Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘States Rights’

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

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: