Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Brady Versus Obama In Courtroom Over Firearms...Who Would Have Ever Thought?

MEDIAWashington sharples


Obama Administration and Brady Center
Will Challenge Each Other
In First-In-The-Nation Gun Case in Alaska
Feb 27, 2012
Washington, D.C. - An attorney for the Obama Administration
on Tuesday, Feb. 28 will appear to defend the constitutionality
of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA),
and argue that the Congress was permitted to dictate the
dismissal of a case and to deprive the family of Alaskan 
Simone Kim of a civil action against gun store owner Ray Coxe. 

In Juneau Tuesday at11:25 a.m. (3:25 p.m. EST), the Alaska 
Supreme Court will hear arguments in this first-in-the-nation
 case regarding a controversial federal gun industry
shield law and the limits of Congressional power. 
The Director of the Brady Center's Legal Action Project,
Jonathan Lowy, will be arguing on behalf of the family of
Juneau murder victim Simone Kim, asking the Court to
reverse a trial court's dismissal of the Kims' lawsuit
against gun dealer Ray Coxe.

On August 2, 2006, Jason Coday, a bizarre-acting,
methamphedamine-abusing fugitive who was prohibited
by federal law from possessing or buying firearms,
walked into Rayco Sales, the gun store of Ray Coxe. 
Coday, who had a garbage bag filled with his belongings
wrapped around his waist, told Coxe he was interested
in obtaining a gun, and Coxe showed him a Ruger rifle,
and told him the price was $195.  Coday soon left the
store with the gun, leaving $200 in exchange. Coxe did
not subject Coday to a background check and the
paperwork required under federal law.  The store
had two video surveillance systems, but Coxe later
claimed that both videotapes did not record that day. 
wo days later, Coday used the gun to kill Simone Kim, a
26-year-old man he had never met, who was at work as
a painter outside the Juneau Fred Meyer store. 

The Kim family filed suit in August 2008, charging
that Coxe illegally sold the gun to Coday, or negligently
enabled him to get the gun.  Trial judge Phillip Pallenberg
dismissed the case on October 7, 2010, holding that
Congress, in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in
Arms Act (PLCAA), commanded the court to dismiss
the case, even if it was otherwise supported by Alaska
law.  The Kims appealed, and are asking the Supreme
Court to allow them to prove their case before a jury.

Anthony Sholty, of the Juneau law firm Faulkner
Banfield, will argue for Ray Coxe.

Brady Center Attorney Jon Lowy will be available
for comment for two hours after the proceedings,
which are expected to last until 5:00 p.m. EST.
### "

Saturday, February 25, 2012

More American Soldiers Murdered By A "Trusted" Afghan - Its Past Time To Pack Our Bags There

File:Flag of Afghanistan.svg
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
جمهوری اسلامی افغانستان

All US and NATO troops in all Afghan Ministries have been ordered back to their bases today after another Afghan killed two more soldiers. This time it was in the heavily defended Afghan Interior Ministry building. It is dangerous for any Americans there to turn their backs on armed Afghans. They were apparently killed by an Afghan Police officer "working" with the Military. Its believed that they were shot because of the Koran burning a few days ago. Will this prompt More Obama apologies? 

Over 1900 Americans have died in Afghanistan since 2001. Where  are any Afghan apologies for that?  Over 1,000 more military personnel from all outside countries involved there have been killed. That's almost 3,000 dead soldiers sacrificed for a people who could care less. And, thousands of Americans have been wounded and maimed in battle. No apologies from them for that either. They just expect everyone else to shed blood for them.

All of this is happening in retaliation for burning some Korans. These Korans were used by Muslim prisoners who wrote covert messages to each other on their pages while incarcerated. Isn’t that defacing a Koran? Apparently it’s not when they do it themselves.

We heard one commentator say recently that this reaction is understandable because there would probably be a similar reaction to someone burning the bible in the Deep South. That statement is political correctness run amok. It’s just plain nutty. Granted, some in the Deep South would want to have a very serious “chat” with the perpetrator, but there would not be Americans rioting in the street, pillaging of everything in sight, and killings of anyone they thought was responsible for this act. There is just mindless violence and hatred of the West in Afghanistan. So, let them kill themselves. We’ve given them plenty of training and military supplies to do that. There is nothing anyone can do to stop this mindless violence and slaughter. 

The only apologies we hear comes from Obama and his underlings as the Apologize For America Tour continues. The Afghans who are rioting don’t give a damn about apologies. And, the riots are now entering their fifth day.  Apologies from Obama are viewed as weakness by this enemy, and other enemies worldwide. These apologies are from a man just occupying the White House, and not from the majority of the American people. He does not speak for millions who are horrified and repulsed by the Afghan rioters and murderers. 

It’s about time that we pack up and leave the people  there to their own devices. But first, we need to destroy everything we may have to leave behind. No foreign aid should be given to them either. We have aided them enough. Our foreign aid was the American blood already spilled there. The corrupt Karzai government is doomed to failure because our military is the only thing propping it up.

Let it fall. Let it fail. Let the country land flat on its face.  Let the government go into exile with their opium fortunes in their pockets. Who cares anymore? Let the Afghanis kill each other. It is clear that the Afghans and many others in the Mideast have no regard for their own lives or anyone else’s.

If we find that the country is being used for terrorist training camps, which it surely will be, then Obama can deal with this detached and from afar, as he likes to do when faced with problems. No rational country in the world would object to a rain of Hellfire missiles from a drone being directed into a terrorist training camp there. 


The UN To Use Appropriate and Gradual Force In Gun Confiscation

Friday, February 24, 2012

UN Still After Your Guns - In Major Preparation Underway For Their "Arms Trade Treaty" Implementation


The UN is ramping up their gun control efforts. They concluded a meeting in preparation of their plans for an Arms Trade Agreement, and at that meeting, the idea was put forth that transfers of arms and ammunition to "non-state actors" should be specifically banned by the Treaty. The UN says that, "An eclectic set of national and regional control measures on arms transfers exists, but the absence of such an international framework has unnecessarily obscured transparency and trust." Their aim is to complete the Treaty by the end of this year. 

The UN claims that this treaty will not infringe on your Second Amendment Rights. But, organizations that are the "Brand Names," the names you recognize in American gun rights control efforts, are all full members of IANSA, an international gun control organization pushing this Treaty. IANSA is committed to taking action on gun control locally and worldwide. This international organization is actively supporting and spearheading the UN Treaty.  

Its easy to see how an “International” efforts to control arms transfers could be applied to United States Arms Transfers. 
A major part of the UN thrust is to use arms transfers controls to “control crime.” The UN pointed out in their meeting that many children who lose fathers to gun violence suddenly have mothers who become their sole providers. This sounds a lot like the streets of Chicago and Trenton, New Jersey too, doesn’t it? That's an emotional appeal that hasn't worked here...yet. They are also trying to make this Treaty a Center for Disease Control type "Health Issue" as is being attempted already here.

Here's what the United Nations had to say on their website about that meeting. 

"The heads of several United Nations bodies with humanitarian, human rights and development mandates today called for a comprehensive arms trade treaty that will make people across the world safer by reducing the human cost of inadequate controls on weapons transfers. Speaking ahead of the final preparatory meeting of the UN Diplomatic Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, which will be held in July, the officials took note of efforts at national and regional levels to regulate the trade in conventional weapons, but pointed out that “the current patchwork of controls is simply not adequate.”

“The human cost of such inadequate controls, and the corresponding widespread availability and misuse of weapons, is unacceptably high,” they said in a joint press statement.

The envisaged Arms Trade Treaty should meet the following criteria, according to the group of senior UN officials:

  It must require States to assess the risk that serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law may be committed with the weapons being transferred.

  Secondly, it must include within its scope all conventional weapons, including small arms.

  The treaty must also include ammunition within its scope.

It must ensure that there are no loopholes by covering all types of transfers, including activities such as transit, trans-shipment, as wells as loans and leases. They pointed out that at end of 2010, an estimated 27.5 million people were internally displaced as a result of conflict, while millions more have sought refuge abroad. In many cases the armed violence that drove them from their homes was fuelled by the widespread availability and misuse of weapons.
Between 2000 and 2010, more than 780 humanitarian workers were killed in armed attacks and a further 689 were injured, they added.

