Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘States Rights’

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco

A.F. Branco Cartoon – On the Hook

A.F. BRANCO | on May 6, 2022 |

Will SCOUTS push abortion rights back to the states based on the leaked opinion?

Roe vs Wade SCOTUS
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2022.

DONATE to A.F.Branco Cartoons – Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Donald Trump.

12 states in for freedom: Missouri votes for Convention of States

Posted May 15, 2017 11:01 AM by Chris Pandolfo

URL of the original posting site:

Missouri Convention of States screenshot / Convention of States Project | YouTube

Last Friday, Missouri became the 12th state to adopt a Convention of States resolution, passing SCR4 on a vote of 26 to 7.  SCR4, sponsored by Senator Mike Kehoe, R-Jefferson City, calls for an Article V Convention of States to propose constitutional amendments “that impose fiscal restraint on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for federal officials and members of Congress.”

The Convention of States Project released a video to commemorate the resolution’s passage.


“The American people are growing weary of a federal government that is operating outside of its Constitutional bounds,” said Keith Carmichael, Missouri State Director for the Convention of States Project. “Neither party represents the people, but rather outside influences that help them get re-elected, so by calling a Convention of States under Article V, the states can recalibrate the balance between the federal government and return power back to the people—not to mention that a convention of this magnitude would be the biggest civics lesson of our lifetime.”

Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin broke the news on his radio program Friday evening.

“This is a big deal,” Levin said. “We’re more than a third of the way there.” 

Chris Pandolfo is a staff writer and type-shouter for Conservative Review. He holds a B.A. in politics and economics from Hillsdale College. His interests are conservative political philosophy, the American founding, and progressive rock. Follow him on Twitter for doom-saying and great album recommendations @ChrisCPandolfo.

Judge Tells States They Must Take Syrian Refugees

waving flagAuthored By Michael Ware October 3, 2016

There is a clear divide among the states. Some are very welcoming and eager to take in Syrian refugees. While others are resistant and seek to opt out of the program design to resettle the refugees. So a judge has decided which states are right and which are wrong.Islam is NOT

The Washington Times reports

States that refuse to help resettle Syrian refugees are guilty of illegal discrimination, a federal appeals court ruled Monday, delivering a judicial rebuke to GOP vice presidential nominee Mike Pence, who as Indiana’s governor had tried to halt Syrian resettlement.

Judge Richard Posner, writing for the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, said there’s no evidence that Syrians are more dangerous, and he said even if they are, allowing Indiana to refuse to resettle them would only foist the problem onto neighboring states.

“Federal law does not allow a governor to deport to other states immigrants he deems dangerous,” Judge Posner wrote, saying the governor should instead report his fears to federal bureaucrats for redress.Leftist Propagandist

Now this comes on the heels of the report that there was a great likelihood that there were terrorists hid among the refugees. The leaked document stated that there was a high probability of radicals and terror agents mixing themselves within the group of people that we are trying to help.Do you want

And according to the Washington Times, the number of Syrians processed this year could double from that of last year.

muslim-obamaA number of states balked last year when President Obama announced he wanted to accept some 10,000 Syrian refugees in fiscal 2016. The administration blew past that goal, with a final tally of 12,587 Syrians as of Friday, which marked the last day of the fiscal year.

Mr. Obama hasn’t set a Syrian target for 2017, but at the pace of the last few months, the U.S. could process as many as 30,000. Still, the year got off to a slow start with just 17 refugees in the first few days: a family of nine that was resettled in New York and a family of eight settled in Massachusetts.

And all the states must take what the Fed gives, like it or not.RAPEUGEES

Commentary: Flame On! White House Equates Bathroom Bills to Civil Rights Movement

waving flagCommentary by: Suzanne Hamner

URL of the original posting site: argument

Never could I imagine in my lifetime that the issue of men dressing like women would be a source of contention regarding the use of female bathroom facilities. Who would ever conceive of something like that? It’s basic practice going back thousands of years – men use public facilities designated for men and the same for women. There should be no discussion, much less any “political” action taken, to accommodate less than one percent of the population. But, here I am watching States pass legislation allowing transgender individuals to use public restroom facilities matching their mentally ill perceived gender to the detriment of public safety. What is even more amazing about this entire scenario of insanity is the comparing of the issue to the Civil Rights movement lead by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

White House Press Secretary, Josh “less than” Earnest, had the nerve to invoke “civil rights battles of past generations in States that passed or are considering a similar law.” As it stands, federal agencies are poised to cut funding to States that pass what is now known as “bathroom bills.”

“Less Than” Earnest Josh said, “State’s like Tennessee and to a certain extent North Carolina and Mississippi have a long history — even over the last couple of generations — of working through questions of civil rights. President Obama has talked on a number of occasions about the important progress that our country has made with regard to civil rights. This is a good illustration that the fight for civil rights is not over.”

Demanding equality for every American and ensuring those Americans are not singled out for targeting because of their sex or their race what their last name is or their religion or who they love or who they are is a struggle that continues,” he added. “The president, every time, is going to be on the side of equality and fairness and justice for every American.”Propaganda Alert Militent Radical liberalism socialism


Where exactly to start on this pile of garbage is anyone’s guess. But, someone, with a working brain, needs to explain to the 99% of the population how keeping men out of women’s public facilities and vice versa even remotely compares to being barred access to schools, having separate drinking fountains, having separate entrances to movie theaters, or being denied service in a restaurant or harassed when trying to vote. If this nation has made any progress on civil rights, it has certainly all reverted back to the starting point because of this administration. This issue does not even come close to equaling the civil rights movement.

The civil rights movement did not endanger portions of the population through the rightful protest of discrimination based on skin color and the demand it be stopped. And, separate facilities for men and women have always been the norm. But, these mentally ill individuals will place women, girls, boys and men at risk of crime by nefarious individuals. No, this does not mean crime at the hands of transgender individuals. It means crime at the hands of rapists, murderers, thieves, and child molesters who proclaim to be transgender to gain access to victims. Why all of a sudden are these mentally ill, deranged individuals declaring they are “singled out” and targeted because of their DNA, when separate facilities in public have always been the standard? It’s not about discrimination. It’s about “public safety.”AMEN

Lying Earnest claims Hussein Soetoro is on the side of “equality, fairness and justice for every American.” However, whose side is he on when the safety of the public is at hand? He stands on the side of one percent of the population in overturning millennias of morality and standards.Transgender

Because of state laws that allow private business to set their own policy regarding public restroom use (which is as it should be) and “restrict local governments” from passing “bathroom bills” perceived as discriminatory, States could find themselves being denied federal money for schools, highways and public housing. No State should be getting any money from the federal government for any purpose. States should be footing the bill for their schools, highways and housing. The system in place now makes States beholden and subservient to the federal government when the federal government should be subservient to the States and the people.AMEN

Of course, the first individual to suggest withholding money from the States is none other than Department of Transportation Secretary Anthony Fox. If you recall, Fox is infamous for his statement claiming sidewalks in neighborhoods provides opportunities to attain the American Dream. Joining the former Charlotte, NC mayor in support of withholding funds to the States are the Department of Education and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. North Carolina should hold fast on their legislation regardless of what unconstitutional federal departments want.

According to The Blaze:

Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery warned that if Tennessee passed such a law, it could lose $1.2 billion in Title IX funding from the federal government.pure socialism

Earnest said agencies are “doing this work in conjunction with the Department of Justice because there are important legal questions that have to be resolved.”

“Specific laws like this that seek to target and marginalize one small segment of the population is nothing less than mean-spirited,” Earnest said.

Important legal questions that have to be resolved? Gee, ya think! Will rape no longer be a crime, but an alternate lifestyle? What about pedophilia or child molestation? Will “indecent exposure” now be referred to as normal? Will someone be explaining how this is a “civil rights” issue? From where many of us sit, this “disallowance” of men in women’s facilities and vice versa comes nowhere near attaining the designation of “civil rights violations” protested by Dr. King. As a man of faith and as a minister, Dr. King would absolutely be wins

For one thing, no one is “marginalizing” a segment of the population by having men use facilities for men and women use facilities for women. It’s been this way since the beginning. Who is being marginalized is the 99% of the population who doesn’t have a mental illness. It is more than mean-spirited to allow grown men into women’s facilities to relieve themselves with young girls present. It is more than mean-spirited to open the door to nefarious activities by men against women and girls. It is downright evil to the core. If the transgender segment of the population were not trying to railroad the entire American population, States would not need to establish laws securing the laws of nature.AMEN

Democrats, like Hussein Soetoro, Hillary Clinton and gang, yell privacy when it comes to a mother seeking the murder of her baby in the womb. Why is that private but expecting some semblance of privacy in public as it relates to restroom facilities for women and men is not? Why is it that a man showing his genitalia in public to a child is considered deviant and a child abuser yet putting men in the same facilities as female children to possibly see male genitalia is not?WELL

Get out your torches because here it comes. Transgender individuals and sodomites claim to want “acceptance” by society, meaning for society to consider their “condition” as normal. However, it goes against the laws of nature. Pushing and shoving something down someone’s throat and using the government to punish those who disagree are not going to grant societal acceptance of deviant behavior. In fact, it will push society to hate it, be intolerant of it as it billows out of the closet and into the mainstream of society, and garner more ostracizing than ever seen in previous times. In other words, you will get what it is that you want the least.make you mad

Most everyone could care less what goes on in someone else’s private life. But, when that private life becomes the source for which others are to be punished for disagreeing, then individuals who disagree have every right to challenge the normality or abnormality of the behavior when it is affecting them. Men using women’s facilities and vice versa affects everyone and the public has a right to protest against the disregard for public safety. For how is one to determine a man entering a women’s facility is transgender or not? Want to wear a badge? How about a pink rose or have an ID marked as “transgender male” or “transgender female?”Yes I am a Christian

There is no way that anyone will be able to tell the difference between a “transgender man” or “transgender female” and a man dressed in drag or woman dressed in male attire as transgender. At the rate this is going, any attempt to try and identify “transgender” individuals will be discrimination as well. Congratulations for opening the door for rapists, child molesters, and other sexual predators. Oh, and kudos for bastardizing the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The push to have government sanction those in disagreement or who abhor the “lifestyle” is morally wrong and violates civil rights. Likewise, it is wrong to expect someone to go against his or her religious beliefs. It is a violation of the First Amendment by the federal government. And, the civil rights movement was not about elevating one people’s rights over another; but, securing the same rights for all individuals given in the laws of nature and of nature’s God.

The reason the transgender and sodomite community is met with perceived bigotry, hatred and discrimination is that the groups are forcing upon society that which is abnormal. These groups are seeking to supplant a millennia’s moral practice of privacy and public safety with potential for criminal activity. Who is going to reap the whirlwind when a woman is raped or a child molested because of the insanity of allowing males in female facilities? I guess it will be another “suck it up, buttercup” response to the victims.More forced

The crux of the issue stands as follows – if you hadn’t brought it out in public, there would not be an issue. DNA and chromosomes cannot be changed. Deal with it and get over it by seeking medical treatment for the mental disorder. The forcing of the issue on the public will only result in tragedy. But, you all and the politicians couldn’t care less. When, not if, that tragedy occurs, it will be the fault of the victim, the victim’s family or just plain “tough luck.” No way will the unlawful “policy” have anything to do with it. Remember, the woman you encounter in the facility while being a “transgender male,” is someone’s wife, mother, daughter, sister, aunt, grandmother, niece, daughter-in-law, or sister-in-law. There’s men out there willing to protect them if they cannot protect themselves. For whatever you in the transgender and sodomite community perceive is “your right,” your rights do not trump others’ nor do perceived, made-up rights trump natural rights.Gay god idol

Flame on!

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

33% of Americans Believe It’s Time for States to Openly Defy the Feds – And that Number is Growing!

waving flagPosted by

URL of the original posting site:


A recent Rasmussen poll, which was conducted in July of 2015 discovered that 33% of Americans support the States openly defying the federal judiciary because of bad behavior, ie. Acting lawlessly. The poll was taken following the Supreme Court’s illegal and unconstitutional ruling on redefining marriage to include those who practice sodomy and their previous ruling regarding the unconstitutional healthcare mandate nicknamed Obamacare.

Thirty-three percent of likely voters believe the States should exercise their Tenth Amendment rights and ignore the federal rulings because they are in violation of the enumerated powers granted to the judiciary under the Constitution. According to Rasmussen, these numbers are now up nine points since February, at which time just 24% supported such a measure. Those who disagree fell from 58% in February to 52%. Apparently, a whopping 15% aren’t intelligent enough to know the difference to make a decision.

