digg

First question: Have you heard of the National Initiative for Democracy? (http://www.nationalinitiative.us/)
Second question: do you know who created this initiative?
Third question: have you heard of Mike Gravel?

BHO doesn't work for me. His position on security is as dangerous as any presidential candidate ever.He walks around all day protected by people with guns while he disarms Americans. If he truly though disarming was a good idea he would disarm his security detail. He won't though. We know that. He doesn't want to be disarmed, he wants US to be disarmed. In order for there to be security in a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Obama wants to ban guns based on your address ( inner city Americans don't deserve to be armed according to obamaplan) or if they don't kick ( semi-automatics) or if they have features such as a folding stock. He even went so far as to vote for banning the defense of self defense for violation of a local gun ban. This means if some punk kicks down your door to rob you and you shoot him you get arrested.

Obamaplan?

Not for me.

Before any discussion starts I want to say: to all of those who say “human rights do not generally go over well in group settings”, That is why we have the constitution. Our representative government is tyranny of the MINORITY and to protect us from them we have the constitution. The Judicial branch under the National Initiative would still serve the purpose it always had. Prevent laws that are unconstitutional. Just as congress is generally not allowed to make unconstitutional laws, the people will not be able to do so. Nothing in representative government favors civil rights. However the disadvantage of Representative government is a reality; lobbyists and special interests have a small powerful minority to target, vs in direct democracy, the masses of people. Which do you think is easier to corrupt?