The value of the global authorized trade in small arms and light weapons and their ammunition is estimated at over $7 billion per year, according to the officials.
The statement was issued on behalf of Valerie Amos, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs; Helen Clark, the Administrator of the UN Development Programme (UNDP); António Guterres, UN High Commissioner for Refugees; Anthony Lake, Executive Director of the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF); and Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights."


Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Philadelphia Police Unmercifully Persecute Gun Owner For Just Obeying The Law

Philadelphia anti gun rights Mayor Michael Nutter had better get the city’s checkbook ready as the result of the 18 month persecution of an innocent “Open Carry” gun owner. The ACLU and a local law firm have just filed a lawsuit against the City to protect a gun owner’s rights. The State of Pennsylvania issues concealed carry permits. Since it’s an open carry state, a person openly carrying a handgun in Philadelphia only needs a state issued carry permit.

Mark Fiorino was confronted and held by police unlawfully three times over a year and a half period, and was once threatened by Police to be summarily shot on the spot because he carried his handgun openly, and had the gall to complain about his treatment to the Police during an illegal stop. He was also acquitted of bogus criminal charges filed by the Police, as they maliciously prosecuted him in retribution after they “completed” their investigation.

He has that required Pennsylvania permit, and prefers to carry his handgun in an outside holster because it is more comfortable, gives easier access, and he believes it is a deterrent to crime. He was held by Philadelphia Police on July 31st, 2010 by Policemen because he was openly carrying. His gun was taken. He was patted down, was told that it was illegal to openly carry in Philadelphia, and was detained. It was the official erroneous Police Department policy that openly carrying firearms was illegal there, even with a concealed handgun permit. But, the D.A.s office previously informed police that open carry was legal with a permit. He offered to show the officer the permit, but was ignored. The officer who pointed the gun at him later denied that Fiorino offered to show his permit, but Firino's offer to show his permit is clear on a recording that he made of the incident. The officer lied. His personal effects and handgun was returned after 15 minute in custody. He filed a complaint and received a letter back in August, 2010 from Internal Affairs denying that his civil rights had been violated.
The official Police policy authorized officers to illegally seize any firearm carried openly even with a state carry permit and even if no crime has been committed if there are “reasonable grounds involving public safety requiring confiscation of the firearm.” No such grounds were given to Fiorino. 

On August 13th, Fiorino was openly carrying his sidearm in a holster when he entered a Philadelphia restaurant with a companion. He believed that the first Police stop was the end of his problems with them, but, two policemen followed him into the restaurant, grabbed him by the arm, and forcibly took him outside. Like the first officers, they told him that he was carrying openly illegally, and that the gun had to be concealed. He provided proof of his carry license as fourteen other police arrived there.

Fiorino told them that they were violating his Fourth Amendment Rights. One officer just replied by telling Fiorino that he just got “training” on the subject. He told him if he continued to argue about his rights that his firearm would be taken and he would go to jail. One of the officers present told Fiorino that it was illegal to openly carry a firearm there “because there was no law permitting it.” He was released about 15 minutes later without his gun, ammunition and holster. Fiorino followed proper procedure to recover his property, but it continued to be held by police, where a Lieutenant told the press that anyone who had a firearm seized would, “Have to fight for it.”  They also destroyed his ammunition that was wrongfully seized. Their policy was to destroy all ammunition seized, whether it was rightfully seized or not.

And then again on February 13th, 2011, he was openly carrying again when he was confronted by police who said, “Yo, junior, what are you doing?” as the officer pointed his gun at Fiorino’s chest.

When he offered to show the officer his carry permit, it was refused, and the officer ordered him to get down to his knees and said, “Or, I’m gonna f…ing shoot ya.” A second policeman gave conflicting orders to Fiorino and told him, “Keep your hands down, if you make a move, I’m gonna  f…ing shoot ya.” So, those were his choices.
If he didn’t move he would be shot; however, if he moved he would be shot. He was afraid. What was he supposed to do?

The Policemen also called him , “A piece of s..t.” He was then ordered to, “Get on the f…ing ground, lay the f…k down, put your f…ing hands behind your f…ing back, and shut your f…ing mouth.” He was then thrown to the ground and pressed into the cement as he was handcuffed with knees in his back. He was held another 40 minutes in a paddy wagon while police made phone calls to determine if open carry was really “Illegal.”
The Police higher ups later admitted that the language used by the officers was “inappropriate.” You think?