“Perhaps even more disturbing is that the voters who feel strongest about overriding the federal courts – Republicans and conservatives – are those who traditionally have been the most supportive of the Constitution and separation of powers,” reports Rasmussen. “During the Obama years, however, these voters have become increasingly suspicious and even hostile toward the federal government.”

The polling firm also pointed out that when it comes to those in political parties, fifty percent of Republicans side with the states, while just twenty-two percent of Democrats and thirty percent of independents also side with State’s rights on the issue.

The survey consisted of 1,000 likely voters and was conducted between June 30 and July 1, 2015.

Pastor Matthew Trewhella, author of The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates: A Proper Resistance to Tyranny and a Repudiation of Unlimited Obedience to Civil Government, commented on the judiciary and Supremacy Clause:

The federal judiciary has long built this fiction that they are the sole and final arbiter of what is constitutional or unconstitutional. They base this upon the Supremacy Clause which is Article 6, paragraph 2 of the U. S. Constitution. They claim that Article 6, paragraph 2 grants the Supreme Court supremacy to determine whether laws are constitutional or unconstitutional.

Funny thing is – when one actually takes time to read Article 6, paragraph 2, they realize that the Supreme Court isn’t even mentioned. In fact, federal courts aren’t even mentioned. What is mentioned – and is declared to have supremacy – is the U. S. Constitution itself and all laws made in accordance therewith.

In other words, America’s founders did not establish judicial supremacy as the Supreme Court is wont to assert (and thereby usurp all other branches of government) – rather they established constitutional supremacy.

All magistrates in America – whether federal, state, county, or local – did not take an oath of subservience to the federal government nor the federal judiciary. Rather, they took an oath to uphold the U. S. Constitution.

True federalism understands that all magistrates – whatever their level or sphere of jurisdiction – possess lawful authority. And that whenever one branch of government begins to play the tyrant – all other branches (whether federal, state, county, or local) have the duty then more than ever to uphold the Constitution and oppose that branch acting tyrannically – even if that branch is the Supreme Court.

Trewhella also pointed out that founding father Thomas Jefferson tried to warn the people about the friction of the Supreme Court being understood as authoritative in all matters.

In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said,

“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jefferson had previously warned Charles Hammond in 1821, “The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”

Just two years later, he would write to A. Coray,

“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance.”

If you are one that believes the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is lawful and constitutional, then you have believed a lie and a myth that Jefferson warned about. The States still retain their rights to this day to defy the federal judiciary, which has become an oligarchy. We just need strong statesmen as governors and legislatures to make that stand! The people will get behind those that will take the stand, but we must first seek out those willing to put all they are on the line for the sake of freedom, not necessarily a political future.

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

waving flag? and Stripes

The Battle Over Coal. And the War on State Rights.

waving flagPosted by on June 04, 2015

The Environmental Protection Agency’s “War on Coal” is a war that the states literally cannot afford to lose. With coal providing almost 40 percent of U.S. electricity and around a half-million American jobs, we all stand to suffer from proposed federal regulations that would force plants to closedrive our electricity bills up, and hinder the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers in the global market.

But this recent bureaucratic power grab is more appropriately described as a “battle” than a “war.” It is just one fight—albeit an important one—in the larger War on Federalism being waged day after day by a formidable national government in Washington, D.C. The specific power play being made by the EPA in this instance is handily representative of the processes that have steadily expanded federal power over the years. Just like President Barack Obama’s executive fiat on immigration policy, it involves actions that do not quite ignore constitutional boundaries, but simply lawyer around them.burke

Here, the EPA wants to order the states to apply the same crippling carbon dioxide emission standards to existing energy plants—already regulated under a separate section of the Clean Air Actas the federal standards designed for new plants.hell

For decades, the EPA has been administering the federal law according to a common-sense reading of the language, whereby exiting sources of air pollution are regulated under one section and new sources or otherwise unregulated sources are governed by another.

Then came a failed attempt by the Obama administration to shepherd new climate change legislation through Congress. Voilà! Now, citing a dubious ambiguity in the wording of one provision of the decades-old Clean Air Act, the EPA claims that Congress actually authorized it to apply the more stringent standards to existing plants anyway.Worship manditory

The EPA’s attempt to steamroll what most see as a clear, congressionally-constructed boundary on its regulatory authority is made possible by a landmark Supreme Court precedent, a 1984 case called Chevron U.S.A. v. National Resources Defense CouncilThat case gave us the “Chevron Test” for evaluating the extent of agency authority by reviewing Congress’ statutory instructions to the agency. Essentially, if Congress’ direction to the agency is clear, that direction simply must be followed. If, however, there is silence or ambiguity in the language, then courts will uphold the agency’s action as long as it is based on a permissible interpretation of the law. In other words, an interpretive “tie” goes to the bureaucrats.EPA Tyranny

Obama eating the ConstitutionThis judicial policy puts power tools in the hands of bureaucracies that, just by virtue of their consisting of human beings, are already predisposed to chip away at the limitations of their authority. It invites every administrative agency to expand its power at every turn by inventing creative statutory interpretations that can pass the low bar of being considered by some federal judge to be “permissible.” As it turns out, federal bureaucrats are creative geniuses when it comes to “interpreting” their statutory authority. Their creativity mirrors that of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches in interpreting the Constitution itself.

Invariably, all this interpretive creativity comes at the expense of the states. In fact, this very Battle over Coal is an example of how much the states have already lost, for this battle is a tug-of-war between federal agencies and the federal legislature over an area of policy that rightfully belong to the states.

Strategies for winning this Battle over Coal in the short-term—including the usual expensive lawsuits—must not be Obama tearing up the constitutionmistaken for the needed long-term solution to the epidemic erosion of our constitutional federal system. We cannot allow our national government to continue distracting us with countless and repeated skirmishes over the practical and procedural terms of their abuses of power. Instead, we must engage in the larger war over fundamental constitutional principles that the feds are actually waging.

The states are well-equipped to win this War on Federalism decisively, but victory requires them to use the one effectual constitutional tool at their disposal that, until now, they have entirely neglected.

By invoking Article Five’s state-controlled process to propose constitutional amendments, the states can foreclose the feds’ opportunity to lawyer around limitations on their authority. The states can definitively end not only the EPA’s attempt to hijack legislative prerogatives, but also hundreds of other instances of overreaching by bureaucrats, the president, Congress, and even the Supreme Court.freedom

A constitutional amendment could overrule the Chevron case’s “tie goes to the agency” framework and replace it with a rule that where Congress’ intent is unclear, the agency may not act. But more importantly, a constitutional amendment could limit the power of Congress to interfere with policies that the Constitution reserved to the states. For example, an amendment could overturn the current, overbroad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which was originally intended to merely allow Congress to regulate economic activity that crosses state lines.

Americans must recognize that what is ultimately at stake here is our self-governance. Will the vast majority of our laws be created in the state and local governments that are most responsive to the people, as intended by the Constitution? Or will we instead allow ourselves to be ruled by an elite ruling class in a distant capitol, which hands down high-minded orders and cracks the whip on the backs of the states to carry them out?safe_image

Federalism is a defining characteristic of our exceptional Constitution, and it is under siege. But the War on Federalism is one that the states can win if they use the appropriate constitutional defense.

To learn more about the Article Five Convention of States process, read my five-part series.

Rita Martin Dunaway serves as Staff Counsel for The Convention of States Project and is passionate about restoring constitutional governance in the U.S. Follow her on Facebook (Rita Martin Dunaway) or e-mail her at combo 2

Why Today’s Supreme Court Case on Same-Sex Marriage Matters

waving flagJamie Jackson / / April 28, 2015

So why does this matter? Sarah Torre, a policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, explains what you need to know about the case.


>>> Don’t Silence the 50 Million Who Voted for One Man-One Woman Marriage

Same Sex Marriage



OARLogo Picture6

Mark Levin gives stirring speech on Article V and the state of our nation

Posted by on December 23, 2014

URL of the Original Posting Site:

On Thursday, December 4, the Convention of States Project sponsored the breakfast session at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) meeting in Washington, D.C. Convention of States Project legal board member, nationally syndicated radio talk show host, and Constitutional expert, Mark Levin, spoke on behalf of Article V and the project.

“You, legislators are the last line of defense for liberty,” Levin said. His 40 minute speech to almost 1,200 attendees did not disappoint. He made the case that now is the time to use constitutional means to rein in the runaway federal leviathan, and that Article V gives us a way to do it.

The following is Levin’s speech in its entirety. Please share.




Blog wishes

Delegates begin planning for changes to U.S. Constitution

INDIANAPOLIS | Representatives and senators from 29 states met Thursday in the Indiana Statehouse to begin planning for the first state-led revisions to the U.S. Constitution since the nation’s fundamental governing document was enacted in 1789.

The significance of the work undertaken by The Mount Vernon Assembly to prepare for a future Convention of the States was not lost on the 94 official and participating delegates, mostly Republicans, who filled the House chamber.

“Nothing like this has occurred in over two centuries, though certainly the founders of this nation assumed it would have happened long ago,” said Indiana Senate President David Long, R-Fort Wayne, an organizer of the meeting.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution requires Congress call a Convention of the States for proposing constitutional amendments if legislatures in two-thirds of the states (34 states) request one. If the convention approves an amendment, it then can be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 states) and added to the Constitution without additional congressional approval.

However, because an Article V convention never has been called, there are no clear procedures on how it would begin, what rules the convention would follow or whether it could be limited in scope.

The Mount Vernon Assembly, which organized last December at George Washington’s Virginia estate and is planning to change its name to the Assembly of State Legislatures, has taken it upon itself to start answering those questions to ensure a future Convention of the States gets off on the right foot.

“It has been a failure on the part of state legislatures for not stepping up for the past 200 years and saying, here’s how we’re going to do it, so that’s what we’re doing,” said state Rep. Chris Kapenga, a Wisconsin Republican.

“It’s time we accept the responsibility given us because there’s little debate in state legislatures, or in the public, that something’s not right in Washington.”

Throughout the morning, delegates discussed their organizing principles and whether they were being too deliberate in their planning.

Kapenga pushed back on the few lawmakers who wanted to jump ahead to debating amendment proposals that someday could be considered by a Convention of the States.

“This is the Constitution of the United States — we have to be very cautious and go through this process where we make sure anything that we put down is debated and discussed, and debated and discussed, and the final product is solid,” Kapenga said.

In the afternoon, delegates organized into four committees to begin tackling detailed planning questions for a Convention of the States, including how many delegates each state should have, whether states must send Congress an identical request and whether past state calls for Article V conventions, such as those submitted by Indiana in 1861 and 1979, are still valid.

State Sen. Jim Arnold, D-LaPorte, was appointed co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He will help shape answers to those questions and others ahead of the assembly’s December meeting, where its proposed rules for a Convention of the States will be approved.

Ultimately, the Convention of the States, if one ever is called, must decide whether to accept the rules and procedures proposed by the Assembly of State Legislatures.

Long said regardless of that decision, the work of planning and preparing for a convention has reminded states of their rights under America’s federalist system of government and their role in the constitutional amendment process.

“States’ rights has never been, nor should it ever be, a partisan issue,” Long said. “It is instead a constitutionally based concept that has made us the great country that we are today — 50 independent states, governed separately but united together.”

Copyright 2014 All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

<!– AP Usage Tag



Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

Rotten To “The Core”

Posted on April 22, 2014




Complete Message


Indiana Becomes First State To Back Out Of Common Core

March 24, 2014 5:03 PM


Mike Pence, in 2011, when he was a congressman.

<<<Mike Pence, in 2011, when he was a congressman.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

With the stroke of Gov. Mike Pence’s pen, Indiana became the first state to back off implementing a set of national standards for grade-school education.

The standards, known as Common Core, had been adopted by 45 states, but have lately unleashed a political fight that blurs party lines.

Pence signed a law on Monday that requires Indiana to come up with its own academic standards. The Star adds:

“‘I believe our students are best served when decisions about education are made at the state and local level,’ said Pence in a release about Senate Bill 91.

” ‘By signing this legislation, Indiana has taken an important step forward in developing academic standards that are written by Hoosiers, for Hoosiers, and are uncommonly high, and I commend members of the General Assembly for their support,’ he said.

“The two agencies working on revising the standards have set a goal of completing the final version by April 14. A week later, the Indiana Education Roundtable, consisting of educators and business representatives, will decide whether to recommend the version for passage by the State Board of Education on April 28.”

