Observative Tiger
To download the full version visit vuze.com
Fair and Open Competition in Public Procurement
Though NAFTA may be the issue in our own backyard, the European Commission is expanding its probe into matters with Intel and antitrust laws. Global corporations continue to prove that they are lead by immoral and or un-ethical individuals. The recent devaluation of Bear Sterns (the US’s 5th largest bank) and sudden purchase by a Federal Reserve backed bank JP Morgan, is just the tip of the ice burg according to a recent BBC interview with a British Banker. I could go on about all the different professions of what I’ll call UE’s. Either way it is up to “We the People” to act on these issues. Be sure to express to your congress persons by writing them. Its easy to do on the internet and only takes a moment to say that you support or don’t support a certain issue. I also urge you to purchase products that do come from environmently conciencious and human rights active companies…most of whom are your neighbors that live down the street.
Ever wonder why you have to pay so much for a computer? AMD is shedding some light on the subject. Things have changed and there is technology out that that is more efficient and less consumptive.Below are some excerpts and a link from the AMD web site Break Free.
Antitrust Enforcement AMD v. Intel lawsuits
http://breakfree.amd.com/en-us/default.aspx
”
Antitrust Enforcement
AMD v. Intel lawsuits, court documents and global investigations into Intel’s business practices
Competition & Innovation
Protect innovation and choice: demand fair and open competition in the global marketplace
Public Procurement
The latest news on AMD’s fight to restore competition to the IT industry and deliver freedom of choice to consumers everywhere
Court Updates & News
Read articles about government antitrust investigations into Intel’s business practices as well as AMD’s legal action against Intel
” - AMD.com
The Secession movement in ALL the States from the Mountain Time Zone west to the Pacific Ocean is growing. We are independent people and don’t need Washington DC to tell us what to do and to steal our resources. We’d be better off without them in every respect.
—————– Bulletin Message —————–
From: The Last Baboon
Date: Mar 10, 2008 12:26 PM
—————– Bulletin Message —————–
From: Vance…what a goddamned circusII
Date: Mar 10, 2008 8:24 PM
From: DIVIDED STATES OF AMNESIA
Date: Mar 10, 2008 12:21 PM
RE: montana threatens seccesion if gun rights arent upheld by SC
http://www.kxmb.com/News/Nation/212992.asp
Feb 25 2008 12:00AM
http://sayanythingblog.com/index.php
A letter sent by Montana’s Secretary of State to the Washington Times:
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide D.C. v. Heller, the first case in more than 60 years in which the court will confront the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although Heller is about the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban, the court’s decision will have an impact far beyond the District (”Promises breached,” Op-Ed, Thursday)
The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment secures a right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants states the power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter view is called the “collective rights” theory
A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of “any person” to bear arms, clearly an individual right
There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of “any person” to bear arms
As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states
Numerous Montana lawmakers have concurred in a resolution raising this contract-violation issue. It’s posted at progunleaders.org. The United States would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract
BRAD JOHNSON
Montana secretary of state
Helena, Mont.
As radical as it may seem to talk about secession in the modern era of American politics, it’s worth noting that Montana has a point. The Constitution is a contract drawn up between the federal government and the various, sovereign state governments. We’ve come a long distance away from that founding ideal of federalism what with the federal government using tortured court rulings and the power of the purse to regulate everything from labor regulations to traffic laws in the various states, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore states’ rights
One of the conditions of Montana joining the United States was that the individual right to keep and bear arms be preserved. If a federal court rules that there is no such right after all, even after such a right was asserted when Montana and other states joined the union, it would represent a fantastic and foolhardy departure from the original intent of our nation’s founding documents, not to mention the laws of many states in this union.
I think the video speaks for itself….