and around 9/11. The person overseeing that was Michael Chertoff, a dual national Israeli-American. And he sent them all back with a slap on the wrist for visa violations.”

By Nora Eisenberg
The Raw Story

["A Woman In The United States Military Crying" on Shutterstock]

Veterans groups claim that delays by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs in processing combat-related mental health claims has contributed to the 6,500 veteran suicides each year, and filed a federal court case in July 2007 asking the courts to invervene. Friday — after five years of legal battle spearheaded by veterans advocates Veterans for Common Sense (VCS) and Veterans United for Truth, Inc (VUFT) — the U.S. Supreme Court, without comment, let stand a May 2012 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on VA’s behalf.

The 2007 case, Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, sought to hold VA — the second largest federal agency — responsible for the widespread delays and denials in treating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI) associated with service in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which has resulted in an astonishing 18 veteran suicides daily. In June 2008, Federal District Court Judge Samuel Conti of San Franscisco ruled that, though the plaintiffs had shown that veterans endure long waits for medical care and thereby suffer higher rates of suicide and post-traumatic stress disorder, an understaffed VA can not remedy the situation on its own. Instead, he said, it requires an intervention by Congress and even the President.


Read Full Article Here

Politics, Legislation and Economy News

Politics  :  Government – Corruption – Hypocrisy

SNOPES NO MORE – very interesting!

Many of the emails that I have sent or forwarded that had any anti Obama
in it were negated by Snopes. I thought that was odd. Check this out.

Shades of Krystalnacht

Snopes, Soros and the Supreme Court’s Kagan. We-l-l-l-l now, I guess the
time has come to check out Snopes! Ya’ don’t suppose it might not be a good

time to take a second look at some of the stuff that got kicked in the ditch

by Snopes, do ya’?

We’ve known that it was owned by a lefty couple but hadn’t known it to be
financed by Soros!

Snopes is heavily financed by George Soros, a big time supporter of Obama
and many other left wing organizations! In our Search for the truth
department, we find what I have suspected on many occasions.

I went to Snopes to check something about the dockets of the new
Supreme Court Justice. Elena Kagan, who Obama appointed, and Snopes said
the email was false and there were no such dockets. So I Googled the
Supreme Court, typed in Obama-Kagan, and guess what?

Yep, you got it; Snopes Lied! Everyone of those dockets are there.

So Here is what I wrote to Snopes:

Referencing the article about Elana Kagan and Barak Obama dockets:

The information you have posted stating that there were no such cases as
claimed and the examples you gave are blatantly false.

I went directly to the Supreme Courts website, typed in Obama Kagan and
immediately came up with all of the dockets that the article made reference

I have long suspected that you really slant things but this was really

Thank You. I hope you will be much more truthful in the future, but I doubt

That being said, I’ll bet you didn’t know this.

Kagan was representing Obama in all the petitions to prove his citizenship.
Now she may help rule on them.

Folks, this is really ugly.
Chicago Politics at its best and the beat goes on and on and on.

Once again the US Senate sold us out!

Now we know why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court.
Pull up the Supreme Courts website, go to the docket and search for Obama.

She was the Solicitor General for all the suits against him filed with the
Supreme Court to show proof of natural born citizenship. He owed her
big time. All of the requests were denied of course.

They were never heard.

It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn’t it?
The American people mean nothing any longer. It’s all about payback time
those who compromised themselves to elect someone who really has no true
right to even be there.

Here are some websites of the Supreme Court Docket:

You can look up some of these hearings and guess what?
Elana Kagan is the attorney representing Obama!

Check out these examples:


If you are not interested in justice or in truth, simply delete.

However, if you hold sacred the freedoms granted to you by the
U.S. Constitution, by all means, PASS it ON!

There truly is tyranny afoot.


Snopes Exposed?

Netlore Archive: Is Snopes.com biased and unreliable?

By , About.com Guide

Forwarded email alleges that the urban legend debunking site Snopes.com is ‘owned by a flaming liberal’ who is ‘in the tank for Obama’ and can’t be trusted to provide reliable information.

Description: Email rumor
Circulating since: Oct. 2008
Status: False (see details below)

See also: The Obama / Kagan Connection
Email text contributed by Elliott F., Oct. 20, 2008:

Subject: Snopes under fire


Snopes under fire

I have suspected some problems with Snopes for some time now, but I have only caught them in half-truths. If there is any subjectivity they do an immediate full left rudder.

Truth or fiction.com  is the better source for verification, in my opinion.

I have recently discovered that Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama. There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to Youtube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things. So you see, you cannot and should not trust Snopes.com…. ever for anything that remotely resembles truth! I don’t even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes anymore.

A few conservative speakers on Myspace told me about snopes.com <http://snopes.com/&gt; a few months ago and I took it upon myself to do a little research to find out if it was true. Well, I found out for myself that it is true. This website is backing Obama and is covering up for him. They will say anything that makes him look bad is a hoax and they also tell lies on the other side about McCain and Palin.

Anyway just FYI please don’t use Snopes.com anymore for fact checking and make your friends aware of their political leanings as well. Many people still think Snopes.com is neutral and they can be trusted as factual. We need to make sure everyone is aware that that is a hoax in itself.


Analysis: It apparently never occurred to this anonymous emailer to cite even one actual instance of Snopes.com promulgating “half-truths” or “lies” under the guise of providing reliable information. So much for credibility (the email’s, I mean).

It’s doubly ironic that such a scurrilous attack should be mounted against the oldest and most respected fact-checking site on the Internet at the denouement of an election year (2008) marked from beginning to end by unrestrained smear-mongering, much of which it fell to Snopes.com to debunk.

Let’s examine the specific accusations.

  • CLAIM: Snopes.com is ‘owned by a flaming liberal’ with a partisan bias.First off, it’s clear that whoever wrote this piece made it up as they went along. Anyone who has spent even a few minutes browsing Snopes.com knows that the website is owned by two people, not one. They are husband and wife David and Barbara Mikkelson of southern California. This is stated on the website and has been common knowledge for quite some time.Second, the charge of partisanship is laid without evidence. At no time have the Mikkelsons publicly stated a political preference or affiliation, or expressed support for any particular party or candidate.Moreover, Barbara Mikkelson is a Canadian citizen, and as such cannot vote in U.S. elections or contribute to political campaigns. In a statement to FactCheck.org, David Mikkelson said his “sole involvement in politics” is voting on election day. In 2000 he registered as a Republican, documents provided to FactCheck.org show, and in 2008 Mikkelson didn’t declare a party affiliation at all. Says Mikkelson: “I’ve never joined a party, worked for a campaign, or donated money to a candidate” (source: FactCheck.org).Anyone who claims proof to the contrary needs to come out with it.A NOTE ON GEORGE SOROS: A later variant of this rumor alleges, without evidence, that Snopes.com is financed by liberal philanthropist and hedge fund tycoon George Soros. This is false. The website is entirely self-supporting through advertising sales.
  • CLAIM: Snopes.com is ‘in the tank’ for Obama and ‘tells lies’ about McCain and Palin.You’d think it would be easy for someone so blithely asserting that the owners of Snopes.com are “flaming liberals” to offer evidencethat they’re “in the tank” for Obama and “covering up” for him. None is provided.As of this writing dozens of forwarded texts pertaining to Barack Obama and his running mate have been analyzed on Snopes.com, each meticulously researched with copious references cited. I have perused them all, not to mention the twenty-odd texts concerning Republican candidates John McCain and Sarah Palin, and find no discernible pattern of bias or deception, nor any evidence of advocacy for or against. To the contrary, I see a consistent effort to provide even-handed analyses of texts which more often than not are themselves dripping with political bias.That’s my assessment, as someone who has investigated the bulk of these rumors himself and can boast a better-than-average familiarity with the subject matter. I invite you to make your own.
  • CLAIM: TruthorFiction.com is a more reliable source than Snopes.TruthorFiction.com has condemnedthis anonymous attack against Snopes.com and, in fact, lauds the site as an “excellent” and “authoritative” resource.What’s ironic about claims to the contrary is that when you compare the contents of the two sites their findings rarely diverge in any substantive way. Shouldn’t we therefore conclude that TruthorFiction.com is biased too?

continues on next page