 Recently the Associated Press reported how the standards have divided Republicans, with establishment voices like Jeb Bush hailing the common standards, while Tea Party conservatives like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz decry the system as a federal takeover of local schools.

The AP adds:

“To a lesser extent, Democrats must deal with some teachers — their unions hold strong influence within the party — who are upset about implementation details. But it’s the internal GOP debate that’s on display in statehouses, across 2014 campaigns and among 2016 presidential contenders.

“The flap continues as students in 36 states and the District of Columbia begin this week taking field tests of new assessments based on the standards, although the real tests won’t be given for another year

Prove it: Court rules states can make voters prove citizenship

Election commission can’t stop voter ID laws

By Stephen Dinan

The Washington Times

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

**FILE** Aaron Belenky shows part of a letter from election officials while standing in front of his apartment in Overland Park, Kan., on Aug. 14, 2013. The letter lists the valid citizenship documents needed to register to vote in Kansas for the first time. Belenky allowed the American Civil Liberties Union to list him as one of three aggrieved voters in a notice sent this week to Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach. (Associated Press)A U.S. District Court judge ruled Wednesday that Arizona and Kansas can require anyone registering to vote to prove their citizenship and the federal Election Assistance Commission cannot block them.

The ruling is a boost for states’ rights and marks a setback for President Obama and other liberals who fought stiffer voter ID checks with an argument that they reduce voter turnout.

“This is a huge victory for me, personally, for the states of Kansas and Arizona, and for the whole cause of states’ rights,” said Kansas Secretary of State Kris W. Kobach, who led the challenge. “We’ve seen so many defeats recently in areas where the federal government has been encroaching on states’ authorities, and this time the good guys won.”

In his ruling, Judge Eric F. Melgren said the EAC, which Congress created after the 2000 Florida voting fiasco, must accede to states’ requests for people to provide proof of citizenship when they register to vote.

The judge said the Constitution gives states the power to determine voter qualifications, and if states want to insist on proof of citizenship, the election commission cannot overrule them.

“The EAC’s nondiscretionary duty is to perform the ministerial function of updating the instructions to reflect each state’s laws,” Judge Melgren ruled in a decision out of Kansas. “The court orders the EAC to add the language requested by Arizona and Kansas to the state-specific instructions of the federal mail voter registration form immediately.”

A spokesman for the EAC said the commission was reviewing the decision. The Justice Department, which argued the case before Judge Melgren, didn’t return a message seeking comment.

The ruling comes at a time when both Democrats and Republicans are paying increasing interest to the rules governing campaigns and voting. With the country ideologically split, each side is looking for an advantage at the ballot box.

Democrats say identification checks could prevent some eligible voters from casting ballots. Republicans generally argue for stiffer checks to prevent fraud.

Kansas and Arizona enacted requirements that voters prove their citizenship when they register. State registration forms were changed to add the requirement.

But the federal government, which also distributes voter registration forms in states under the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, or motor-voter law, refused to add the requirement.

Arizona then said it would refuse to process federal forms and ended up in court. Last year, in a case known as Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that Arizona couldn’t reject the federal forms.

But the Supreme Court ruling also hinted that if states asked the EAC to include proof of citizenship on forms distributed within their borders, the commission couldn’t refuse.

Arizona and Kansas requested that the EAC change the forms distributed in those states, but the commission refused.

Judge Melgren said he saw clear signs in last year’s Supreme Court ruling that the justices intended for the EAC to follow the wishes of the states.

“On one hand, the ITCA decision acknowledges the broad scope of Congresspower under the Elections Clause, which includes the authority of the NVRA to preempt state law regarding voter registration,” the judge wrote. “But the ITCA opinion also emphasizes the states’ exclusive constitutional authority to set voter qualifications — which Congress may not preempt — and appears to tie that authority with the power of the states to enforce their qualifications.”

Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett said the ruling will help clean up voter rolls. About 2,000 people have submitted federal forms in the state but haven’t proved their citizenship, he said.

“With this filing and with this ruling, we have accomplished what we felt was the desire of Arizona voters all along,” Mr. Bennett said.

Wednesday’s ruling was focused on election law, but it comes in the middle of a thorny national debate about U.S. immigration laws. A number of states have pushed for stricter enforcement from the Obama administration and the right to help enforce federal immigration principles.

Mr. Kobach has been at the forefront of those effort

Read more:
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

‘You can’t do this!’ Parents revolt against ‘ObamaCore’

If you really love children and care about their  MUST read this report. It is critical that you also become involved in your local school board and help eradicate Common Core.

Jerry Broussard



‘It’s truly a grassroots effort. It is extraordinary’

President Obama visits a pre-kindergarten classroom at the College Heights Early Childhood Learning Center in Decatur, Ga., on feb. 14, 2013.

By Karen VanTil Gushta

Editor’s Note: This is the fourth in a series of stories about Common Core, the controversial new educational agenda aimed at imposing federal government standards on every aspect of public and private education in America, which some are even calling “ObamaCore.” The first part examined the high stakes for parents, students and education. The second followed the money trail behind Common Core. The third revealed who is fighting back.

The battle over Common Core is far from over. More and more people are joining the fight against it, even in states where it is considered a done deal. Parents and concerned citizens now realize what’s at stake is the complete makeover of America’s schools in the image of Common Core. And in all likelihood, homeschools and private schools will eventually be required to follow the national standards, too.

Kids participate in silent protest outside Bossier Parish School Board office in Bossier City, La. (Photo: KTBS-TV 3)

“There are a lot of organizations that have sprung up for the express purpose of fighting Common Core,” said Jane Robbins, senior fellow at the American Principles Project.

She has spoken to Republican, tea-party and 9/12 groups and people who’ve started Facebook pages against Common Core.

“It’s truly a grassroots effort. It is extraordinary,” Robbins said, explaining that no one thought the movement would get this big. “The whole point was the way they treated this was that it would be a done deal before anyone found out. They thought people would be sheep and roll over and accept what the ‘experts’ told them to do. But it hasn’t turned out that way.”

She doesn’t think the opposition to Common Core is going to fade away.

“If those pushing Common Core think this is just going to stay under wraps and it will die out,” Robbins said, “they are in for a great surprise. People will not stand for it when their children are involved.”

