Anyone Up for a Three Way ... Marriage?

Justice Samuel Alito asked if polygamy would be around the corner if gay marriage was forced upon the States during oral arguments in a recent Supreme Court hearing.  Here is the exchange:

Alito: Well, what if there's no -- these are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it's not--it's not the sort of polygamous relationship, polygamous marriages that existed in other societies and still exist in some societies today. And let's say they're all consenting adults, highly educated. They're all lawyers. What would be the ground under--under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case? What would be the logic of denying them the same right?

Bonauto: Number one, I assume the States would rush in and say that when you're talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we've had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people. Setting that aside, even assuming it is within the fundamental right –

Alito: But--well, I don't know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before, recognizing that is a substantial break. Maybe it's a good one. So this is no -- why is that a greater break?

Bonauto: The question is one of--again, assuming it's within the fundamental right, the question then becomes one of justification. And I assume that the States would come in and they would say that there are concerns about consent and coercion. If there's a divorce from the second wife, does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child of the second wife? There are issues around who is it that makes the medical decisions, you know, in the time of crisis. I assume there'd be lots of family disruption issues, setting aside issues of coercion and consent and so on that just don't apply here, when we're talking about two consenting adults who want to make that mutual commitment for as long as they shall be. So that's my answer on that.

This lawyer is concerned about coercion and consent?  Aren’t the citizens of a state coerced into accepting gay marriage without their consent?  That’s what this whole court case is about, isn’t it?  And since when are the concerns of a state taken into consideration these days?

This lawyer cannot be serious.  Once gay marriage is forced down our throats, polygamy will be next.  Hell, a Green Party leader in the U.K. is considering legalizing polygamous marriages, and as we all know Great Britain is the standard bearer for the left.  Breitbart.com reported the following:

Green Party leader Natalie Bennett has said her party would consider allowing polygamous marriages and civil partnerships in the UK.

 

Speaking in a Q&A session with PinkNews readers, the Green leader responded to a question from Redfern Jon Barrett, who asked: “As someone living with his two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship, I would like to know what your stance is on polyamory rights. Is there room for Green support on group civil partnerships or marriages?”

Bennett responded: “We have led the way on many issues related to the liberalisation of legal status in adult consenting relationships, and we are open to further conversation and consultation.”

Notice this guy was asking about marriage with two other guys.  That slippery slope everyone warned about is covered in Vaseline.

Source:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsnewscom-staff/justice-alito-why-not-let-4-lawyers-marry-one-another

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05/01/green-party-open-to-permitting-three-way-marriages/

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

Totalitarianism is Here! Get Over It!

Let’s stop the pretense.  The U.S. Constitution has been scrapped.  It’s time to recognize the tenets and principles that protected citizens and states from an abusive central government has been undermined and replaced.  We no longer have the right of self-governance.  Progressive judges, bureaucrats and politicians have seen to that. 

The latest domino to fall is States’ constitutions that forbade gay marriage.  The Supreme Court basically acquiesced to rogue rulings by inferior courts by not hearing their cases.  So now we have a country divided; those who are free and others enslaved by federal tyranny.  And the cudgel these judges use is the bastardized 14^th Amendment.  You don't need an army when you have the courts.

 

Americans are at a crossroads.  The character and institutions that have made this country great are under assault.   Christian principles and modesty have been discarded by liberals who believe morality is subjective.  Everyone has a right to be a deviant.  There should be no limitations on depravity.  After all, who are you to judge me?  That is their mantra.  And if you don’t like it, well that’s tough.  Get over it!

In the meantime, Christians who practice their faith in their professions and businesses are sued.  They are told if you want to own a business, you need to leave your Christianity at the pneumatic doors, or else.

 

Progressives believe they have won a great victory.  And they have.  They’ve demolished the bastion of federalism, States’ rights and self-determination, by using the courts and the 14^th Amendment to advance their cause of homogenized thought and forced conformity.

I do hope these liberals video their victory mantra for their grandchildren and great grandchildren.  I’m sure it will comfort them, as they live under a totalitarian state.  They can watch grandpa and grandma tell them over and over again: That’s Tough!  Get Over It! 

Source:  http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/06/politics/scotus-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

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

America's Black Robed Pharisees

All bow to America’s black robed Pharisees.  These arbiters of social justice have deigned all of us mere plebeians who’ve just crawled out of the primordial ooze.  Why we’re fresh from wiping the mud out of our eyes.  How dare we govern ourselves by passing state laws that don’t comport to their superior sense of morality?  Just who in the hell do we think we are?  God doesn’t exist.  Federal judges are the supreme beings in today’s America! 

The Associated Press published an article praising these demigods for striking down States’ constitutional amendments that banned gay marriage.  And what vehicle did this priestly class use to deny a citizen’s right to self-government.  Why the 14^th Amendment of course.

The 14^th Amendment was borne out of war.  It was designed to punish those who dared to proclaim their independence from Northern aggressors.  This amendment was used to disenfranchise, murder and steal property from the vanquished.  The 14^th Amendment should be called the Occupier Amendment, for it was the bayonet that brought obedience.

The equal protection clause was the only noble clause in the Occupier Amendment.  It was designed to ensure ex-slaves and their progeny were granted all rights of citizenship and treated the same as anyone else under state laws.   But of course, federal judges bastardized the text and the intent of the 14^thAmendment.  Now, it means anything an activist judge wants it to mean.

One must ask why this amendment is still on the books.  The Civil War ended 150 years ago.  Surely, it has outlived its usefulness.  The answer is the 14^th is the only vehicle that allows unelected agents of the federal government to subvert the 9^th and 10^th Amendments of the Constitution, and marginalize those who believe in a limited central government.    

 One of our biggest threats to liberty and property is a rogue judiciary.  The Anti-Federalist believed unelected and unaccountable judges would trample upon States, while concentrating power unto a centralized government.  These oracles were truly prophetic.

Source:

  http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_JUDGES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Federal Judge Dictates What NC License Plates Say

The Bill of Rights was implemented, or should I say demanded, by the States to protect their sovereignty and the rights of their citizens from the abuses of the Federal Government.  The Constitution wouldn’t have passed without it.  Not one State would’ve cast aside the Articles of Confederation for this new form of government without this indemnification.  But now we have federal judges impeding upon what is left of a States prerogative:

RALEIGH A federal judge has ruled that North Carolina cannot issue “Choose Life” license plates without offering a choice of plates with a different viewpoint.

U.S. District Court Judge James Fox ruled Friday that the state’s attempt to offer “Choose Life” plates only is unconstitutional because it is “viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.”

The ruling comes 15 months after the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of four "pro-choice automobile owners" who contended the "Choose Life" plates were state-sponsored discrimination.

Attempts to persuade the Republican-led legislature to amend legislation to include “Respect Choice” plates or “Trust Women. Respect Choice” plates failed.

No “Choose Life” plates have been issued. Fox halted sales while the ACLU lawsuit was pending.

The 2011 law, which approved other specialty plates, too, would have directed proceeds from the "Choose Life" plates to the Carolina Pregnancy Care Fellowship, a nonprofit pregnancy care ministry.

“This is a great victory for the free speech rights of all North Carolinians, regardless of their point of view on reproductive freedom,” Chris Brook, legal director of the ACLU’s North Carolina Legal Foundation, said in a statement. “The government cannot create an avenue of expression for one side of a contentious political issue while denying an equal opportunity to citizens with the opposite view.”

The Progressives are all about precedents; not principles.  Maybe they should consult Barron v. Baltimore.  The Marshall Supreme Court ruled that the first eight amendments in the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States, only to the Federal Government.  How convenient that today’s justices forget about that. 

Source: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/10/3718290/federal-judge-state-cant-offer.html#storylink=cpy

http://www.basicsproject.org/constitutional_literacy/government/incorporation.htm

Illegal Immigration IS a State Issue; Not Just Federal

Illegal immigration is not just a federal issue; it’s also a State issue.  But try telling that to the Libtards at the Charlotte Observer.  Citizenship is of no value to the communist on that editorial board.  They believe Obama has an amnesty mandate after squeaking out a victory.  Never mind that the Republicans still have control of the House of Representatives.

But hey, one redeeming factor is that these communist  believe its okay that nation states have borders.  Don’t believe me?  Here is an excerpt from the Disturber:

Securing the borders is fine. But true immigration reform tackles bigger issues – what to do with the 11 million undocumented immigrants already here and U.S. employers’ demand for cheap labor that fuels the continued migration.

Anyone with an iota of intelligence can remember the Simpson-Mazzoli Act.  That fiasco was supposed to put an end to our illegal immigration problem.  But amnesty didn’t work out.  Did it?  But solutions are not what the editors at the Charlotte Observer are about.  These “communist” are all about dominance and political power. 

It’s a shame that we have people in this country who divide us along racial lines.  People, like the editors at the Charlotte Observer, need to divide Americans in order to dominate us.  They need the hyphenated-American to wield their power.  And here is an example:    

This year’s presidential election underscored the importance of the matter to a key constituency for both political parties: Hispanic voters. President Barack Obama campaigned on pursuing comprehensive immigration reform. Late last year, he instituted a policy to not deport undocumented immigrants who are students or were brought here as children, and who had no criminal records. Obama won election, helped mightily by the 70 percent of Hispanic votes he received.

The editors at the Charlotte Observer see us as subset human beings, and not as Americans.  What’s worse, they couldn’t care less about the suffering of their fellow North Carolinians.  Illegal aliens take jobs away from those who are willing and able to work.  They also use up valuable State resources.  Resources they are not entitled too. 

Illegal immigration IS a State issue; not just a federal.  It is the States who are on the front lines, and they have every RIGHT to protect their citizens from this invasion. 

 Source: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/10/3713074/immigration-reform-is-federal.html#storylink=cpy

Gov.-Elect Pat McCrory Unsure About Implementing N.C. Obamacare Exchange

Gov.-elect Pat McCrory hasn’t decided if he is for or against an N.C. state run Obamacare exchange.

RALEIGH — Amid growing sentiment by conservatives that states can derail Obamacare by refusing to create health care exchanges, Gov.-elect Pat McCrory says he has not decided whether to join other Republican governors in following that path.

“He’s going to work with the General Assembly in determining the best course for North Carolina going forward,” said Chris Walker, communications director for the McCrory transition team.

As it stands, Walker said, “there is a lack of clarity from Washington” on specifics of implementing the exchanges under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Obamacare’s official title.

Hopefully, North Carolina’s General Assembly which is dominated by Republicans, aren’t foolish enough to fall for this statist canard.  But apparently, there is one moron in the Senate who believes the state of North Carolina will have a say in how this exchange is going to run:

 

McCrory is not sold on that model and could choose another option after he is sworn in. In addition, State Senate leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, has said the General Assembly must have a voice in how the state approaches the exchanges.

“What [McCrory] won’t do is have a federally run state program” that leaves decisions to the feds and pushes costs to the state, Walker said.

“There’s a lot of unanswered questions,” Walker said. “The federal government isn’t even prepared for implementation at this point.”

Well State Senate leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, I’m sure you have to be aware of the rule changes in Medicaid for the mentally ill.  Those rules were changed by the feds.  Now look at the problems this state has in finding funds to house these people.  Do you truly believe that you’ll have any say when an HHS bureaucrat imposes new rules and regulations through these exchanges?  Wake up, fool!

 

 

 

Source:  http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=9729

http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/11/12/2480017/2000-could-lose-their-lodging.html#storylink=cpy

States Can Provide Post Mortem on Obamacare

The Achilles heel of Obamacare is lack of States’ participation.  The progressives thought they could force their agenda down our throats without providing any specificity or guidelines.  Obama and his fascist acolytes believed they could yell jump, and we plebeians would ask “how high.”  As of now, 20 States have boldly proclaimed they will not set up exchanges. 

Some national policy experts say crucial details covering myriad and complicated organizational and operational matters are missing. They’re advocating that states forcefully reject creating their own exchanges.

Wes Goodman, director of conservative coalitions and state outreach of the Republican Study Committee, a caucus of conservative U.S. House members, said Obamacare is “bad policy, it’s bad politics, and it’s not going to work.”

With more than 20 states declaring they will not set up state exchanges, and GOP governors controlling 30 states, the Obama administration is desperate for collaboration, Goodman said.

“They’re trying to get conservatives, they’re trying to get Republicans to put their fingerprints on the murder weapon here,” Goodman said. He said the time to get conservatives to buy in to the law was in 2009 and 2010, before it passed. Instead, Congress enacted the law without a single Republican vote.

Not only will we not have our fingerprints on the murder weapon, we’ll be able to chalk the corpse, lay out the crime scene tape and testify the forensic details in the post mortem.  Carolina Journal provided the outline for this CSI episode:

“The subsidies that flow through the health insurance exchanges are not authorized unless the state creates its own exchange,” said Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute.

“This is why it’s so important to stop states from creating their own exchanges and expanding Medicaid,” Cannon said. “States are under no obligation to create an exchange. It is not a mandate.”

He said the exchanges, which would cost between $10 million and $100 million per year to operate, and states would have to pay for them.

“Congress authorized no funds for the federal fallback exchanges that the feds are supposed to create if states don’t create their own,” Cannon said. “That’s because Congress didn’t think that states were going to reject [them]. They thought that once Obamacare reached the states, they’d be greeted as liberators.”

Cannon notes that health insurance premiums are increasing as insurers anticipate higher costs as the law takes effect. Moreover, he said, “The federal government will be able to drive [health insurance] carriers out of business by picking winners and granting these guys special breaks.”

States that refuse to establish exchanges could exempt many people from the individual mandate that requires them to purchase health insurance, he said.

Employers from those states could be exempted from providing coverage as well.

A federal exchange is barred under the law from offering tax credits to subsidize premiums, Cannon said. Under a state exchange, the IRS pays the refundable credits directly to insurers to cover eligible individuals and families who buy their health plans on the exchange. The size of the subsidy is based on income, and insured participants pay the difference between the subsidy and premium costs.

Under the Obamacare employer mandate, most U.S. companies with at least 50 employees would be required to provide federally approved health insurance or pay a $2,000 tax per uninsured worker, with exclusions for the first 30 employees.

Because the federal exchanges aren’t authorized to issue the credits, employers could not be assessed the $2,000 tax to fund them, Cannon said.

States that opt out of state and federal exchanges could lure companies to relocate from states with the exchanges, and the lower tax environment would be more conducive to job growth at existing firms, Cannon said.

Despite clear language in the law preventing federal exchanges from distributing tax credits, the IRS wrote a rule allowing it. Oklahoma, which has refused to set up a state exchange, has filed a legal challenge to the rule.

“The Oklahoma lawsuit is, I think, the most important thing happening right now in the Obamacare repeal/rebellion movement,” Cannon said.

Even if Oklahoma loses its suit, states that did not create their own exchanges would have a “nuclear option” of delicensing health plans that sell through the federal exchange and collect the federal subsidies or tax revenue, he said. That would, effectively, block a federal exchange from operating.

“The fact that the Obama administration is breaking the law to spend money and impose taxes that Congress never authorized gives you the hook,” Cannon said.

 This isn’t over by a long shot.

Source:  http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=9729

America's Illegal Alien Schizophrenic Disorder

America has a schizophrenic disorder when it comes to illegal aliens.  The federal government has outlawed employment of the “undocumented.”  Yet, the Supreme Court has ruled that States and local governments must educate – at taxpayers’ expense – their children.  The States want federal immigration laws to be enforced, but the Obama administration refuses to do its job, and of course the Supreme Court has backed the Anointed One’s noncompliance.

Some of those very States, who are bitching about this invasion, have extended workers’ compensation to injured illegal aliens.  So, let’s recap.  The federal government has prohibited the employment of illegal aliens.  The States are upset that the federal government isn’t doing its job.  And to top it off, last year, the Supreme Court refused to hear a Louisiana case involving an illegal alien and workers’ compensation.

Are we dysfunctional or what?

Source:  http://www.aascif.org/public/jan_feb_mar06/alien.htm

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/immig/state-immigration-laws-january-to-june-2011.aspx

http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20110302/NEWS/110309984

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/28/chart-of-the-day-illegal-aliens-get-what/

http://law.justia.com/cases/north-carolina/court-of-appeals/1999/98-1527-7.html

Obama's Hostile Carpetbagger Policies

The States and their citizens haven’t witnessed such hostilities from an overbearing federal government since the time of Reconstruction. The Obama administration has the vindictive attitude of a victorious Northern congressman, who instead of easing the conquered South back into the union, wanted to punish them and turn their territory into a giant penitentiary.

Under the Obama administration, States are treated as vassals without the concomitant protection under which such an arrangement is implied. We have been invaded by illegal aliens. States are trying to protect their citizens from this Third World horde, only to be stymied by Obama’s Justice Department and Homeland Security. Hell, this administration refuses to enforce the law, in effect aiding and abetting this invasion.

Obama’s hostility doesn’t end there. He, along with his surrogates – the modern day carpetbaggers – dictate to the States who can and can’t be funded with taxpayer largess (can anyone say Planned Parenthood). Voter rolls can’t be updated without the approval of the Justice Department. The thugs at the EPA have targeted energy producing States with specious “global warming” regulations. And a week doesn’t go by in which some new executive order is proclaimed from on-high.

President Andrew Johnson faced the same kind of mentality during his tenure in office. The Radical Republicans – the progressives of that era – wanted to punish and coerce Southerners at the point of a bayonet. They wanted to confiscate and redistribute property. They discouraged freedman (ex-slaves) from work. Worse, they taught the “negro” to hate, and stoked racial strife. But what was most dear to the Radicals was centralization. Here is an excerpt from one of President Johnson’s vetoes:

They interfere with the municipal regulations of the States, with the relations existing exclusively between a State and its citizens, or between inhabitants of the same State – an absorption and assumption of power by the General Government which, if acquiesced in, must sap and destroy our federative system of limited powers, and break down the barriers which preserve the rights of the States. It is another step, or rather stride, to centralization and the concentration of all legislative power in the National Government.

Today’s Radicals are the Democrats. Centralization of power is their goal. Obliterating the sovereignty of States is paramount. Woe to those who think otherwise. If Obama wins a second term, I wouldn’t be surprised to see another Reconstruction measure reinstituted: loyalty oaths.

Two States Will Introduce Obamacare Nullification Laws

Despite the Democrats ‘Get over it’ attitude about Obamacare, many patriots refuse to be subjected by this tyrannical law. Since we couldn’t count on the Supreme Court to do the right thing and strike this monstrosity down, the next line of defense rest upon the States. So far, two are stepping up to the plate and will introduce legislation that would nullify this federal power grab. The Tenth Amendment Center reported the following:

In a statement to the Tenth Amendment Center, McHose indicated that trusting the federal courts to fix federal problems isn’t working. She said, “Americans were always misguided to trust the good intentions of the unelected Court. The Court being the failsafe of the establishment.”

A861 not only addresses the insurance mandate, the focus of most health care freedom legislation and legal action. It takes the next step and declares the entire act null and void within the state of New Jersey. The bill itself provides the rational for nullification, based on the Tenth Amendment. It includes the following:

“The assumption of power that the federal government has made by enacting the ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’ interferes with the right of the people of the State of New Jersey to regulate health care as they see fit, and makes a mockery of James Madison’s assurance in Number 45 of the Federalist Papers that the “powers delegated” to the federal government are ‘few and defined,’ while those of the states are ‘numerous and indefinite.’”

The New Jersey Nullification Act also has teeth. It continues:

Any public officer or employee of this State who seeks to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the United States government in violation of this act shall be guilty of a disorderly persons offense and, notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:43-3 to the contrary, for every such offense shall be fined not less than $500 nor more than $1,000, or be imprisoned for a term of not more than two years, or both, in the discretion of the court.

The federal government needs states’ cooperation in order to implement Obamacare. Nullification is the second to last tactic we have to safeguard our liberties; the other is civil disobedience, and possibly a revolution. Hopefully, it won’t come to that.

Source: http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/07/two-and-counting-new-jersey-to-consider-obamacare-nullification/

Obama Thugs Declare War on Texas Women

Obama and his thuggish administration have moved their racketeering operation to the state of Texas. Planned Parenthood is a known money launderer for the Democratic Party, and the people of the lone star state are fed up with the corruption that is inherent within that organization. This abortion provider has been banned from Medicaid funding. The Obamacrats have declared war on the state of Texas.

The Obama administration made it official on Friday by following through on its threat to cease providing funding for a women’s health program in Texas that serves low-income women because the state passed a law saying the program can’t fund abortion businesses.

The state banned Planned Parenthood from participating in the program along with any other agencies that do abortions. In response, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius traveled to Houston to make the announcement that the Obama administration would cut funding of the program and would no longer continue the waiver that Texas had previously been given to continue funding of the program temporarily.

The Obama administration claims banning Planned Parenthood violates the rules governing Medicaid while Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Texas officials disagree and maintain rules for Medicaid allow states the right to determine the qualifications necessary for those agencies allowed to participate in the program, which serves approximately 130,000 low-income women in Texas and provides cancer screenings, family planning and other health services to women.

States have the right to determine who receives Medicaid funding. But this thuggish administration knows who butters their bread and will sacrifice poor women to ensure Obama gets his cut in federal dollars via campaign donations. The president of the Family Research Council stated it the best:

In a statement to LifeNews, Family Research Council Action expressed outrage at President Obama’s decision.

“President Obama made a vow when he was running for president that he would stand by abortion giant Planned Parenthood – and that he has done time and time again,” said FRC president Tony Perkins. “He has peppered his administration with radical pro-abortion officials, and just last year he threatened to shut down the whole government if one dollar of federal money was halted to the billion-dollar organization. Now he is willing to risk the health of 130,000 low-income women unless the harbingers of death at Planned Parenthood get their share.”

“This administration needs to stop using women and the unborn as pawns in funding President Obama’s radical allies. Some on the left have said there is a ‘war on women’ – they are correct, and its lead general is President Barack Obama,” he added.

And that’s the truth. The real war on women is being perpetuated by Obama’s thugs, and Texas is a perfect example of it.

Source: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/12/obama-cuts-womens-health-program-after-planned-parenthood-dropped/

Nullification: The Movie

Nullification is the only way to check that beast from the D.C. swamp.  Until we repeal the 14^th, 17^th, and 16^th Amendments we don’t have a chance against the bureaucratic machine that is grinding our liberties into pulp. 

Hopefully, this movie will help awaken Americans to this new form of slavery:  A government of the federal bureaucrat, by the federal bureaucrat, and for the federal bureaucrat.  

States Are Setting Up Currency Exchanges

Not only is the world apprehensive about U.S. fiscal policies of these past few years; so are the states. South Carolina, Virginia, and now North Carolina have introduced bills that would mandate that precious metals replace or act as a substitute for our federal currency.


The profligate spending and naked power grab of our nation’s health care system by the Democratic Party have put everyone on alert. The states are not only setting up federally mandated health care exchanges; they are also establishing exchanges for currency:

South Carolina Rep. Mike Pitts has introduced legislation that would mandate that gold and silver coins replace federal currency as legal tender in his state.


In an interview, Pitts told Hotsheet that he believes that "if the federal government continues to spend money at the rate it's spending money, and if it continues to print money at the rate it's printing money, our economic system is going to collapse."


"The Germans felt their system wouldn't collapse, but it took a wheelbarrow of money to buy a loaf of bread in the 1930s," he said. "The Soviet Union didn't think their system would collapse, but it did. Ours is capable of collapsing also."

Everyone is watching this train wreck. The IMF, China, and Russia have all proclaimed that the international community needs a world currency. We are witnessing the death of the dollar; thank you Democratic Party.



Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6217403-503544.html

http://www.thefinancialphysician.com/blog/?p=5611

http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/nc-renegade-exclusive-first-draft-of-the-north-carolina-constitutional-hard-tender-act/

Pensions a Burden on States? Quite!

When I read the Charlotte Observer, I do so with a suspect eye. This past Sunday the Disturber published an article by Kevin G. Hall entitled, “Pensions a burden on States? Not quite.” And had Mr. Hall read the Carolina Journal, He might have given more credence to this particular paragraph he had written:


The most recent Public Fund Survey by the National Association of State Retirement Administrators showed that, on average, state and local pensions were 78.9 percent funded, with about $688 billion in unfunded promises to pensioners. Critics suggest that the real number is at least $1 trillion or higher, using less-optimistic market assumptions.

Well, here is a non-assumption. North Carolina has cooked the books, as reported by the aforementioned Carolina Journal:

But one fiscal analyst who reviews state and local budgets across the nation says Perdue’s method of accounting for the state pension plan is nothing more than a gimmick. Eileen Norcross, the lead researcher on state and local policy issues with the Mercatus Institute at George Mason University, says Perdue’s planned contribution to the Teachers and State Employees' Retirement System is inadequate, but it’s the least of the state’s pension-funding woes.


Norcross says North Carolina and other states have understated dramatically the size of their pension liabilities, and have failed to provide enough money to prevent large either tax increases or major cuts in retirement benefits down the road.


Norcross projects the market value of North Carolina’s pension liability at more than $92 billion, and it’s only 60 percent funded, with an unfunded liability of $36 billion. That’s 15 times higher than the unfunded liability of $2.4 billion estimated in the state’s financial reports.

She bases her projections on the amount of money the pension fund will have to pay in benefits rather than the estimated growth in its assets. For years, she says, states have been calculating the value of their pension liabilities by looking at much money pension assets can earn through investing. “The problem with that, though, is the value of your liabilities is independent from the value of your assets,” Norcross said. She says states should look first at their future pension liability and then work backward to set aside enough money today


North Carolina’s unfunded liabilities are 15 times higher than stated. Now, imagine the other 49 states that have not been so forthright. Pensions a burden on states? Quite!

Source: http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=7486

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/03/06/2114757/pensions-a-burden-on-states-not.html#ixzz1Fy6cTTs4

Rep. Patrick McHenry: Era of Bailouts is Over

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) is chairman of the House Oversight Committee’s subcommittee on TARP and bailouts. The first order of business is to investigate the effectiveness of this program and whether to help out states with their budget shortfalls. Liberal states are the most egregious as reported by the News and Observer:


California, New York and Illinois are among states struggling most with debt. So far, 44 states and the District of Columbia have a projected shortfall of $125 billion, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities

That shouldn’t surprise anyone. McHenry stated that these irresponsible beggars will not receive a taxpayer bailout:

McHenry criticized states for not preparing better for the end of the 2009 stimulus funding that the federal government poured into state budgets in the past two years. He and the panel's top Democrat, U.S. Rep. Mike Quigley of Illinois agreed that the states shouldn't come to Washington for a bailout.


"The era of the bailout is over," McHenry said.

I remember when Bill Clinton said that the era of big government was over. I hope McHenry’s words don’t ring as hollow.

McHenry, who earned a reputation in the past few years as one of the House's partisan bulldogs in the press, was gracious and accommodating in Wednesday's hearing. He offered the first GOP questioning opportunity - a perk traditionally reserved for the chairman - to a fellow Republican. And he offered the first Democratic opportunity to U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, who is the ranking member of the full Oversight Committee.


Quigley thanked McHenry publicly for being "accommodating and cordial to me and my staff," and the two conferred often during testimony.

I hope McHenry doesn’t bring a knife to a gunfight.



Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02/10/979251/tarp-panel-meets-sets-grumpy-tone.html#ixzz1DcEWWsUb

States Have Mandate to Oppose Obamacare

Republicans have made huge gains at the state and local level this past election. The activism of tea partiers and their vocal opposition to Obamacare, and the outrageous spending at the federal level, propelled a huge turnout against a grasping, overreaching central government. A mandate has been issued: it is time to stop the power grab in Washington D.C...

Our country has struggled with our Constitution and duel sovereignty between the states and federal government since the birth of our union. It ended at gun point with the industrial North victorious over the agrarian South. Ever since then, power has slowly been taken away from the states. And one of the biggest proponents of a big statist government is the federal judiciary.

Federal judges have conferred the power of judicial review onto themselves. It started with Chief Justice John Marshall and gained momentum in the 20th century under FDR. Now, the Supreme Court is considered the sole arbiter of our Constitution. This abdication was not the intent of our founding fathers; all branches of government including the states have a responsibility to uphold and defend the Constitution. That responsibility has been relegated to a handful of unelected judges who are unwilling to cede power.

The sovereignty of the states has fallen prey to these arrogant magistrates. It wasn’t always so. There was a time when a Supreme Court decision didn’t carry the weight that it does now. During the presidency of Andrew Jackson, the Bank of the United States was under attack, not only by the president, but by the states as well. The Bank was corrupt and the states were fighting back. They decided to impose a tax that would slowly kill this parasitic monstrosity. A lawsuit was filed: McCulloch v. Maryland. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of BUS citing the “supremacy clause” in the Constitution.

But back in the early nineteenth century, a Supreme Court decision was just an opinion and didn’t carry any weight. The states ignored the ruling. Ohio imposed a $50,000-per-year-tax on each of the two branches in the state. The BUS refused to pay. Ohio sent its tax auditor to collect the money. The bank’s management wouldn’t comply, so the auditor leaped over the counter and helped himself. Needless to say, the BUS filed a federal lawsuit. The Ohio state legislature flipped the finger at the federal government with the following declaration:

We are aware of the doctrine, that the Federal courts are exclusively vested with jurisdiction to declare, in the last resort, the true interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. To this doctrine…we can never give our assent.

President Andrew Jackson also offered his opinion on the Supreme Court’s decision on BUS:

To this conclusion I cannon assent…Congress and the President as well as the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. It is as much of the duty of the House of the Representatives, of the Senate, and the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented…The opinion of the [Supreme Court] justices has no authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive…but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.

Obamacare is completely dependent upon the cooperation of the states. Even that liberal rag the New York Times agrees:

How much the administration can, or should, compromise in ways that could dilute the effect of the new law in the next few years is a subject of much debate, depending on the politics from state to state or the economic dynamics in a particular market.


Policy experts say much of the authority to enforce the new law rests with the states, and they say the federal government may have little ultimate control over whether insurers will keep offering coverage in specific markets

The key to defeating this statist piece of legislation is to not enforce it. If lawsuits are filed, we need not to participate. If federal judges rule from on high, all we have to do is ignore them. They are dependent upon our compliance and we should do what Ohio did to the Supreme Court and the Federal Government in the early nineteenth century: give them the finger.

Source:  Hamilton's Curse by Thomas J. Dilorenzo

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/business/07insure.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1286456712-y86bw9dTH0NWQo8Wnl0rmA

Illegal Aliens Bankrupting States

States and municipalities are under financial strains.  The cost associated with illegal aliens has run its course.  Texas has a budget short fall of $18 billion.  The cost to house and provide medical care to prisoners who are from foreign countries amounts to $250 million.

Jerry McGinty, the Texas Department of Corrections' chief financial officer, said state prisons held 11,766 offenders who are foreign citizens in July. He said it costs the state about $171 million per year to hold them, although the federal government reimburses about 10 percent of that total.

Rick Allgeyer, director of research for the Health and Human Services Commission, said illegal immigrant health care - mostly emergency hospital care - cost the state nearly $100 million last year.

The cost of educating illegals is staggering.  The following stats are from the Pew Hispanic Research study:

The U.S. Census Bureau just released 2008 figures showing the national average total per-pupil funding from all revenue sources was $12,028. Although estimates of the number of school-age children of illegal immigrants don’t separate those attending public vs. private schools, it’s reasonable to assume that nearly all attend public schools since most come from lower-income families. Therefore, if one multiplies $12,028 by the roughly 3.7 million students with illegal-immigrant parents, then one gets a national total funding cost of $44.5 billion.

The Supreme Court is responsible for the outrageous cost of educating illegals.

In 1982, the Supreme Court rules in Plyler v. Doe , 457 U.S. 202 (1982), that public schools were prohibited from denying immigrant students access to a public education. The Court stated that undocumented children have the same right to a free public education as U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Undocumented immigrant students are obligated, as are all other students, to attend school until they reach the age mandated by state law.

With this one ruling, a bunch of unelected judges who don't know the limitations of their power have cost the citizens of this country dearly; and have rendered citizenship almost meaningless.

The Obama Administration will not allow the states to enforce federal immigration laws, yet they sit idly by and watch them go bankrupt.  The federal mandates and interference in local issues has ran its course and now the states can no longer turn a blind eye to the heavy handedness of federal politicians, bureaucrats and judges.

Source:  http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/PlylerVDoeSummary.html
http://www.kfdm.com/news/texas-39086-million-care.html
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/educating-illegal-immigrants-is-594092.html

Utah Exercises Eminent Domain on Federal Land

The sleeping giant has awaken and we want to know what in the hell happened to the 10th amendment. After passage of Obamacare, the states are exerting their rights as defined in our Constitution. State attorneys from around the country are lining up to contest this monstrosity.

Utah is taking a bigger step to exert its authority. In 1996 Bill Clinton used an executive order to confiscate millions in acres of land that belonged to the state of Utah. He did so on the eve of an election in order to satisfy the environmental nut jobs that infest the democrat party.

In 2008 President George W. Bush authorized gas and oil exploration, only to have Barack Obama reverse that decision. Currently the federal government owns 60% of the land in Utah by fiat.

A Utah congressman sounded the clarion call that the Obama administration is again going to declare more land as a national monument. The state legislature has had enough of these abuses and declared eminent domain over land that currently is held by the feds.

Governor Gary Herbert supports the concept of eminent domain but doubts it would survive in court. He announced that he will meet with the Secretary of the Interior.

Many believe that a federal court will trample all over Utah’s rights; and history has proven that to be correct. Whatever the courts decide the states must assert their constitutional rights and that ultimately means NULLIFICATION.

source: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/03/nation/la-na-utah-domain3-2010mar03/2