The Philadelphia Police Department had made changes to their “Policy” and say they informed personnel, but they never actually notified officers of those changes regarding open carry in the city .The Department’s notice of legality of open carry was expected to “trickle down” to the street cops. One anonymous officer told the Philadelphia Weekly in May, 2011 that he was unaware that open carry with a carry permit was legal in his city. Astonishingly, a police captain told the same newspaper in the same article that PPD officers are often ignorant about the fact that it is legal to openly carry there with a carry permit. And, even more astonishingly, a Lieutenant also admitted that she was unaware about legal open carry there until it was brought to her attention after these events.

After completing their Internal Affairs investigation, the police convinced a willing D.A. to file what his attorneys called “frivolous charges” against Fiorino in what his attorneys also called “retaliation” for his posting the recording that he made on You tube and embarrassing them. These were misdemeanor charges of “Recklessly endangering another person.” That’s defined under Pennsylvania law as “recklessly engaging in conduct which places or may place another person in danger of death or serious bodily injury.” Who was this person or person that the Police were referring to? This could have landed Fiorino in prison for one to two years.

He turned himself in, was arrested, held 16 hours, and released after being arraigned. He was rearrested on the same charges shortly after being released from jail while attending a mandatory bail conditions orientation meeting and handcuffed in front of 25 people. The Police released him after an hour saying that, “They had changed their minds.” What actually happened was that the Police had forgotten to withdraw the arrest warrant from their active warrant list in the Police computer records after the arrest, as they were required by law to do. So, police records still showed that Fiorino was “actively wanted” if his name was pulled up for some reason for a check on their computers. 

When Fiorino’s attorney called a detective to find out why Fiorino had been rearrested, the detective threatened to arrest him too. Fox News later reported that the Police Department said that citizens “will be inconvenienced” if they carry unconcealed handguns in the city and that they may be “Required to lay on the ground until officers feel safe while they check permits.”

Fiorino went to trial and was acquitted by the Judge on October 27, 2011. Fiorino is suing the Officers and the city for significant damages because of the unlawful detentions and malicious prosecution. It will probably be shown after this lawsuit against the police ends that Fiorino was not the reckless one. We thank the ACLU for their involvement, but the ACLU most likely got involved because civil right lawsuits won under the applicable Federal Civil Rights laws award generous attorney fees.

The police have once again promised to “Re-educate all Philadelphia Police Officers about the legality of open carry in the city with a concealed carry permit. 

This post is not meant to advocate or discourage the use of open carry. It is about police abuse. Open carry is a sometimes controversial form of carry with pros and cons among firearms owners. To openly carry or not  is an individual decision one must make after all factors have been considered. 

Here's the recording of the second arrest that made the Philadelphia Police so angry.

The UN To Use Appropriate and Gradual Force In Gun Confiscation

Thursday, February 16, 2012

New 2011 State By State Anti Gun Rights Rankings

 Arizona, Alaska, and Utah are the winners in the Brady Campaign anti-gun rights sweepstakes for 2011. The anti gun rights organization annually rates all 50 states with a 100 point scorecard ranking on the basis of anti gun rights laws. These three states win for the least State interference in individual gun rights freedoms with 0 points each in 2011. California continues to blaze the trail by scoring 81 out of 100 possible points in repressive gun rights legislation. The rankings were based on gun laws passed by the end of 2011.

Here are all 50 states' rankings and the press release
·         Alabama 14
·         Alaska 0
·         Arizona 0
·         Arkansas 4
·         California 81
·         Colorado 15
·         Connecticut 58
·         Delaware 13
·         District of Columbia not ranked
·         Florida 3
·         Georgia 8
·         Hawaii 50
·         Idaho 2
·         Illinois 35
·         Indiana 7
·         Iowa 7
·         Kansas 4
·         Kentucky 2
·         Louisiana 2
·         Maine 7
·         Maryland 45
·         Massachusetts 65
·         Michigan 25
·         Minnesota 14
·         Mississippi 4
·         Missouri 4
·         Montana 2
·         Nebraska 5
·         Nevada 5
·         New Hampshire 6
·         New Jersey 72
·         New Mexico 4
·         New York 62
·         North Carolina 16
·         North Dakota 2
·         Ohio 7
·         Oklahoma 2
·         Oregon 15
·         Pennsylvania 26
·         Rhode Island 44
·         South Carolina 8
·         South Dakota 4
·         Tennessee 8
·         Texas 4
·         Utah 0
·         Vermont 6
·         Virginia 12
·         Virgin Islands
·         Washington 15
·         West Virginia 4
·         Wisconsin 3

      • Wyoming  4 * accidentally omitted from first posting

Brady Issues 2011 State Scorecard: California Rises Again

Feb 16, 2012
California Rises Again; Arizona, Alaska, And Utah Lead Zero-Sum Club
31 states with weak gun laws export 9 times the crime guns
as states with the strongest laws
WASHINGTON, D.C. – California continues to blaze legislative trails in adopting lifesaving gun laws, rising to a high of 81 points (out of a possible 100) on the 2011 Brady State Scorecard rankings, while too many states remain in the Zero-Sum Club with the weakest gun laws, the Brady Campaign announced today.

The Brady Campaign also announced today that its analysis of 2010 crime gun trace data supplied by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) found that the 31 states with the weakest gun laws export 9 times the crime guns as the six states with the strongest gun laws. (Click on the graph to the right to download the detailed PDF)
"Guns don't fall from the sky into the hands of criminals," said Brady Acting President Dennis Henigan. "All too often, crime guns come from gun dealers in the states that stubbornly refuse to enact common sense, lifesaving gun laws. Every day, a river of illegal guns flows out of the states with weak gun laws, victimizing families in states that are doing their best to protect their residents.  It is no accident that the states with the weakest gun laws are the exporters of death and injury."
For the 5th year in a row, the Brady Campaign has issued a 100-point scorecard ranking all 50 states on the basis of laws that can reduce gun violence, such as background checks on all gun sales, permit-to-purchase requirements, and limiting handgun purchases to one a month.  Today’s report ranks states for laws that were enacted by the end of 2011. It reveals that 31 states still have few gun laws, while six states, including California, that rank in the top tier, have strong and effective gun laws. (Legal Community Against Violence's web site and reports were the primary sources used in the report to determine the content of state gun laws.)
California remains the state with the strongest gun laws as it gained another point in 2011 after passing legislation that requires the retention of long gun records in the firearm database administered by the California Department of Justice. The absence of long gun records in the database represented a loophole in California law until it was closed last year. Handgun records are already maintained by the state. The long gun record retention legislation was the top priority of the California Brady Campaign Chapters and allies.
"California is golden when it comes to adopting laws that lead to safer communities. If more of America had California's gun laws, countless lives would be saved," added Henigan. 1

2011 State Scorecard Map
New JerseyMassachusettsNew YorkConnecticut, and Hawaii round out the top six states with the strongest gun laws, with scores ranging to 72 from 50, respectively. Those states also have the lowest gun death rates in the nation. 2
At the other end of the spectrum are ArizonaAlaska, and Utah with 0 points each. Florida made news this year after a demerit category was added for a gag rule on doctors that limits their freedom to discuss the dangers of guns with patients. Florida enacted the gag rule last year and that dropped its score to from 5 points to 3 points.
A fresh analysis of data for crime guns recovered by police and traced back to the dealer that sold the gun provides additional evidence showing that strong gun laws help to curb the supply of guns to the illegal market. The ATF data, available on its website, provide information on the source states of U.S. crime guns by state. The data show that states with weak gun laws have a crime gun export rate nine times higher than states with strong gun laws.
The Brady Center analyzed the data to identify patterns in the movements of crime guns across the United States, including which states have the highest rates of crime guns moving across state borders, known as the crime gun export rate (per 100,000 population).
TexasGeorgiaOhioLouisianaSouth CarolinaTennesseeIndianaMississippiWisconsinKentucky, andWest Virginia are among the 31 states that together export crime guns at a rate nine times higher than states with strong gun laws.

Brady Campaign officials acknowledge the research of Legal Community Against Violence on state gun laws. Their publication, “Regulating Guns in America,” and website served as the primary sources for this analysis. For more information, see http://www.lcav.org
Notes on press release
1 Eleven Street Gangs in Los Angeles alone have stopped shooting each other, stopped committing crime, and terrorizing an unarmed public in California  because of California's strict gun laws. Right! Those are the: Black P-Stones, Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), Rollin' 40s, Rollin' 30s, Rollin' 60s, 18th Street Westside, 204th Street, Avenues, Canoga Park AlabamaGrape Street Crips, and La Mirada Locos ...

2  With New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and Hawaii rounding out the top states  with the strongest gun laws, along with California being number one, shouldn't California also be among those states with the lowest gun deaths under the same logic? Wonder why they didn't make that list? What about Illinois? You can't even get a concealed carry permit there? FOID cards take forever to get processed. 


The UN To Use Appropriate and Gradual Force In Gun Confiscation

Rahm Emanuel Wants $65.00 Registration Fee For Every Illinois Handgun...An Idea For Obama Too?

Monday, February 13, 2012

First, Obama Attacks the Catholics, Now Its The Amish's Turn

Lancaster County Amish 03.jpg

Amish live a different lifestyle. Its a simple and plain lifestyle that's at least 250 years old. Nothing much has changed during two and a half centuries in their lifestyle. That is, except for government intrusion. The Amish will not drive cars themselves, use commercial utility electricity, water, phones, or municipal sewers on their property. They do not pay into social security or medicare. Nor, do they receive it. Their elderly are treated well with the dignity they deserve, and generally live out their lives with their grown children and relatives once they retire and can no longer take care of themselves. They are generally farmers and eat what they grow and sell the remainder. Some run sawmills or do small engine repair, or other mechanical work.

The government has tried to intrude on several of their lifestyle choices, with varying degrees of success. The latest government intrusion is a Federal Judge acting on a Federal Food and Drug Administration complaint who has told an Amish family that he will shut their farm down if they sell any more of their milk across state lines. Apparently treating this farmer like the one in a 1942 Supreme Court case, where they forbade a farmer from selling a few bushels of extra wheat across interstate lines because it "competed" with wheat on the open market. That meant wheat in grain elevators, boxcars, and semi trailers. This was a big government intrusion into individual and states' rights.

Going after the farmer with a fake government undercover purchaser in a sting, they said that his milk was unsafe. That's even though Amish have consumed fresh milk as long as there has been an Amish church.
The Feds arranged for milk to be delivered to residences in an adjoining state. And, then they were busted.

The farmer is afraid of the power of the FDA and the Judge who told them that he would shut down their generations old family farm if they crossed the state line with their milk again. The Judge also told the family that they would have to pay government investigation and prosecution costs if they sell milk like they used to ever again.

After all, since Obama says everybody must play by the same rules, next on the government's list for the Amish will be these musts. The Amish will have to:

Perform and encourage gay marriage
Connect to electric and phone land lines
Get cell phones
Equip homes with TV and radio
Have running water supplied by an applicable local utility
Build inside toilets at home
Men must shave
Have no wood stoves because they contribute to global warming
Own and drive cars...environmentally friendly only
Get rid of their buggies because of roadapples
Have government Identification with photograph on them
Contribute to social security and medicare
Have zippers on their clothes
Wear bright colors
Wear wedding rings if married
Attend public schools a full 12 years
Use barbers and not cut each other's hair
Have Churches in appropriately zoned areas
Register with Selective Service
Only speak English


Rahm Emanuel Wants $65.00 Registration Fee For Every Illinois Handgun...An Idea For Obama Too?


Thursday, February 9, 2012

Ruth Bader Ginsberg Likes Socialist Constitutions & Says Egypt Should Look to South Africa's & Not Ours

Supreme Court Justice, and former General Counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, was recently asked by an Al-Hayat Egyptian TV reporter if Egypt should look to Constitutions such as ours as a model when they draft their own.She believes that Egypt should be, “Aided aided by all Constitution writing that has gone on since the end of World War II.” She Believes our Constitution is an antique. 
Does she believe the U.S. Constitution should be a model? Absolutely not. She believes that if she were drafting a Constitution right now, that she would look to South Africa’s as a model. She told the reporter, “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the Constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. … It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.” She also said “we are still forming the more perfect union. ”
We don’t believe that Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Sam Alito, John Roberts, or the Founders  share her belief that the Constitution  is an ever changing document.
It’s no surprise that she is a big fan of the very progressive South African Constitution adopted in 1997. One of the purposes of their Constitution is socialism, as is written in its preamble.
“We therefore, through our freely elected representatives, adopt this Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic so as to ­heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights;” Whenever the words "social justice" are used in any context, its time for a closer look. 

What exactly is this “Social Justice” South Africa is talking about? It is the "Fundamental Change" that Obama is foisting on this country as you read this. It is a concept of equality that involves an economic equality of outcome dreamed up and manufactured for all participants in a society. This comes in the form of socialism or communalism. It comes in the form of income redistribution through taxation, welfare, monetary policies, and is mostly progressive redistribution from the rich to the poor. 
Obama, Ginsberg and Obama’s appointees Sotomayor and Kagan are proponents of equality of income, equality of condition, distributive justice, and equality of results as espoused in the South Africa Constitution.  Obama would be proud to this Constitution because it "Fundamentally transformed" South Africa.
Here are some "Highlights” of the South Africa Bill Of Rights.
As labor unions here lose clout as states move toward "Right to Work," they would salivate over union provisions in South Africa's Bill of Rights that guarantee labor's power there and say,

“Every worker has the right ­to form and join a trade union,
to participate in the activities and programmes of a trade union; and to
strike.” There's money to be made by union bosses there. 

Environmentalists here would clamor for South Africa Constitutional environmental provisions that say, 

“Everyone has the right ­to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that ­prevent pollution and ecological degradation; promote conservation; and secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while the promoting justifiable economic and social development.” 

The Global Warming scam is practically written into their Constitution. In fact, the last United Nations Conference on Global Warming took place in Durban, South Africa last November. Fortunately, that Conference flopped.

Obama already is a proponent of their Universal Healthcare System that will start this April when every citizen there earning above a certain income will be required by law to make a contribution to the National Health Insurance Fund. It will not be possible to opt out of this responsibility. Sound familiar? 

South Africa's National Healthcare is mandated by their Bill of Rights provision that says, “Everyone has the right to have access to ­health care services, including reproductive health care.” Obama is currently trying to make the Catholic Church and other religious organizations subservient to his vision of reproductive health care. Typical of Obama, as he knows what is best for them rather than what they know is best according to their own religious tenets. 

The South Africa Bill of Rights also creates a welfare state and bestows rights to “sufficient food and water and social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their dependents, appropriate social assistance. The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realization of each of these rights.” This is a nanny state to the extreme. 

And, there is the long sought right to housing that is the liberal's dream.
Here is that Guarantee in South Africa. 
“Everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing. The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this right.”
That would help Obama to achieve one supporter’s dream when he was elected. She gleefully said on election day,  “I never thought this day would come. I’ll never have to work to pay for gasoline again. I’ll never have to work to pay my mortgage again.”

The Occupy loonies would be thrilled with the Bill of Rights educational provisions. They are demanding free college education. Well, study in South Africa. Their Bill of Rights proclaims, “Everyone has the right ­to a basic education, including adult basic education; and to further education, which the state, through reasonable measures, must make progressively available and accessible.”

Democrat appointed liberal judges here can get guidance from these provisions in making legal decisions in America. “When interpreting the Bill of Rights, a court, tribunal or forum ­must promote the values that underlie an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom; must consider international law; and may consider foreign law.”

This foreign law interpretation use in South Africa's Constitution is already a favorite of Justice Ginsberg, who said in a speech at American University, 
“ …why not the analysis of a question similar to the one we confront contained, for example, in an opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the German Constitutional Court, or the European Court

Justice Anthony Kennedy actually cited the very same European Court of Human Rights in a landmark ruling supporting homosexual rights. Justice John Paul Stevens cited foreign law in a footnote in one opinion. Antonin Scalia said in response,  "The views of other nations, however enlightened the justices of this court may think them to be, cannot be imposed upon Americans through the Constitution."
He has been consistent in opposing American Courts’ use of Foreign law in deciding cases here.  He believes that  U.S. attitudes about what is decent and right, and not foreign ones, are what should matter.  

Can you think of one situation from global warming, to taxation, to voting, to gun rights that you would personally give a damn about what foreign Constitutions say or how foreign courts have ruled? We don’t think so.


Obama Issues Travel Warnings for Mexico...And, How He Protects Us Here