Opponents to Common Core say it is a states-rights issue, a teacher-rights issue and ultimately a parents-rights issue because it is about children and their futures. They say Common Core will not benefit kids and, instead, will benefit big publishing companies that produce the tests and textbooks (like Pearson) and software companies (like Microsoft) that provide online testing. These companies stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars in the billion-dollar education industry.

Who’s profiting?

It’s not just the textbook and testing companies that will profit, according to Robbins.

“It’s the groups who want to be in charge, and those people are in the federal government and in state departments of education,” she said. “They are happy to let the federal government tell them what to do. It’s the people in the trade associations. Those are the people who benefit from transferring control from the local level.”

The Arkansas State Board of Education approved the standards in 2010, and Common Core is now impacting math teaching.

“All of a sudden, we cannot help our own children,” said one parent.

Kimberlee Shaw and Kelly Thompson, members of Parental Awareness for Common Core, protest at Lawyer’s Mall in Annapolis, Md. (Photo: Maryland Reporter)

Another mom said her fifth-grader and her seventh-grader used to love math, but now it’s more of a headache. She elaborated in an interview with the Jonesboro, Ark., TV station.

“It’s like they’re trying to take the parents out of the education process,” she said. “We have no books; we have no guidance to help our children.”

Robbins said parents need to remember they are “in charge of their children’s education, and the people who want to assume that control, especially those in government, work for them.”

See the dozens of products in the WND Superstore that address education, what it is, what it should be, and what it is becoming in America.

She emphasized: “The thing parents have to understand, and I think they are beginning to understand, is that this education monolith has grown over the past 50 years without any constitutional authority, and if they stop and say, ‘You can’t do this!,’ it will crumble.”

The battle against Common Core can be won, Robbins said, “but people will have to wake up, and they will have to decide that they are free-born American citizens, and they don’t have to do what they are told by people to whom they have not given that authority.”

Terrence O. Moore, author of “The Story Killers: A Common Sense Case Against the Common Core,” thinks the Common Core proponents have “overstepped.” Now parents are starting to figure out what the changes mean.

“And the prospect of a national curriculum is really starting to bother people. So they’re looking at what we can do that’s better,” he said.

Like Robbins, Moore thinks people are starting to see that the problems in education didn’t just start with Common Core.

“They are waking up to what we’ve had for decades,” Moore told WND. “People now see that their schools are not as good as they thought they were. Homeschooling, charter schools, private schools show a clear desire for school reform among 10-20 percent of the people.”

Moore thinks the private initiative is a hopeful sign.

“I hope that students and parents will pay more attention to what’s going on in the classroom,” he said. “I don’t think they will just lapse into indifference. The more they find out, the worse it is, and this will have to have electoral consequences and consequences for the way schools are set up.”

At Georgia’s state capitol, tea-partiers, state lawmakers, parents, children chant and hold signs that read “Stop Common Core” Feb. 5, 2014. (Photo: Atlanta’s WSB-AM 750)

‘Nationalized education’

As a historian, Moore, who is assistant professor of history at Hillsdale College, takes the long view.

“We have to have a national discussion about what education is,” he said. “This needs to be part of the Common Core discussion. People are letting Common Core proponents say education is ‘college and career readiness.’ There’s a lot more to education than just getting into college and then getting a job.”

Many Republicans, including Jeb Bush, don’t understand this, he said.

“They say they are talking reform – but they always come back to saying it’s the computer that’s going to revolutionize education,” Moore explained. “They are not talking about education but ‘job training.’”

Moore, who was principal of a highly successful classical charter school in Fort Collins, Colo., before joining the Hillsdale faculty and becoming academic adviser to Hillsdale’s Charter School Initiative, wrote in “The Story Killers”:

We know what works in schools – or we ought to. A liberal education works, and it works for a reason. The wolf in progressive sheep’s clothing never works, and it fails for a reason. The key rests in the human mind and soul. Human beings want to know things. Human beings also feel things. They have a moral constitution. Both the human mind and soul long for greatness, for stories that are good and beautiful and true.

Will Estrada, director of federal relations with the Home School Legal Defense Association, agrees: “It’s about giving that love of learning to individual kids. That’s what this whole battle is really about.”

Estrada said central planners claim they need access to student data to improve education.

“The successes of homeschool and private schools have shown that it’s not having 400 points of data on every student, but rather good teaching, good curriculum and parental involvement,” he said. “That’s the key.”

In their effort to inform parents about the negative impact Common Core will have, the Home School Legal Defense Association has produced a documentary, “Building the Machine,” scheduled to be released March 10.

“The big issue is that parents have got to be involved in their children’s education. They have to wake up and see what’s going on with education,” said Estrada, echoing Robbins and Moore.

“We want to re-inspire them and show how essential it is for parents to be involved in their children’s education, whether you homeschool, whether you private school or use public schools,” Estrada said. “One of the unintended consequences is that more public school parents are getting involved. But this may be their last shot. If Common Core goes into effect, it will bring about nationalized education. This shows why this is such a critical battle.”

Parent protesters rally outside as the Florida Education Board meets to discuss changes to Common Core standards. (Photo: Melissa Zayas, Orlando’s News 13 )

Defeated, ‘eventually’

“We think Common Core will eventually be defeated,” said Estrada. But he agrees with Terrence Moore – “The question is what’s going to replace it?” How should we reform public education? “We have to leave education decisions in hands of local school boards, competent teachers and parents.

“I hope the battle over Common Core is signaling that parents are going to be more engaged in their children’s education,” Estrada concluded.

Robbins, Moore and Estrada all believe parents hold the key to taking back America’s schools. They are the only hope in preventing progressive elites from gaining complete control.

William H. Jeynes, professor of education at California State University, Long Beach, and author of the acclaimed book, “Parental Involvement and Academic Success,” shared his views on how to enlist more parents in the battle against Common Core.

Since research shows that parental involvement is highly related to children’s academic outcomes, Jeynes said parents “need to be available to their children to refute inaccuracies that might arise in the curriculum.”

He said parents should attend school-board meetings and “make their displeasure known to the officials,” including their state legislators and Congress.

Jeynes urges African-American and Hispanic parents to join the fight against Common Core. The secularized content of the Common Core will particularly impact them, since they generally say their faith is important to them.

See the dozens of products in the WND Superstore that address education, what it is, what it should be, and what it is becoming in America.

