Patriots vs. Totalitarians: The Race for the Republic!

Patriots vs. Totalitarians: The race for the republic is on! As of now, 15 state legislatures have passed a Convention of States resolution; the latest being Mississippi. We are neck and neck with the totalitarians, who have 13 signatories pushing a national popular vote. The latest state to sign up for this Mordorian project is Delaware.


What are the differences between these two projects? Well, the patriots believe in the Constitution of the United States and the federalist principles therein. The Convention of States Project’s mission is to restore our governing document. They recognize an all-powerful, central government has become a threat to the American Creed of life, liberty, property and self-government.


What is the mission of the National Popular Vote? Well, if they were honest, it’s to ensure a one-party dictatorship in Washington D.C. Their goal is to circumvent our federalist system by violating the spirit of the Electoral College system. In order to accomplish this, they must ignore Article I, Section 10 which forbids states to engage in alliances, confederations, agreements or compacts. The National Popular Vote compact will not go into effect until they have reached 270 Electoral College votes, ensuring progressive hegemony.

The soldiers of Mordor believe our system is unfair. According to them, a national popular vote represents all voters, which is completely absurd. If they truly wish for a fair representation, they would advocate for each state to implement a partial Electoral College system. So far, only Nebraska and Maine have this type of system.


National Popular Vote advocates know the Democratic party’s constituency is mainly urban voters. They use bumper sticker slogans, such as, “One man, One vote!” to weaponize the ballot box. Liberal judges used this platitude in the infamous, Reynolds v. Sims case, which marginalized rural areas. This ruling is a direct violation of our federalist principles, and I would add, a primary cause for separatist movements in liberal states throughout the country. Can you imagine what will happen if these Mordorians do the same to flyover country? Can anyone say, the dissolution of the union?


Make no mistake about it: either we have a United States of America, or a Federal Government of America. The race for the republic is on!


Source:

https://costonscomplaint.blogspot.com/2019/03/national-popular-vote-is-scheme-to.html

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/436338-delaware-gov-signs-bill-to-bill-to-give-electoral-college-votes-to-popular

The U.S. Constitution Matters

How many times has the U.S. Constitution been brought up during these debates?  I can only count one time and that was by Donald Trump.  The law of the land used to mean something in this country.  Now it’s little more than a speed bump on the road to totalitarianism.  


Master planners like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sneer at federalism.  Power is to be exploited and used for “the benefit” of the little people who are incapable of self-governance.  Our Ivy League betters have been trained to run our lives.  It’s best that we just shut our mouths and do what were told and forget such notions as life, liberty and property.  According to these central planners, the U.S. Constitution is an antiquated document; it doesn’t stand the test of times.

 

I say the U.S. Constitution matters more now than ever.  Barack Obama’s presidency is a testament to the genius of our founding fathers and the fallacy of the Progressive movement.   His administration has demonstrated how corrupt an unchecked executive can be.  No law or moral code shames this wannabe banana republic dictator.  No lie is too outrageous even in the face of overwhelming evidence.  And now we are about to elect the Queen of Scumbags: Hillary Clinton.

Our founding fathers new this day would come and they put provisions in the Constitution to counter a corrupt central government that’s incapable of governing itself.  After this fiasco of an election is over the States must activate Article V and implement a convention of the States.  We’ve already had a trial run with promising results.  Here is what liberty loving Americans can accomplish without our D.C. overlords.

“The Convention respectfully submits these proposals to the American people with the conviction that they are a sound beginning to a critically-needed national discussion about restoring the balance of power between the federal government and the states. Further, it is the conviction of this body that the states must deliberate and adopt appropriate proposals for a balanced budget amendment and an amendment to provide the states a means to serve as a check on judicial overreach by the federal judiciary of the United States.” (Note: the amendments below are listed in the order in which they were adopted.)

Fiscal Restraints Proposal 1. SECTION 1. The public debt shall not be increased except upon a recorded vote of two-thirds of each house of Congress, and only for a period not to exceed one year. SECTION 2. No state or any subdivision thereof shall be compelled or coerced by Congress or the President to appropriate money. SECTION 3. The provisions of the first section of this amendment shall take effect 3 years after ratification.

Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 1. SECTION 1. The power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several states shall be limited to the regulation of the sale, shipment, transportation, or other movement of goods, articles or persons. Congress may not regulate activity solely because it affects commerce among the several states. SECTION 2. The power of Congress to make all laws that are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities there from, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; but Congress shall have power to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States. SECTION 3. The Legislatures of the States shall have standing to file any claim alleging violation of this article. Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit standing that may otherwise exist for a person. SECTION 4. This article shall become effective five years from the date of its ratification.

Federal Term Limits & Judicial Jurisdiction Proposal 1.  No person shall be elected to more than six full terms in the House of Representatives. No person shall be elected to more than two full terms in the Senate. These limits shall include the time served prior to the enactment of this Article.

Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 2.  SECTION 1. The Legislatures of the States shall have authority to abrogate any provision of federal law issued by the Congress, President, or Administrative Agencies of the United States, whether in the form of a statute, decree, order, regulation, rule, opinion, decision, or other form. SECTION 2. Such abrogation shall be effective when the Legislatures of three-fifths of the States approve a resolution declaring the same provision or provisions of federal law to be abrogated. This abrogation authority may also be applied to provisions of federal law existing at the time this amendment is ratified. SECTION 3. No government entity or official may take any action to enforce a provision of federal law after it is abrogated according to this Amendment. Any action to enforce a provision of abrogated federal law may be enjoined by a federal or state court of general jurisdiction in the state where the enforcement action occurs, and costs and attorney fees of such injunction shall be awarded against the entity or official attempting to enforce the abrogated provision. SECTION 4. No provision of federal law abrogated pursuant to this amendment may be reenacted or reissued for six years from the date of the abrogation.

Fiscal Restraints Proposal 2. SECTION 1. Congress shall not impose taxes or other exactions upon incomes, gifts, or estates. SECTION 2. Congress shall not impose or increase any tax, duty, impost or excise without the approval of three-fifths of the House of Representatives and three-fifths of the Senate, and shall separately present such to the President. SECTION 3. This Article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification, at which time the Sixteenth Article of amendment is repealed.

Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 3.  Whenever one quarter of the members of the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate transmits to the President their written declaration of opposition to any proposed or existing federal administrative regulation, in whole or in part, it shall require a majority vote of the House of Representatives and Senate to adopt or affirm that regulation. Upon the transmittal of opposition, if Congress shall fail to vote within 180 days, such regulation shall be vacated. No proposed regulation challenged under the terms of this Article shall go into effect without the approval of Congress. Congressional approval or rejection of a rule or regulation is not subject to Presidential veto under Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.

I would also like to repeal the 14^th and 17^th Amendments, but I’m afraid that’s politically impossible. 

Source:

http://us8.campaign-archive2.com/?u=3a21cd3d06284c105dbd92fee&id=962f77f3b4&e=be1a97924d

Obama Admin. Partners With U.N. to Take Over American Cities

The Obama administration is infested with traitors starting with the president himself.  His crimes, and by extension members of his cabinet, against the America people are too numerous to count.  So, we must focus on his latest lawlessness and contempt for our nation’s sovereignty and our Constitution.

The latest affront by Obama’s DOJ is their attempt at bypassing our federalist system by circumventing the citizenry and taking over local municipalities by implementing a United Nations program called, “Strong Cities Network.”  This initiative is a global program designed to counter local extremists groups.  And we all know who they consider extremists.  Here is an excerpt from Pamela Geller’s column at Breitbart.com.

Even more ominously, the DoJ press release says that the Strong Cities Network “will strengthen strategic planning and practices to address violent extremism in all its forms by fostering collaboration among cities, municipalities and other sub-national authorities.” Sub-national and international: the press release then quotes Governing Mayor Stian Berger Røsland of Oslo, Norway, a participant in the Strong Cities Network, saying: “To counter violent extremism we need determined action at all levels of governance. To succeed, we must coordinate our efforts and cooperate across borders. The Strong Cities Network will enable cities across the globe pool our resources, knowledge and best practices together and thus leave us standing stronger in the fight against one of the greatest threats to modern society.”

But what is that greatest threat, exactly? Remember, the DoJ presser says that the SCN will “address violent extremism in all its forms.” It also says that it will aid initiatives that are working toward “building social cohesion and resilience to violent extremism.” “Building social cohesion” is a euphemism for keeping peace between non-Muslim and Muslim communities – mostly by making sure that non-Muslims don’t complain too loudly about, much less work against, rapidly expanding Muslim populations and the Islamization of their communities.

It’s hard to believe we have a president purposefully working against the interest of the United States and its people.  It’s even harder to believe we let him get away with it.

Source:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/02/obama-administration-and-un-announce-global-police-force-to-fight-extremism-in-u-s/

 http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/ag-lynch-announces-global-police-force-partnership-un

Progressive Principles Grounded by Shameless Co-options and Distortions

When you look up the word shameless in a dictionary, the following synonyms should be referred: liberals, progressives, democrats, and editors of newspapers.  James A. Haught, editor emeritus at the Charleston Gazette-Mail, should have his picture posted next to the definition after his simplistic co-option of our founding fathers and of one the leading intellects that helped to inspire the formation of our federalist system.

Mr. Haught obviously has a disdain for conservative principles that are grounded in our constitution.   His op-ed is a template liberals us to defame opponents and at the same time elevate flawed progressive ideas.  This technique of co-option and distortion, coupled with bump sticker slogans, is a favorite amongst the intellectually challenged.  Here is an excerpt:

America’s founders – Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, etc. – were brilliant radicals who absorbed Enlightenment ideas and incorporated them into the first modern democracy.

The Enlightenment also laid the foundation of liberal political values still winning victories today. For three centuries, by fits and starts, Western progress has been mostly a chronicle of progressives defeating conservative resistance. Reformers repeatedly toppled old privileges, hierarchies and establishments. Look at the historical record:

Conservatives tried to retain slavery, but they lost.

They tried to block voting by women, but lost.

They tried to prevent couples from using birth control, but they lost.

They tried to obstruct Social Security pensions, but they lost.

They tried to sustain racial segregation, but they lost.

They supported government-mandated prayer in school, but they lost.

They tried to defeat Medicare and Medicaid, but they lost.

They tried to halt same-sex marriage, but lost.

On and on, through recurring cultural battles, progressive principles that began in the Enlightenment have prevailed. For three centuries, liberals generally have won, conservatives lost.

First of all, we are a constitutional republic, not a democracy.  Second, the Age of Enlightenment ended when the French Revolution degenerated into the Terror.  Someone should remind Mr. Haught that the radicals of that day repudiated Christianity.  These bloodthirsty heathens murdered priests, pillaged churches, and desecrated cemeteries.  They valued life, liberty and property as much as an American liberal.

Take a look at his bumper sticker assertions.  Only a fool would accept such simplistic bullet points.  That’s why this nonsense was published in the Charlotte Observer.    

People like Mr. Haught love to praise our founding fathers while at the same time condemn the system they made.  Progressives really don’t believe in the U.S. Constitution and its federalist principles.  What they want is a top-down, central government where states are vassalages, citizens are subjects and democracy is approved by activist judges.

Source:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article36602862.html#storylink=cpy

Liberal Malice and Ignorance Erodes Liberty

Most Americans have no fundamental understanding of our Constitution and the workings of our federalist system.  When the U.S. Supreme Court manufactured a right – gay marriage – by bastardizing the 14^th Amendment very few questioned the legitimacy of their dictum.  Actually, just the opposite happened.  Liberals were elated that five black robed thugs could whimsically impose their will upon the American people with little regard for the law, or the democratic process.

When an elected official from the state of Kentucky was jailed for practicing her Christian faith by denying marriage licenses to gay couples, the media celebrated.  They rejoiced that a Christian was being punished for exercising her First Amendment right of freedom of religion.  Mind you, this is an actual right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, not some crypto-rightist nonsense promoted by liberals, their media surrogates, and enforced by a judicial oligarchy.

The above cartoon was published in the Charlotte Observer.  Kevin Siers is their illustrator.  He was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for his work denigrating the U.S. Constitution, federalism, conservatives and the Christian faith.  

The above cartoon is typical of the liberal mindset in today’s printed press.  As you can see, Mr. Siers has no understanding of the important role Christians played in the founding of this great nation.  As a matter of fact, he equates the “Jesus freaks” with the murderous ideology of Islam.  Either this man is stupid, or he’s intentionally insulting over 80% of the U.S. population who identify themselves as Christians.

What we have is a serious erosion of liberty brought upon by ignorance and  malice.  A professor from Princeton summed it up:

The professor said that most of his students would likely answer that the founders passed the Bill of Rights, leaving the Supreme Court with the power to enforce those rights.

 George contended that answer was wrong, saying, “That misunderstanding has led to a serious erosion of our freedom.

 Instead, the professor argued that the Bill of Rights were “hotly debated” because many feared it “would actually undermine the main protections against tyranny.” According to George, the Constitution’s call for a “limited nature of the national government” was itself the chief protection against tyranny.

“The Constitution did not envision a national government of general jurisdiction … but rather a government of enumerated and delegated powers. A government that had authority over only specific areas of American life,” he said, adding that “all other powers” were reserved to the states or “American people themselves.”

 George said that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments have failed to curtail the growth of the federal government and that the Supreme Court has failed to keep the other two legislative and executive branches in check, resulting in a loss of freedom for the American people.

And no one checks the Supreme Court when they legislate and create rights from the bench.

Source:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/08/princeton-prof-common-misunderstanding-of-constitution-has-led-to-serious-erosion-of-freedom/

Supreme Court Vandals Destroy America's Foundation

The Bill of Rights was designed to check federal power and that includes the judiciary.  However, the godless heathens on the Supreme Court have developed decades of precedence to subvert federalism and freedom of religion by using an amendment that was designed to protect ex-slaves and their progeny.  The 14^th Amendment has been bastardized and now the very foundation of our republic is being destroyed by the vandals of totalitarianism.

A county clerk in Kentucky is a recent martyr on the altar of federalism.  Kim Davis refused to adhere to an unconstitutional ruling that has been imposed upon our republic.  Senator Rand Paul spoke of the significance of this violation of our basic rights.

(CNSNews.com) -- In reaction to the arrest and imprisonment today of county clerk Kim Davis because she refused to grant marriage licenses to homosexual couples, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said it was "absurd to put someone in jail for exercising their religious liberty."  He added that the heavy-handed "bully force" step by the state in this case was "a huge mistake" and would set the "movement back" for those trying "to redefine marriage.

If the gay rights community wants marriage equality then they’ll have to convince their fellow citizens.  Having a federal court bully the populace is unconstitutional and heretical to the principles of our nation.

Source:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/sen-paul-ky-clerks-arrest-its-absurd-put-someone-jail-exercising

Federalist and Libertarians Debate the 14th Amendment

It all started with Kurt T. Lash’s critique on a new book entitled, Overruled:  The Long War for the Control of the Supreme Court by Damon Root.  Since then think tanks and liberal blogs, such as the Huffington Post, are weighing in on the 14^th Amendment, and particularly, the privileges and immunities clause.

This debate is enlightening for a layperson, such as me, wading through the morass of modern judicial activism, biased academia, journalistic utopian philosophy, and historical fiction.  The 14^th Amendment encapsulates all the above and we can all thank Rep. John Bingham and his ambiguous first section for this legalistic swamp gas.

I for one agree with Mr. Lash’s constitutional federalism assessment.  Here is an excerpt from his latest review:

Recently, I critically reviewed Damon Root’s new book, Overruled: The Long-War for the Control of the Supreme Court(see Part 1 and Part 2). In response, Root and others have now taken to the blogosphere in defense of the book and of libertarian constitutionalism. Unfortunately, Root just digs a deeper hole and his defenders only illustrate the problem with libertarian readings of the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

Root’s basic argument is that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause, like the Comity Clause of Article IV, protects unenumerated economic rights. The only difference is that the Privileges or Immunities Clause transforms the equally protected state-secured rights of the Comity Clause into absolute substantive rights. Thus, the Supreme Court wrongly rejected unenumerated substantive economic rights in The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) and in later New Deal decisions like Carolene Products (1938).

In my review, I pointed to a large body of historical evidence suggesting that Root is wrong about the original understanding of the Privileges or Immunities Clause. The Clause refers to the rights of citizens of the United States, not the rights of citizens in the several states as it says in the Comity Clause. Where the latter refers to state-secured rights, the former refers to constitutionally enumerated rights.  The man who drafted the Privileges or Immunities Clause expressly distinguished his handiwork from the Comity Clause and insisted that his efforts were aimed at requiring the states to respect the enumerated rights of the federal Constitution, especially those listed in the Bill of Rights. As a matter of original meaning, the treaty-based language Representative John Bingham (R-OH) chose had long been understood as pointing to federally enumerated rights.

To read what others are saying about this debate click the links below:

Source:

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/07/15/root-digs-a-deeper-hole-the-equal-protection-of-economic-privileges-and-immunities/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-bernick/yes-the-fourteenth-amendm_b_7787926.html

http://www.johnlocke.org/newsletters/research/2015-07-22-86hf3gfvoakfnunum1qifit0i1-legal-update.html

Former Obama DHS Advisor: States' Rights Gone With Confederacy

This guy served in Barack Obama's Department of Homeland Security.  I believe this is the same guy who has ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and once tweeted Sharia is compatible with the U.S. Constitution.

Somebody should tell this moron that States' rights is part of our federalist system.  That's why they call it "federalism."  But hey, this guy is an Obama supporter.  He has as much understanding of our Constitution as his former boss.

 Source:
Weasel Zippers

Senator Ted Cruz Reintroduces State Marriage Defense Act

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has reintroduced the State Marriage Defense Act in the U.S. Senate.

“Even though the Supreme Court made clear in United States v. Windsor that the federal government should defer to state ‘choices about who may be married,’ the Obama Administration has disregarded state marriage laws enacted by democratically-elected legislatures to uphold traditional marriage,” Cruz said in a press release.

He added, “I support traditional marriage and we should reject attempts by the Obama Administration to force same-sex marriage on all 50 states. The State Marriage Defense Act helps safeguard the ability of states to preserve traditional marriage for their citizens.”

While you’re at it Senator, why don’t you reintroduce federalism and the U.S. Constitution?  The Obama administration and the federal judiciary have disregarded that as well.

Source: 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/ted-cruz-gay-marriage-115095.html#ixzz3ReBwZ8Kf

Washington D.C.'s War on American Citizens

Do you get the feeling that Washington D.C. has declared war on American citizens?  It seems that way to me.  Government agencies target those who don’t agree with big government elites who run that town.  To this day not one person has been prosecuted for the IRS or Fast and Furious scandals.  If you’re a government bureaucrat or politically connected with the Obama administration, you can do whatever you damn well please without consequence.

Christians can no longer own a business and practice their faith.  Federal judges have deemed gay marriage a civil right by bastardizing the 14^th Amendment and trampling over the First.  These activist judges have deemed states’ constitutions, unconstitutional.  Federalism, the basis of our Constitution, is on the brink of being obliterated.  So your property/business has become public domain and your state is a vassal to the federal ummah.  Are you feeling any freer?

And if that isn’t infuriating enough, Emperor Obama declared he will grant de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens without consent from our elected representatives.  King Obama heard from the two thirds who didn’t bother to vote, and apparently they want a Hugo Chavez.

What are republicans going to do when King Obama waves his scepter and legalizes all of these foreign nationals?  They already took impeachment and “shutting down the government” off the table.  So much for Article One Section Eight of the U.S. Constitution.

Americans have to ask themselves, are we citizens or subjects?  The Washington D.C. establishment thinks us the latter.

Supreme Court Rulings Undermined Federalism

When delegates to the Constitutional Convention presented a new form of government in 1787, they were met with skepticism, and in some cases, outright hostility.  The opposition, known as the Anti-Federalist, recognized the potential for a tyrannical, centralized government.  They foresaw an unchecked power that would trample upon liberty and self-governance.  The one branch they were particularly wary of was the federal judiciary.

The pseudonymous writer, Brutus, prophetically wrote that unelected and unaccountable judges would abuse their authority by interpreting the “spirit” of the Constitution and its “elastic clauses” in any form they wish.  They could fundamentally change our federalist system into a monolithic monstrosity.  In order to accomplish this, the judiciary must undermine the States.  Brutus wrote:

The judicial power will operate to effect, in the most certain, but yet silent and imperceptible manner, what is evidently the tendency of the constitution: — I mean, an entire subversion of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the individual states. Every adjudication of the supreme court, on any question that may arise upon the nature and extent of the general government, will affect the limits of the state jurisdiction. In proportion as the former enlarge the exercise of their powers, will that of the latter be restricted.

That the judicial power of the United States, will lean strongly in favour of the general government, and will give such an explanation to the constitution, as will favour an extension of its jurisdiction, is very evident from a variety of considerations.

One of those considerations was meddling in States’ elections.  A series of Supreme Court rulings dating back to the 1960’s subverted the political process by retarding the rights of a State’s self governance.  These judges –  this priestly class – molested federalism by dictating the manner with which States’ shall choose their senators and representatives.  This was by no means a federal consideration.  This was purely local.

The rulings in question are Baker v. Carr, Reynolds v. Sims, and Wesberry v. Sanders.  The Supreme Court fundamentally changed the legislature of States by dictating their districts and how they were to be represented.  Basically, rural citizens were to be dominated by urbanites.  Degenerate values that breed on city streets would emanate from state capitols and spread throughout the countryside.

More importantly, this reconfiguration would benefit a political party that advocates centralized government.  Having Democrats dominate state legislatures, they would draw districts that marginalize hard working, liberty loving citizens while packing federal congressional districts with teat squawkers, who are looking for an agent that would steal from his neighbors. 

And what was the catalyst for these Supreme Court rulings?  Why the 14^th Amendment of course.  Did you expect any other?

Source:  https://mises.org/daily/2335

http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus11.htm

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims/Dissent_Harlan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesberry_v._Sanders

Federal Bureaucracies Dominate Rule and Policy Making

The above video is the best I’ve seen when it comes to describing the power of federal bureaucracies.  I don’t share Susan Webb Yackee’s enthusiasm for the bureaucratic state, but I appreciate her insight on the rule and policy making of unelected officials and the insiders who influence the outcome of regulations.

As far as I’m concerned, this system that has been implemented by progressives in the early part of 20^th century is a direct assault on the principles of federalism and our Constitution.  Americans need to wake up and realize that the congressmen and senators we send to Washington D.C. have abrogated their responsibilities.  We are being ruled by unelected bureaucrats and political grafters.

Celebrating Diversity Through Homogenization

Ask a liberal what makes this country great, and they will tell you diversity is what makes this country great.  Our constitution and federalist principles don’t even register with these people.  Liberals are so accepting of diversity that they will use the federal bureaucracy to target tea partiers and constitutionalist.  If they don’t put you in your place by an unelected bureaucrat, the Supreme Court will step in and strike down laws passed by our elected representatives, and lecture us on how awful of a people we are.  Liberals celebrate diversity all right.  They celebrate diversity through homogenization.

The Supreme Court’s ruling striking down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is another example of a judicial smack down.   Our elected representatives passed a law stating that the federal government only recognized a marriage between one woman and one man.  Well, no longer.  Here is an excerpt from American Progress:

Section 3 of DOMA—a federal law passed in 1996 that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman for the purpose of federal administrative policies—denied LGBT couples access to more than 1,000 federal programs and benefits available to opposite-sex married couples. And because the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, incorporated Section 3’s definition of marriage in immigration law and policies, one of the benefits denied to approximately 24,700 LGBT couples was the ability to sponsor a foreign-born spouse for family-based immigration. As a result, either some LGBT spouses of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents were deported or LGBT Americans were forced to choose between the people they love and the country they love. This practice violated a basic principle of American immigration policy: family reunification. Since the Obama administration is on record favoring same-sex marriage, USCIS should immediately begin processing LGBT spousal immigrant-visa applications the same way it processes applications for opposite-sex couples.

So now we have a bastardization of a federal law that recognizes same-sex marriage in only the states that allow this abomination.  You can damn well bet this is just the beginning.  Those who value traditional marriage will be harassed.  Religious organizations will be sued for not sanctifying gay unions.  Anyone who speaks out against the LGBT community will lose their jobs or their businesses.  Doubt me?  It’s already happening.

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson has filed a suit against a florist who refused to serve as the flower supplier for a same-sex wedding.

Gay marriage was legalized and went into effect in 2012, and hundreds of gay couples have filed for marriage licenses. The law is now being tested in a case that pits the state against Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts owner Barronelle Stutzman of Richland, Wash.

Ms. Stutzman said in a March interview with KEPR that she turned down a customer’s request to supply his same-sex wedding ceremony with flowers because of religious reasons. The man, Robert Ingersoll, was a 10-year customer of the shop, she told KEPR.

“[Mr. Ingersoll] said he decided to get married and before he got through, I grabbed his hand and said, ‘I am sorry. I can’t do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ.’ We hugged each other and he left, and I assumed it was the end of the story,” she said to KEPR.

But it wasn’t. Mr. Ingersoll and partner Curt Reed took to the online community to tell their flower-shop refusal — and that’s when the attorney general’s office got involved, Raw Story reported.

 

Let’s celebrate more of that diversity.

Source:   http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/11/wash-state-attorney-general-sues-florist-refusing-/#ixzz2XNFtsl00

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/06/26/68033/what-the-doma-decision-means-for-lgbt-binational-couples/

Gov. Sam Brownback Declares Federal Gun-Grabbers Beware

Even though the U.S. Senate was unable to muster the votes for a gun control bill this time around, it doesn’t mean they’ll stop.  They never stop.  States must pass laws that protect their citizens from ambitious D.C. politicians.  Governor Sam Brownback of Kansas signed a law doing just that:

(TOPEKA, Kan.)—

Gov. Sam Brownback has signed a bill into law declaring that the federal government has no power to regulate guns manufactured, sold and kept only in Kansas.

The legislation signed Tuesday also applies to ammunition made, sold and kept in the state. The new law takes effect by the end of next week and makes it a felony for a federal agent to enforce any law, regulation, order or treaty regulating such items.

But the bill also says federal agents won't be arrested or detained if they face trial for violating the law.

Source:  http://www.kansascw.com/kscw/news/kwch-news-jlr-brownback-gun-legislation-20130416,0,6105346.story

Evolution from Federalism to Totalitarianism

The past couple of weeks have been interesting.  The steady, unrelenting assault on citizenship and personal liberty is something to behold.  Here in the Piedmont region of North Carolina, the media – both newspaper and liberal talk radio, have renounced the principles of our Constitution.  Actually, I don’t believe the “broadcast specialist” at WBT 1110 AM understand the concept of federalism.

 

 

 

Recently, both the morning and afternoon local “talent” criticized two North Carolina republicans for trying to protect our local governments from the abuses of the ACLU and the federal government by introducing a bill that reemphasized our Founders’ intent on the First Amendment.  Somehow, the progressives have equated prayer at county commissioner meetings as establishing a religion.  This conclusion is historically inaccurate.

The establishment of a religion, as our founders meant, is the federal government imposing a tax on the several states to support a state sanctioned “religion.”  A religion being Anglican, Congregationalist, Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, etc…etc…  A religion was not considered Hinduism, Islamic, Buddhism, Judaism or Christianity. 
    
Look, the majority of us are victims of a public education, and to a greater extent the indoctrination of our universities.  But when we reach adulthood, you’d think a little intellectual curiosity would carry the day, especially those who pontificate on the great issues of our time.  I ask where did we go wrong.

 It all started back in 1857, when political science was introduced at Columbia and John Hopkins.  Francis Lieber was a German immigrant deeply influenced by Hegel.   Progressives such as Woodrow Wilson embraced this foreign philosophy.  Here is an excerpt from Bradley C. S.  Watson’s Living Constitution, Dying Faith:

 

The birth of American political science created a bastion within the academy for the view that perpetual societal improvement is possible and inevitable, partly because of evolutionary unfolding, but partly with aid of the right kind of superintendence.  The institutional and theoretical departures implied by this view would have made the new political science unrecognizable to the American Founders, whose “new science” in its dismissive contempt for traditional political philosophy, unchanging principles of political right, and ideas and institutions from prior centuries, turned its back on the Founders.  For the most part, it still does.  American political science therefore remains almost genetically incapable of understanding the Constitution of the fathers.
 

Now, we have people like this guy teaching college kids.
 

 

 Evolution at its finest.   

Source:  http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4702