Breaking news: U.S. Supreme Court extends gun ownership rights nationwide

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

It's meant to be interpreted, that is the purpose of the Supreme Court is. We don't know what the "correct" interpretation is... :|

LJS9502_basic

I believe that the Constitution was left intentionally vague so that it could be interpreted by future generations in context of their own society. I do not think the founders were vain enough to suppose that what was right for them would be right for all generations.

Stay safe,stay 2nd amendment.

Lto_thaG

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

It's meant to be interpreted, that is the purpose of the Supreme Court is. We don't know what the "correct" interpretation is... :|

LJS9502_basic

I believe that the Constitution was left intentionally vague so that it could be interpreted by future generations in context of their own society. I do not think the founders were vain enough to suppose that what was right for them would be right for all generations.

The far-left does have a desire to see the Constitution as completely abolished. Never happen.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="sonicare"] Yes, because following the constitution is a bad thing. I'd prefer having a judge that just makes up their own laws as they go. :roll: Yes, the constitution is a living document whose rules and laws are not really meant for anything. Just for show. :lol:sonicare

Vague is a understatement.. The second amendment specifically classifies it as arms.. Not guns.. Arms can amount to any number of things.. Arms just don't include small arms, they can mean high yield explosives and above.. We already curtail the second amendment by restricting major military arms.. Furthermore people need to stop "But our founding fathers wanted it!".. The Founding Fathers said alot of things, and with forsight in mind, they were completely wrong on many.. Such as thinking that the US would stay as a rural agriculture.. Furthermore guns were a bit different then then they are now.. Back then, you could walk in a room and fire once.. And have the rest of the occupents jump you.. Now a days, you can gun down the entire room of people with ease.. Its different, this is not suggesting weapons should be banned.. Just people need to stop claiming that the Founding Fathers knew what they were talking about or you some how think you know what they meant by "arms".. Thats why people need to stop going on with the claims that Constitution is unchangeable.. Because it IS changeable, hence why we have amendments.. Furthermore the Bill of Rights sure as hell at its creation didn't cover women, blacks or other minorities.. But now it does..

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

It's meant to be interpreted, that is the purpose of the Supreme Court is. We don't know what the "correct" interpretation is... :|

LJS9502_basic

I believe that the Constitution was left intentionally vague so that it could be interpreted by future generations in context of their own society. I do not think the founders were vain enough to suppose that what was right for them would be right for all generations.

Not necessarily, but bear in mind that the founders did include the ability to add to or remove from the Constitution.

People keep mentioning ak-47s. Ak's are illegal to privately own or use in the US.

The far-left does have a desire to see the Constitution as completely abolished. Never happen.

Good. My wife told me that there is a guy lurking around our apartment and a neighbor toldher he was trying to look/get in our place a couple nights ago. I'm buying a S&W .40 so I can exercise my right next time he decides he want to look through or come through my back porch. I am glad that people still have sense to let us keep our Constitutional rights.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] "Following the Constitution" is such an idealistic view of how the law works. If only things were so simple as there being one correct viewpoint. sSubZerOo

Vague is a understatement.. The second amendment specifically classifies it as arms.. Not guns.. Arms can amount to any number of things.. Arms just don't include small arms, they can mean high yield explosives and above.. We already curtail the second amendment by restricting major military arms.. Furthermore people need to stop "But our founding fathers wanted it!".. The Founding Fathers said alot of things, and with forsight in mind, they were completely wrong on many.. Such as thinking that the US would stay as a rural agriculture.. Furthermore guns were a bit different then then they are now.. Back then, you could walk in a room and fire once.. And have the rest of the occupents jump you.. Now a days, you can gun down the entire room of people with ease.. Its different, this is not suggesting weapons should be banned.. Just people need to stop claiming that the Founding Fathers knew what they were talking about or you some how think you know what they meant by "arms".. Thats why people need to stop going on with the claims that Constitution is unchangeable.. Because it IS changeable, hence why we have amendments.. Furthermore the Bill of Rights sure as hell at its creation didn't cover women, blacks or other minorities.. But now it does..

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

It's meant to be interpreted, that is the purpose of the Supreme Court is. We don't know what the "correct" interpretation is... :|

LJS9502_basic

I believe that the Constitution was left intentionally vague so that it could be interpreted by future generations in context of their own society. I do not think the founders were vain enough to suppose that what was right for them would be right for all generations.

Actually the society gave more rights to people over time not the Founding Fathers.. The Founding Fathers had no problem with the slavery of Blacks within the region, or the treatment of Native Americans.. They sure as hell were not protected under the Bill of Rights... These men were not the foundation of freedom nor are they ends all of how we should run our country today.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

The far-left does have a desire to see the Constitution as completely abolished. Never happen.

Engrish_Major

It my be slightly over exagerated but, yeah... he's kindaright. The far left does not adhere to the Constitution and has more or less shat all over it lately.

It my be slightly over exagerated but, yeah... he's kindaright. The far left does not adhere to the Constitution and has more or less shat all over it lately.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

It's meant to be interpreted, that is the purpose of the Supreme Court is. We don't know what the "correct" interpretation is... :|

I believe that the Constitution was left intentionally vague so that it could be interpreted by future generations in context of their own society. I do not think the founders were vain enough to suppose that what was right for them would be right for all generations.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="topsemag55"]

The far-left does have a desire to see the Constitution as completely abolished. Never happen.

Chrypt22

It my be slightly over exagerated but, yeah... he's kindaright. The far left does not adhere to the Constitution and has more or less shat all over it lately.

:| Uh no.. That is still completely absurd.. Niether party wants the abolishment of the Constitution.

It my be slightly over exagerated but, yeah... he's kindaright. The far left does not adhere to the Constitution and has more or less shat all over it lately.

People keep mentioning ak-47s. Ak's are illegal to privately own or use in the US.

sonicare

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

People keep mentioning ak-47s. Ak's are illegal to privately own or use in the US.

racer8dan

People keep mentioning ak-47s. Ak's are illegal to privately own or use in the US.

sonicare

Oh, so these so-called "Constitutional Rights" aren't actually absolute as some people seem to be claiming...interesting....

I guess that explains why I can't go on a plane, even though I have the "right" to free speech, and say that I have a bomb. I guess one could say that these so-called "rights" need to be regulated and in some cases perhaps even "well regulated" :shock:

On a side note, where was all the right-wing outrage when Bush and Co. were basically destroying the 4th amendment?

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

People keep mentioning ak-47s. Ak's are illegal to privately own or use in the US.

-wildflower-

Oh, so these so-called "Constitutional Rights" aren't actually absolute as some people seem to be claiming...interesting....

I guess that explains why I can't go on a plane, even though I have the "right" to free speech, and say that I have a bomb. I guess one could say that these so-called "rights" need to be regulated and in some cases perhaps even "well regulated" :shock:

On a side note, where was all the right-wing outrage when Bush and Co. were bascially destroying the 4th amendment?

.. Lets not forget that the 2nd amendment says specifically "arms".. Nuclear weapons can fit under that very general term of "arms".

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"] Yes, because following the constitution is a bad thing. I'd prefer having a judge that just makes up their own laws as they go. :roll: Yes, the constitution is a living document whose rules and laws are not really meant for anything. Just for show. :lol:

LJS9502_basic

It's meant to be interpreted, that is the purpose of the Supreme Court is. We don't know what the "correct" interpretation is... :|

If you actually look at transcripts of the discussions between the framers, it very quickly becomes apparent that there was no great consensus... which is part of why interpreting the Constitution is so hard.

Yeah, where's my nuke? :D

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

I believe that the Constitution was left intentionally vague so that it could be interpreted by future generations in context of their own society. I do not think the founders were vain enough to suppose that what was right for them would be right for all generations.

sSubZerOo

Actually the society gave more rights to people over time not the Founding Fathers.. The Founding Fathers had no problem with the slavery of Blacks within the region, or the treatment of Native Americans.. They sure as hell were not protected under the Bill of Rights... These men were not the foundation of freedom nor are they ends all of how we should run our country today.

The issue comes down to personal freedom and exactly how much control you want the government to have over your life. You can certainly make the argument that guns are dangerous and that gun proliferation is a bad thing. I don't own a gun. I likely never will. But I appreciate the fact that I have the right to make that decision. I don't want the government deciding what is best for me. I like to play violent video games. Studies have shown that they can adversely affect people. Would you want the government banning those for public safety? How about certain music that's been shown to be detrimental? How about eliminating bicycles and swimming pools since hundreds of children yearly die from them or suffer severe brain injuries. Would you rather have the right to make those decisions or would you want some bureacrat -supposedly acting for the "greater good" -making those choices for you? Certainly living in any society means some sacrifice, but I'd rather have the chance to make most of my own decisions.

sonicare

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]So you believe the rights the founding fathers gave us were intended to be taken away in the future?Welkabonz

Actually the society gave more rights to people over time not the Founding Fathers.. The Founding Fathers had no problem with the slavery of Blacks within the region, or the treatment of Native Americans.. They sure as hell were not protected under the Bill of Rights... These men were not the foundation of freedom nor are they ends all of how we should run our country today.

Actually the only man of name was Ben Franklin who spoke out against slavery and the like, they were demonized.. I know its HARD to believe, but the founding fathers arn't some how our moral superiors, and they were just as prejudice as every one back then.

But in today's day and age, what are the chances that citizens with guns are going to keep any powers in check? The government could squash any revolts if they really wanted.

JML897

This assumes that the entire military stays loyal to government and acts against the people. The military, however, is made up of the people. We don't have a mercenary army recruited from foreign shores. The people of the armed services are just as influenced and divided as the rest of the population.

The purpose that guns serve in this is to force a decision on the part of the men and women in the military. With an unarmed population, following orders to quell a restless popluation is easy for the military, since no actual force is necessary. Just the threat of force is sufficient to send unarmed and helpless people back tot heir homes. With an armed popluation, however, just the threat of force will not suffice and the military would be order to use actual force. At that point, the men and women of the military will each be faced with one of the toughest decisions of their lives. Do they follow orders and fire upon their fellow citizens who are refusing to yield to military authority? Do they refuse and instead turn their guns on their commanding officers? With an unarmed population, the military is less likely to have to make such a decision, since they understand that they won't have to really fire on their fellow citizens. With an armed population, the military will have to make such a decision, since the armed population is more likely to refuse to yield.

It's a matter of forcing the violent conflict and forcing the military to choose sides.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"] Yes, because following the constitution is a bad thing. I'd prefer having a judge that just makes up their own laws as they go. :roll: Yes, the constitution is a living document whose rules and laws are not really meant for anything. Just for show. :lol:

worlock77

It's meant to be interpreted, that is the purpose of the Supreme Court is. We don't know what the "correct" interpretation is... :|

I believe that the Constitution was left intentionally vague so that it could be interpreted by future generations in context of their own society. I do not think the founders were vain enough to suppose that what was right for them would be right for all generations.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

I believe that the Constitution was left intentionally vague so that it could be interpreted by future generations in context of their own society. I do not think the founders were vain enough to suppose that what was right for them would be right for all generations.

sonicare

And yet, throughout all your sarcastic comments, you've done nothing more than assert your interpretation of the Constitution is the correct one; yet you seem to be trying to do so in a round-about way that does not specifically require you to point out that you assume your interpretation to be true. Interesting...

Actually the only man of name was Ben Franklin who spoke out against slavery and the like, they were demonized.. I know its HARD to believe, but the founding fathers arn't some how our moral superiors, and they were just as prejudice as every one back then.

sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

It's meant to be interpreted, that is the purpose of the Supreme Court is. We don't know what the "correct" interpretation is... :|

Welkabonz

I believe that the Constitution was left intentionally vague so that it could be interpreted by future generations in context of their own society. I do not think the founders were vain enough to suppose that what was right for them would be right for all generations.

Uh huh. And thats why the Bill of Rights didn't extend to minorities and women for 100 to 170 years from its creation.. The Founding Fathers were flawed just like every one back then..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Actually the only man of name was Ben Franklin who spoke out against slavery and the like, they were demonized.. I know its HARD to believe, but the founding fathers arn't some how our moral superiors, and they were just as prejudice as every one back then.

Welkabonz

I mean, to be fair, eliminating the slave trade does not eliminate slavery...

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="topsemag55"]

The far-left does have a desire to see the Constitution as completely abolished. Never happen.

Chrypt22

It my be slightly over exagerated but, yeah... he's kindaright. The far left does not adhere to the Constitution and has more or less shat all over it lately.

I'm pretty sure that's why Liberals are known as being progressive while Conservatives are known as, well, conservatives.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Actually the only man of name was Ben Franklin who spoke out against slavery and the like, they were demonized.. I know its HARD to believe, but the founding fathers arn't some how our moral superiors, and they were just as prejudice as every one back then.

Welkabonz

No there is no historical evidence what so ever.. Infact quite a few of the Founding Fathers were slaveholders to begin with.. To date Benjamin Franklin was the only one who spoke out so soon against slavery.. HE was pretty much crucified by his collegues.. And the abolition movement before the Civil War was that of a small knit unpopular religious group that started out, NOT one of the founding Fathers.. I know it pains you to hear, but the Founding Fathers were not perfect, they did not fortell the future at all.. And the Constiuttion and the like has changed as time goes on.

Eliminating the slave trade was due to a multiple of reasons, it hardly had anything to do with the morality in it.. Especially how the Native American Nations were treated for the next 130 years..

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Chrypt22"]

It my be slightly over exagerated but, yeah... he's kindaright. The far left does not adhere to the Constitution and has more or less shat all over it lately.

T_P_O

Easy.

First, our government has seized control over companies during the bail out and has put our nation in severe debt. Youngstown & Tube Company v. Sawyer.

"Nowhere in the Constitution is the Executive granted the right to seize power." AND "Congress has not granted the President to take posession of property, and the Constitution does not grant the President to take posession of such property." Obama put the rights of the UAW, the unsecured stakeholders ahead of the bond holders who's rights are legally secured. Another example of this is the current bill in congress in regards to the Financial Industry which allows the president to seize control of any complany it deems nessecary at the expense of the taxpayer. Flat out un-Constitutional.

Another Example.

Bill of Attainder" - this in an act that can single out an individual or group for punishment without trial. Who does this?? presidential appointed czar Feinberg.

Another Example... and this one is easy.

The health care program which is a government mandate, and several states are challenging it because it violates state rights as well. The Constitution does not permit the government to force people into a public or private contract to buy a good or service, and by not doing so there are severe tax penalties. Its ridiculous and unprecedented.

There are more examples with other crap our governments trying to pull... but I think this more than proves my point.

Uh huh. And thats why the Bill of Rights didn't extend to minorities and women for 100 to 170 years from its creation.. The Founding Fathers were flawed just like every one back then..

sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]Care to explain how?Chrypt22

Easy.

First, our government has seized control over companies during the bail out and has put our nation in severe debt. Youngstown & Tube Company v. Sawyer.

"Nowhere in the Constitution is the Executive granted the right to seize power." AND "Congress has not granted the President to take posession of property, and the Constitution does not grant the President to take posession of such property." Obama put the rights of the UAW, the unsecured stakeholders ahead of the bond holders who's rights are legally secured. Another example of this is the current bill in congress in regards to the Financial Industry which allows the president to seize control of any complany it deems nessecary at the expense of the taxpayer. Flat out un-Constitutional.

Another Example.

Bill of Attainder" - this in an act that can single out an individual or group for punishment without trial. Who does this?? presidential appointed czar Feinberg.

.............The government also bailed out numerous businesses under Bush, they also put forward the Patriot Act which violated the Constuttion with things like illegal wire tapping..

Another Example... and this one is easy.

The health care program which is a government mandate, and several states are challenging it because it violates state rights as well. The Constitution does not permit the government to force people into a public or private contract to buy a good or service, and by not doing so there are severe tax penalties. Its ridiculous and unprecedented.

Social security? Our taxes pay for numerous social programs.. So yes you are buying into it.

There are more examples with other crap our governments trying to pull... but I think this more than proves my point.

............. No no it doesn't.. Both sides are guilty in multiple ways of doing this.. And this isn't the first time we had government supposedly interfereing with business.. Perhapes you should look at the late 1800s and early 1900s?

Great news:)

Its time for nation to step up against liberal elitist like Obama, Pelosi, Sotomoyar and Elana Kegan who are on path to take away our freedom and rights.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Uh huh. And thats why the Bill of Rights didn't extend to minorities and women for 100 to 170 years from its creation.. The Founding Fathers were flawed just like every one back then..

Welkabonz

:|They never once ever mentioned it, or lamented it.. Claiming the reason why they do it is because it was too progressive is not supported with evidence.. Most of them felt it was completely right and many of them owned slaves themsleves.. Hence yet again, facts do not back up your views. it stands to reason that the vaste majority of them felt it was ok and took in trade with the practice we see as immoral by today.... Next your going to claim that the Founding Fathers thought women to be their equals :lol:

[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]Care to explain how?Chrypt22

Easy.

First, our government has seized control over companies during the bail out and has put our nation in severe debt. Youngstown & Tube Company v. Sawyer.

"Nowhere in the Constitution is the Executive granted the right to seize power." AND "Congress has not granted the President to take posession of property, and the Constitution does not grant the President to take posession of such property." Obama put the rights of the UAW, the unsecured stakeholders ahead of the bond holders who's rights are legally secured. Another example of this is the current bill in congress in regards to the Financial Industry which allows the president to seize control of any complany it deems nessecary at the expense of the taxpayer. Flat out un-Constitutional.

- The President did not seize power of any company. The goverment, via an act of Congress, was bailed certain companies out and taken some ownership stake in some of those companies. There is nothing that prevents the government from entering into business, or do you argue that Amtrak and Folkways Records are unconstitutional?

Another Example.

Bill of Attainder" - this in an act that can single out an individual or group for punishment without trial. Who does this?? presidential appointed czar Feinberg.

- Example please?

Another Example... and this one is easy.

The health care program which is a government mandate, and several states are challenging it because it violates state rights as well. The Constitution does not permit the government to force people into a public or private contract to buy a good or service, and by not doing so there are severe tax penalties. Its ridiculous and unprecedented.

There are more examples with other crap our governments trying to pull... but I think this more than proves my point.

- So where's the protest over car insurance?

Good. If it weren't for guns, the king of England could walk right in here and start pushing you around. D'you want that? Huh? Do ya?

Wait, So he's not cracking down on gun laws? We can actually keep weaponry without Obummer taking them away? OR did I completely miss something here.

Wait, So he's not cracking down on gun laws? We can actually keep weaponry without Obummer taking them away? OR did I completely miss something here.

Snipes_2

Wait, So he's not cracking down on gun laws? We can actually keep weaponry without Obummer taking them away? OR did I completely miss something here.

Snipes_2

No there is no historical evidence what so ever.. Infact quite a few of the Founding Fathers were slaveholders to begin with.. To date Benjamin Franklin was the only one who spoke out so soon against slavery.. HE was pretty much crucified by his collegues.. And the abolition movement before the Civil War was that of a small knit unpopular religious group that started out, NOT one of the founding Fathers..

sSubZerOo

I know it pains you to hear, but the Founding Fathers were not perfect, they did not fortell the future at all.. And the Constiuttion and the like has changed as time goes on.

Eliminating the slave trade was due to a multiple of reasons, it hardly had anything to do with the morality in it.. Especially how the Native American Nations were treated for the next 130 years..

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

Wait, So he's not cracking down on gun laws? We can actually keep weaponry without Obummer taking them away? OR did I completely miss something here.

Engrish_Major

This assumes that the entire military stays loyal to government and acts against the people. The military, however, is made up of the people. We don't have a mercenary army recruited from foreign shores. The people of the armed services are just as influenced and divided as the rest of the population.

The purpose that guns serve in this is to force a decision on the part of the men and women in the military. With an unarmed population, following orders to quell a restless popluation is easy for the military, since no actual force is necessary. Just the threat of force is sufficient to send unarmed and helpless people back tot heir homes. With an armed popluation, however, just the threat of force will not suffice and the military would be order to use actual force. At that point, the men and women of the military will each be faced with one of the toughest decisions of their lives. Do they follow orders and fire upon their fellow citizens who are refusing to yield to military authority? Do they refuse and instead turn their guns on their commanding officers? With an unarmed population, the military is less likely to have to make such a decision, since they understand that they won't have to really fire on their fellow citizens. With an armed population, the military will have to make such a decision, since the armed population is more likely to refuse to yield.

It's a matter of forcing the violent conflict and forcing the military to choose sides.

dkrustyklown

Not true. The U.S. Armed Forces are sworn to "protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

The Constitution is deeply intertwined within the fabric of the military. This is the main reason as to why it is all but impossible for a military coup to occur in the U.S.

Only the President could give the order for the military to fire upon American citizens...and Congress would immediately begin impeachment if Obama ever gave that order.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

Wait, So he's not cracking down on gun laws? We can actually keep weaponry without Obummer taking them away? OR did I completely miss something here.

sSubZerOo

I can't believe Obama has done something that wasn't idiotic. I am baffled actually.

Maybe because he mentioned Gun Restrictions at some point. "When President Obama took office, gun rights advocates sounded the alarm, warning that he intended to strip them of their arms and ammunition." I can;t believe Obama has done something that wasn't idiotic. I am baffled actually. Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]Maybe because he mentioned Gun Restrictions at some point. "When President Obama took office, gun rights advocates sounded the alarm, warning that he intended to strip them of their arms and ammunition." I can;t believe Obama has done something that wasn't idiotic. I am baffled actually. Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="T_P_O"] Obviously because they don't have the same political philosophy. It's nothing deeper than that, probably.Chrypt22

Easy.

First, our government has seized control over companies during the bail out and has put our nation in severe debt. Youngstown & Tube Company v. Sawyer.

"Nowhere in the Constitution is the Executive granted the right to seize power." AND "Congress has not granted the President to take posession of property, and the Constitution does not grant the President to take posession of such property." Obama put the rights of the UAW, the unsecured stakeholders ahead of the bond holders who's rights are legally secured. Another example of this is the current bill in congress in regards to the Financial Industry which allows the president to seize control of any complany it deems nessecary at the expense of the taxpayer. Flat out un-Constitutional.

Another Example.

Bill of Attainder" - this in an act that can single out an individual or group for punishment without trial. Who does this?? presidential appointed czar Feinberg.

.............The government also bailed out numerous businesses under Bush, they also put forward the Patriot Act which violated the Constuttion with things like illegal wire tapping..

Another Example... and this one is easy.

The health care program which is a government mandate, and several states are challenging it because it violates state rights as well. The Constitution does not permit the government to force people into a public or private contract to buy a good or service, and by not doing so there are severe tax penalties. Its ridiculous and unprecedented.

Social security? Our taxes pay for numerous social programs.. So yes you are buying into it.

There are more examples with other crap our governments trying to pull... but I think this more than proves my point.

............. No no it doesn't.. Both sides are guilty in multiple ways of doing this.. And this isn't the first time we had government supposedly interfereing with business.. Perhapes you should look at the late 1800s and early 1900s?

I never said that Republicans are perfect, the governments failure to communicate on both sides has resulted in the mess we are in right now. Do me a favor... look up who started dipping into the Social Security program to pay for other crap... I'll save you some research... It was the left. Which party started Social Security?? FDR, and he was a democrat... which party started taxing Social Security Annuities... The Left. I can go on and on..

Yes, Republicans are not perfect either and both sides have done some crappy things. However, when I look at the principles of what our country was founded on.

- Constitutional adherence

-Fiscal Responsibility

-Limited Government

- Virtue and Responsibility

-Free Markets

It is mainly the Right that aligns with these principles. When I say right I know I am going to be labled a Republican. I am not. The failures of both parties has put us in a mire almost impossible to get out of. Though when I look at the ideals of the Democrat run congress and the Obama Administration I want to vomit.

Here is what makes me... and should you... sick.

"Peter Orszag, Barack Obama's budget director, resigned this week partly in frustration over his lack of success in persuading the Obama administration to tackle the fiscal deficit more aggressively, according to sources inside and outside the White House.

Mr Orszag, whose publicly stated reasons for leaving were that he was exhausted after years in high pressure jobs and also that he wanted to plan for his wedding in September, is seen as the guardian of fiscal conservatism within the White House.

If a $1.5 Trillion deficit is "fiscal conservatism", what can we expect with Summers running the show?

Other members of Mr Obama's economic team, notably Lawrence Summers, the head of the National Economic Council, have placed more emphasis on the need for continued short-term spending increases to counteract what increasingly looks like an anaemic economic recovery in the US. "