“It is ironic that American educational leaders are looking to increasingly secularize the curriculum of our public schools,” Jeynes said, “because research indicates that if African-American and Hispanic children are believers [in Jesus Christ] and come from two biological parent families, the achievement gap is actually totally eliminated” – a fact that Jeynes documented in his 2003 book, “Religion, Education, and Academic Success.” In view of these facts, Jeynes said every effort should be made to inform parents about the secularized content of the Common Core.

Louisiana parents protest Common Core outside state education headquarters in Baton Rouge (Photo: NBC-TV 33)

Christianity undermined

Moore, in chapters five and eight of “The Story Killers,” shows in detail how Common Core handles religion.

“As long as it is an ‘origin myth’ – like an American Indian account of natural origins – it is applauded. Anything having to do with Christianity is excluded or undermined,” he said.

Christians should “do all that they can to make this a nationwide political issue,” Jeynes said. “The nation also needs Christians who care enough about the public school system to stand against negative trends of this kind. Therefore, believers should seriously consider such actions as becoming teachers themselves or running for the school board or a higher political office.”

Both Jeynes and Moore suggested it may be time for parents to “vote with their feet.” Jeynes challenged pastors to consider initiating or expanding Christian schools and suggested that many Christians may want to consider homeschooling. Moore is working with Hillsdale College to set up a network of charter schools that offer students traditional classical education.

Whichever way parents go on this issue, it is now clear – the battle over Common Core will be won or lost, depending on their actions.

Karen VanTil Gushta has a Ph.D. in philosophy of education and is a freelance writer and former educator with experience teaching at all levels, including graduate teacher education. In 2009, Coral Ridge Ministries published her first book, “The War On Children: How Pop Culture and Public Schools Put Our Kids at Risk.” She writes regularly on the topics of protecting faith and freedom, and defending the sanctity of human life.

Indiana Makes Move to Nullify Obamacare

Posted By on Jan 21, 2014


Rep. Timothy Harman, along with two co-authors, introduced HB1406 on January 15, 2014.  The bill, if passed and signed into law, would effectively nullify Obamacare in the state of Indiana.

The bill was promptly transferred to the House Ways and Means Committee.

The bill forbids the state and its employees, officers, or officials from “acting on behalf of the state, engage in an activity that aids any person in the enforcement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”

The legislation would also prevent “the state and political subdivisions of the state, including counties, municipalities, and special purpose districts” from establishing “an exchange for the purchase of a health plan” or participating in or purchasing “a health plan from an exchange established by a nonprofit organization.”

The legislation will need a majority vote in order for it to be considered by the full Indiana House.

According to the Tenth Amendment Center, you can have a major impact on this legislation.  They recommend the following:

1. Call the Committee Chair, Timothy Brown.  Strongly, but respectfully urge him to move this important bill forward to a vote in his committee.  A phone call has 10x the impact of an email.


2.  Call the rest of the committee members.  Again, be strong, but respectful. Urge each of them to take action to move the bill forward and vote YES on HB1406.  If they do not commit to a YES vote, ask them why.  If they’re undecided, let them know you’ll call back in a few days.

All members of the Ways and Means Committee can be reached at&nbsp; 800-382-9841 . Ask to be transferred to their office.

Robert Cherry Michael Karichkhoff James Baird Randy Truitt Jeffrey Thompson Daniel Leonard Steven Braun Steven Davisson Todd Huston Peggy Mayfield Sharon Negele David Ober Harold Slager P Eric Turner Matthew Ubelhor Gregory Porter Mara Candelaria Reardon Terry Goodin Clyde Kersey Sheila Klinker David Niezgodski Cherrish Pryor Steven Stemier

3.  Call Back – any NO or UNDECIDED – in 3-4 days.  Ask if they’ve had a chance to review the legislation and what their opposition might be.

4.  on Twitter?  Retweet



5.  Write a letter to the editor Look up your local newspaper and submit a letter to the editor voicing your support for HB1406. Following strong legal principles, it’s essential that Indiana no longer help the federal government carry out the Affordable Care Act. Passing HB1406 will start that process.

Author: Tim Brown

Husband to my wife. Father of 10. Jack of All Trades. Christian and lover of liberty.  Residing in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Follow Tim on Twitter.


Tennessee Nullification of Obamacare & All Federal Gun Laws Legislation Introduced

After reading the following article, please pray with me that most of the other States will follow Tennessee’s Example. Obamacare will then die a natural death.

This is a great example of the States taking BACK the power our founders wanted the States to maintain. MrB


Posted By on Jan 16, 2014

tennessee capital

First, SB1680 is being sponsored by Sen. Mae Beavers (R-Mt. Juliet), along with eight co-sponsors in the Tennessee senate and a companion bill in the House by Rep. Mark Pody (R-Lebanon).  The bills would prohibit the state, its officials and agencies from implementing or administering any part of the Affordable Care Act.

The bill reads in part:

“No powers, assets, employees, agents or contractors of the state, including any institution under control of the University of Tennessee or the Tennessee board of regents, or any political subdivision, municipality or other local government entity shall be used to assist in implementing the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, or any subsequent federal amendment to such act…”

Georgia has introduced similar legislation and this comes on the heels of South Carolina’s legislation to that is designed to gut the massive health care law.

According to the Tenth Amendment Center’s national communications director Mike Maharrey, the idea behind nullification by the states is to cause the federal system to collapse, in order to replace it with a decentralized system at the state level.

“We know the feds counted on the states to do the heavy lifting,” Maharrey continued.  “We know the number of states refusing to create exchanges created problems. If enough states simply say, ‘No,’ this monstrosity will collapse under its own weight.”

“This action, especially in conjunction with similar steps being taken in other states, has the effect of nullifying ObamaCare,” said Rep. Pody, echoing Maharrey’s comments.

“If the feds cannot even build an appropriate website or keep their promises to consumers, they will be extremely hard-pressed to implement the other provisions for this program within our boundaries,” Pody added.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday Senator Mae Beavers also introduced legislation to stop the usurpation of the federal government in the area of the Second Amendment.  SB1607, 2014 Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, was introduced to cut the legs out from under any federal gun laws.

The legislation seeks to delete an entire section of the Tennessee code and replace it with the following:

(a) Any federal enactment or federal enforcement action relating to firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition, is void in this state.

(b) Any federal enactment or federal enforcement action impacting or infringing upon the rights of individuals or entities relative to firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition, is void in this state.

(c) No public official, employee, or agent of this state or any of its political subdivisions shall act, aid, or otherwise cooperate to impose, collect, enforce, or effectuate any fine, penalty, or other federal enactment or federal enforcement action in this state.

(d) Any enforcement of, or attempt to enforce, any federal enactment or federal enforcement action against any individual or entity in this state is an infringement of the civil rights of the individual so affected, and with respect to any such entity, such action is a violation of the rights of each individual having an ownership or membership interest in such entity.

Additionally, the bill would make it an “offense to knowingly enforce or attempt to enforce any federal enactment or to further assist any federal enforcement action.”

The person violating the legislation would be charged with a Class A misdemeanor on the first violation and a Class C felony on a second or subsequent violation.

A press release from the Tennessee Firearms Association reads:

The Firearms Freedom Act declares that the States speaking through the US Constitution expressly prohibited the federal government from having any regulatory authority over firearms inside the state of   Tennessee, and as such no federal firearms law in Tennessee is valid. These prohibitions are most prominent in the wording of 2nd and 10th Amendments. The new push will mandate criminal penalties for any federal or state official attempting to enforce unconstitutional federal firearms laws within the borders of Tennessee.  It is also expected to authorize citizens to pursue claims by expressly defining federal firearms laws as intentional civil rights violations.

Executive Director for the TFA John Harris said, “We are closely watching the legislature this year. Any elected official who votes against or works to obstruct the right to keep and bear arms will likely feel the pain from the voters in their district during their next election.” 

“Any elected official in Tennessee who works against this bill is frankly siding with President Obama on gun control,” Harris continued.  “If you don’t vote to protect your own citizens and state from Obama’s liberal gun-grabbing agenda, then you are effectively supporting his gun control scheme and the intentional destruction of the Bill of Rights.”

This would ultimately rule all federal firearm laws as null and void in Tennessee, something that should have been done when the first federal firearms laws were issued.  Well done Tennessee

On The Road to Execution

By /


guillotine“Execution, says the Communist code, is the highest measure of social protection. What man can call himself a Communist who has not accepted the fact that Terror is an instrument of policy, right if the vision is right, justified by history, enjoined by the balance of forces in the social wars of this century?” — Whitaker Chambers, Witness

It started simply enough. Four airplanes were hijacked and used as bombs against America; killing innocents as well as their executioners. It went downhill from there.

George W. Bush took it upon himself to try to ensure America’s safety. In order to do so he implemented one of the biggest sweeping changes in American government’s history. The birth of “Homeland Security” was done with good intentions, acknowledged. Too bad good intentions often go astray. The current administration took the start of the path to perdition and put it on full speed ahead: the Titanic captain had nothing on this admin!

Suddenly, we have this:

“[The President] has emulated Lenin in striving to increase state control over such ‘commanding heights’ of our economy as energy, health care, finance, and education, with smaller forays into food, transportation and undoubtedly some areas I am overlooking.”

Of course, it could be that he’s not actually a Communist, but is a Socialist instead:

Contrary to claims made in 2008 by [the president], his staff, and supporters, he was a member of the socialist New Party in Chicago.”

It’s not just his membership in the Socialist Party that makes him a Socialist, it’s his actions as well. Whatever he is, he isn’t following the precepts of our Founding Fathers and no one can successfully argue that statement.

The president has taken America very quickly away from the Founding Fathers’ vision of America. By hook or by crook, he’ll get what he wants:

Just look at how this administration is trying to do an end run around the people by having the Environmental Protection Agency impose stringent regulations when it couldn’t even get the overwhelmingly Democratic Congress to pass the socialist cap-and-trade bill.”

The question that becomes the issue: Is he taking us toward Communism or toward Socialism? In the long run, it doesn’t matter. Socialism (which we know via his membership card) is something that we know he believes in. With this president though, it looks like his Socialism leads to our Communism.

To clarify,

Socialism manages the economy through planned collective social control, while communism tend to manage both the society and the economy by making sure that the properties are owned by the centralized organization to gain classlessness and statelessness. Both communism and socialism tend to prevent the effects of capitalism.”

So if Communism’s defining moments come when the economy is under control of the government, what do you call the long list of economic impacts the president has had while doling out taxpayer dollars to whomever he likes? Add the 20% of the economy that his health care plan will control (until it buckles under its own weight). Just last month the president released his Climate Action Plan:

“It is this war on coal that would prove the most costly, with hundreds of thousands of lost jobs and $1.47 trillion of lost national income by 2030. [my bolding]“

Taxes and his tax plan may round out the list, but it does not finish it. There are things not yet mentioned, but I must keep the article a readable length. The fact that his tax plan impacts us in that,

“The most serious consequence would be slower economic growth, less job creation, and less wage growth. Secondarily, the smaller income gains would reflect back on federal revenues, offsetting much of the revenue growth the president hopes to achieve with the tax increases. State and local budgets would be adversely affected as well.”

Established: The president was a card-carrying member of the Socialist Party as a younger man (for all we know, may still be).

Established: The president has manipulated the economy and has had a drastic impact upon it.

Established: The difference between a Socialist and a Communist is whether the government is in control of the economy, as well as the social arena.

Established: The president is in control of the economy.

Therefore: The president is a Communist.

We also know he’s allowing more drones to take to the air to keep an eye on us. We know he’s not above suing states to keep them from enforcing their own laws. We know he tries to stifle the votes of those whom he believes will vote against himWe know he’s hiding his background from us. We know he lies to us constantly.

We also know he willingly allowed four Americans to die in Benghazi and did nothing to help them: “Stand down!” He did not seek out and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those responsible for Brian Terry’s death. We know there are questions surrounding other deaths related to the president (Jamie Zapata and Judge John Roll among others).

“The daughter of a former German diplomat in Moscow was trying to explain to me why her father, who, as an enlightened modern man, had become an implacable anti-Communist. It was hard for her because, as an enlightened modern girl, she shared the Communist vision without being a Communist. But she loved her father and the irrationality of his defection embarrassed her. “He was immensely pro-Soviet,” she said, “and then — you will laugh at me — but you must not laugh at my father — and then — one night — in Moscow — he heard screams. That’s all. Simply one night he heard screams.” — Whitaker Chambers, Witness

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: