Monthly Archives: July 2015

Image

Abortionist’s Song

Abortiionist Song

Share if you care.

Image

Abortionist's Song

Abortiionist Song

Share if you care.

What Congress is About to Pass Could Shut Down My Website

BY ALLEN WEST FOR ALLENWEST.COM
WEST
We’ve recently brought to your attention two instances of nebulous language: the comments of retired General Wesley Clark about putting extremists in internment camps, and the new order making parts of our immigration naturalization oath optional for certain “religious” groups.
Words have meaning, and when they’re not specific, they’re left to interpretation. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has demonstrated such by redefining the taxing authority of the Congress, as well as what a State means when it comes to the Affordable Care Act. And now we have yet another example of dangerously nebulous language emanating from Capitol Hill.
If you’ve not read House Bill 2899, you should. This legislation would authorize the creation of a new government agency in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — as if we needed another. Incredibly enough, this new agency is being sponsored by the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Representative Mike McCaul (R-Tx). The agency is charged with Countering Violent Extremism (CVE). Here are the troubling excerpts from the text of the bill:

  1. a) Establishment.—There is in the Department an Office for Countering Violent Extremism. The head of the Office shall be the Assistant Secretary for Countering Violent Extremism, who shall be appointed by the Secretary. The Secretary shall also appoint a career Deputy Assistant Secretary for Countering Violent Extremism.

 (b) Assignment Of Personnel.—The Secretary shall assign or hire, as appropriate, permanent staff to the Office for Countering Violent Extremism. In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, seek to assign to or hire for the Office an individual who has a demonstrated background in technical matters, on and offline media, or marketing.
(d) Responsibilities.—The Assistant Secretary for Countering Violent Extremism shall be responsible for the following:
1) Coordinating the Department’s efforts to counter violent extremism across all the components and offices of the Department that conduct strategic and supportive efforts to counter violent extremism. Such efforts shall include the following:
(A) Identifying risk factors that contribute to violent extremism in communities in the United States and potential remedies for Government and non-government institutions.
(B) Identifying populations targeted by violent extremist propaganda, messaging, or recruitment.
(C) Managing the outreach and engagement efforts of the Department directed toward communities at risk for radicalization and recruitment for violent extremist activities.
(D) Ensuring relevant information, research, and products inform efforts to counter violent extremism.
(E) Developing and maintaining a Department-wide strategy guiding policies and programs to counter violent extremism. Such strategy shall, at a minimum, address each of the following:
(i) The Department’s counter-messaging program pursuant to paragraph (2), including a plan to leverage new and existing Internet and other technologies and social media platforms to counter violent extremism, as well as the best practices and lessons learned of other Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, and foreign partners engaged in similar counter-messaging efforts.
(ii) The Department’s countering violent extremism-related engagement efforts.
(iii) The use of cooperative agreements with State, local, tribal, territorial, and other Federal departments and agencies responsible for efforts relating to countering violent extremism.
(iv) Ensuring all activities related to countering violent extremism fully respect the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties of all Americans.
(F) Identifying and recommending new research and analysis requirements in coordination with the Under Secretary for Science and Technology and the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis and ensure the dissemination of information and methods for Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial countering violent extremism practitioners, officials, law enforcement, and non-governmental partners to utilize such research and analysis.
(G) Assessing the methods used by violent extremists to disseminate propaganda and messaging to communities at risk for radicalization and recruitment.
(2) Establishing a counter-messaging program to craft strategic counter-messages to the propaganda and messaging referred to in subparagraph (G) of paragraph (1) which shall—
(A) explore ways to utilize relevant Internet and other technologies and social media platforms; and
(B) maximize other resources available to the Department.
(3) Serving as the primary representative of the Department in coordinating countering violent extremism efforts with other Federal departments and agencies and non-governmental organizations.
(4) Serving as the primary Department-level representative in coordinating with the Department of State on international countering violent extremism issues.
(5) In coordination with the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, providing guidance regarding the use of grants made to State, local, and tribal governments under sections 2003 and 2004 under the allowable uses guidelines related to countering violent extremism.
(g) Violent Extremism Defined.—In this section, the term ‘violent extremism’ means ideologically motivated terrorist activities.
Here’s what I take issue with in this legislation: what, exactly, is violent extremism? Who will determine what actually qualifies as violent extremism?
Let’s be very honest here, the liberal progressive left has been very adept at defining as extremists and extremism anyone or anything that doesn’t agree with them. I’ve been called an extremist. Members of the House of Representatives have been referred to as extremists. Constitutional conservatives have been referred to as extremists. Veterans returning from overseas contingency operations — that is how the left redefined combat — have been referred to as extremists by the Department of Homeland Security under Janet Napolitano. Funny, the Obama administration held a conference on Countering Violent Extremism and invited groups related to the Muslim Brotherhood and certain Islamic clerics — but no Christian pastors.
This is a dangerous bill, and the vague language here is almost Orwellian with what could be severe ramifications.
Now, let me share with you the inside-the-beltway procedural issue. This legislation is supposed to be brought to the House floor under what is called, suspension of the rules. That means it’ll be a basic coming back to town roll-call vote with two-thirds majority. Everyone who knows House procedures realizes that you bring up legislation under suspension procedure because you believe that way, it won’t have major opposition. There is little to no committee vote and deliberation, and certainly not much House floor deliberation and debate. So, all of a sudden, the American people will awaken to learn there’s a new agency in the DHS to “counter violent extremism” — which, as you can see, is defined by a single lackluster sentence.
Someone tell me, what is “ideologically motivated”? Could it be construed that conservatism is ideologically motivated? No, I am not a conspiracy theorist. But I find this rather interesting in that President Obama cannot bring himself to say Islamic terrorism, Islamic jihadism, Islamism, or Islamo-fascism. Paragraph (g) is truly left open to anyone’s interpretation. What about environmental terrorists? What about the Occupy Wall Street crew or anarchists?
Why is there even a necessity to create another government agency — don’t we have an FBI responsible for such activities? Perhaps this just exists to allow this administration to target any belief system not willing to cow to their “fundamental transformation” of America. So, could this website even be considered violent extremism?
The is the last week for the House to be in session before recess adjournment in August. My recommendation is that you contact the House Homeland Security Committee and the House GOP leadership and share your concerns about this legislation. My issue is that “violent extremism” is just too vague. Consider this: the actions of Nidal Hasan — as well as the beheading of a woman in Moore, Oklahoma — wouldn’t even fit into this categorization, since the administration declared it “workplace violence.” Matter of fact, the Obama administration is even struggling to condemn the Islamic terrorist attack in Chattanooga as “violent extremism” — certainly President Obama has not said so.
Ladies and Gents, U.S. House of Representatives Bill 2899 (HB 2899) should not see the light of day; it must be killed. We do not need another agency in the DHS. Moreover, we certainly don’t need to give the government carte blanche to declare “ideological” enemies in such a nebulous manner.
 

Texas Supreme Court suspends Houston’s ‘bathroom bill,’ sets up ballot fight

BY VALERIE RICHARDSON, REPOSTED FROM SUN MYUNG MOON’S WASHINGTON TIMES
The Texas Supreme Court gave Friday the Houston city council 30 days either to repeal a civil-rights ordinance allowing opposite-sex bathroom use or place it before the voters on the November ballot.
The 12-page decision says that the council ran afoul of the city charter when it refused to act after the city secretary certified a year ago the signatures submitted by a pastor-led coalition, which had moved to force a vote on the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO).
Houston Mayor Annise Parker came under fire last year after the city moved to subpoena sermons and other documents from five pastors, known as the Houston Five, ultimately backing down and omitting sermons from the order in the face of a public outcry.
“Obviously, I am disappointed and believe the court is in error with this 11th-hour ruling in a case that had already been decided by a judge and jury of citizens,” said Ms. Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor, in a Friday statement.
“Nonetheless, we will proceed with the steps necessary for City Council to consider the issue. At the same time, we are consulting with our outside counsel on any possible available legal actions,” she said.
The city has until Aug. 24 to act on the court’s order, which also suspended the equal-rights ordinance, raising the possibility of a ballot fight that could sway the outcome of the November mayor’s race. Ms. Parker is term-limited and cannot seek re-election.
The ordinance, approved by the city council in May 2014, added gender identity and sexual orientation to the city’s equal-rights law, touching off a backlash over transgender bathroom use.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott praised the court’s decision Friday, saying that, “Freedom of expression can only exist once government removes itself from stifling free speech, repressing religious liberty and interfering with the lives of its citizens.”
“Today’s decision by the Texas Supreme Court appropriately returns jurisdiction over this matter to voters while reassuring the people of Houston that their personal values remain beyond the reach of government,” said the Republican governor in a statement.
Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which defended the pastors, said Friday that the court “has rightly rectified this wrong.”
“Public officials should not be allowed to run roughshod over the right of the people to decide these types of issues, especially when the citizens of Houston clearly met all the qualifications for having their voice heard,” Mr. Stanley said in a statement.
“The subpoenas we successfully fought were only one element of this disgraceful abuse of power,” he said. “The scandal began when the city arbitrarily threw out the valid signatures of thousands of voters. The city did this all because it was bent on pushing through its deeply unpopular ordinance at any cost.”
The city secretary certified the signatures on July 3, 2014, saying that the petitioners had turned in 17,846 valid signatures, exceeding the required 17,269, the Houston city attorney stepped in and declared invalid more than 16,000 signatures.
The court ruled that the city attorney had no official role in the process, which by charter requires the city council to overturn the ordinance or place it on the ballot after the city secretary has certified the signatures.
“The Charter requires the City Secretary to ‘certify’ her findings, and the only findings she expressly certified were her own,” said the court decision. “The City Attorney may, no doubt, give legal advice to the City Secretary, but he cannot assume her duties.”
At that point, the council should have either repealed the ordinance or placed it on the ballot, “[y]et the City Council decided, of its own accord, not to act, disregarding the City Secretary’s certification that the petition had enough signatures,” the opinion states.
“The Charter, however, gives the City Council no discretion to reevaluate the petition; instead, it requires ‘immediate’ action by the City Council following the City Secretary’s certification,” said the court. “To give authority to the council to make the ultimate determination of sufficiency of the petition would commit the decision to a body that could not be considered impartial.”
In April, a trial court ruled in the city’s favor on the signature challenge in a case that is now pending before the Texas Court of Appeals, but that lawsuit “does not negate the city council’s duty to proceed with the political process unless that obligation is stayed by a court of competent jurisdiction,” said Friday’s ruling.

© Copyright 2015 The Washington Times, LLC.

 
 

Christie’s lies about his gun record are just a click away | Editorial

REPOSTED FROM NJ.COM

fatsoGov. Christie entered politics denouncing the idea of lifting a ban on assault weapons. He has amnesia, however, when it comes to his record on gun issues since becoming a presidential candidate. (Aristide Economopoulos/NJ Advance Media)

It is now clear that the 2016 Chris Christie presidential campaign is the first one predicated entirely on the hope that nobody knows how to use Google.

Because every time the voters assemble to bask in his awesomeness, our governor seems to think he has no political record that anyone can actually consult.

The latest example was Saturday in Iowa, where a gun enthusiast accused Christie of being a faux-Republican who does not really worship at the One True Church.

Christie in turn challenged this fellow, a proud member of “Iowa’s only no-compromise gun group” — why compromise when they only kill 32,000 Americans a year? – to “produce just one fact about me being anti-gun.”

Then, as usual, he stuck out his chest in triumph after the guy was reduced to a stammering ninny by yet another fatuous bluff.

Truth is, any preschooler could produce that fact, along with 10 more, all serving to refute the governor’s claim that he has some serious GOP heat-packin’ bona fides.

Because it’s true now, it was true yesterday, and it will be true long after this presidential campaign becomes history’s yard waste: Gov. Christie has signed more than a dozen pieces of legislation that by any loose definition can be termed “gun-control.” They are not hard to find. This newspaper prints them at regular intervals.

For example, one law he signed bans people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.

Another law requires the state to sync up with the national criminal background check database.

Yet another upgrades the penalty for transferring a firearm to an underage person to a fourth-degree crime, which carries a potential prison sentence.

And in his Nanny State coup de grace, he made certain possession violations a first-degree crime and increased mandatory minimums under New Jersey’s “Grave’s Act.”

All that, courtesy of one administration, which crowed about this governor’s commitment to “strengthen New Jersey’s already tough gun laws and upgrade penalties for those who … violate gun trafficking laws” one day in 2013, when he signed (count ’em) 10 pieces of legislation.

You can call some of these measures trivial. You can even dismiss the governor’s latest litany of lies as a bout of campaign logorrhea.

But the accepted Wikipedia version of these pen strokes is that they delivered smarter, stronger, tighter gun controls to the state of New Jersey, because the state of New Jersey has yet to be infected by the growing national fear of zombie invasion.

So that Iowan who didn’t have Google handy can actually tell all his pals at Hawkeye Zombie Hunters Club that he was right all along:

The governor of New Jersey is so hostile to the Second Amendment, he wants to take guns from people who have mental illness, people with the potential to blow up jetliners, and people who like to take their M4 Carbine into states where they are illegal, period.

And that makes him utterly unelectable.

As should his bewildering habit of lying in front of large crowds, but that’s a whole other thing.

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bawWZfPHuY&feature=player_embedded

 

 

Christie's lies about his gun record are just a click away | Editorial

REPOSTED FROM NJ.COM
fatsoGov. Christie entered politics denouncing the idea of lifting a ban on assault weapons. He has amnesia, however, when it comes to his record on gun issues since becoming a presidential candidate. (Aristide Economopoulos/NJ Advance Media)
It is now clear that the 2016 Chris Christie presidential campaign is the first one predicated entirely on the hope that nobody knows how to use Google.
Because every time the voters assemble to bask in his awesomeness, our governor seems to think he has no political record that anyone can actually consult.
The latest example was Saturday in Iowa, where a gun enthusiast accused Christie of being a faux-Republican who does not really worship at the One True Church.
Christie in turn challenged this fellow, a proud member of “Iowa’s only no-compromise gun group” — why compromise when they only kill 32,000 Americans a year? – to “produce just one fact about me being anti-gun.”
Then, as usual, he stuck out his chest in triumph after the guy was reduced to a stammering ninny by yet another fatuous bluff.
Truth is, any preschooler could produce that fact, along with 10 more, all serving to refute the governor’s claim that he has some serious GOP heat-packin’ bona fides.
Because it’s true now, it was true yesterday, and it will be true long after this presidential campaign becomes history’s yard waste: Gov. Christie has signed more than a dozen pieces of legislation that by any loose definition can be termed “gun-control.” They are not hard to find. This newspaper prints them at regular intervals.
For example, one law he signed bans people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.
Another law requires the state to sync up with the national criminal background check database.
Yet another upgrades the penalty for transferring a firearm to an underage person to a fourth-degree crime, which carries a potential prison sentence.
And in his Nanny State coup de grace, he made certain possession violations a first-degree crime and increased mandatory minimums under New Jersey’s “Grave’s Act.”
All that, courtesy of one administration, which crowed about this governor’s commitment to “strengthen New Jersey’s already tough gun laws and upgrade penalties for those who … violate gun trafficking laws” one day in 2013, when he signed (count ’em) 10 pieces of legislation.
You can call some of these measures trivial. You can even dismiss the governor’s latest litany of lies as a bout of campaign logorrhea.
But the accepted Wikipedia version of these pen strokes is that they delivered smarter, stronger, tighter gun controls to the state of New Jersey, because the state of New Jersey has yet to be infected by the growing national fear of zombie invasion.
So that Iowan who didn’t have Google handy can actually tell all his pals at Hawkeye Zombie Hunters Club that he was right all along:
The governor of New Jersey is so hostile to the Second Amendment, he wants to take guns from people who have mental illness, people with the potential to blow up jetliners, and people who like to take their M4 Carbine into states where they are illegal, period.
And that makes him utterly unelectable.
As should his bewildering habit of lying in front of large crowds, but that’s a whole other thing.
http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bawWZfPHuY&feature=player_embedded
 
 

Nullification: The Original Right of Self-Defense

By Publius Huldah
constitution
What did our Framers really say we must do when the federal government usurps power?
They never said, “When the federal government ignores the Constitution, amend the Constitution.
They never said, “File a lawsuit and let federal judges decide.”
Instead, they advised two manly remedies. We’ll look at one of them – nullification – in this paper. 1
First, let’s look at the Constitution we have.
Our Federal Government has Enumerated Powers Only
With our federal Constitution, we created a federal government. It is:

  • A federation of sovereign States united under a national government ONLY for those limited purposes itemized in the Constitution;
  • With all other powers reserved by the States or the People.

We listed every power we delegated to the federal government: Most of the powers delegated over the Country at large are listed at Article I, §8, clauses 1-16.
All our Constitution authorizes the federal government to do over the Country at large falls into four categories:

  • Military defense, international commerce & relations;
  • Immigration & naturalization;
  • Domestically, create a uniform commercial system: weights & measures, patents & copyrights, money based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & some road building; and
  • With some of the amendments, secure certain civil rights.

That’s basically it! All other powers are reserved by the States or the People. Depending on how you count, Congress only has 18-21 powers over the Country at Large. 2
It is only with respect to the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution that the federal government has lawful authority.

  • If it’s on the list, Congress may make laws about it.
  • But if it’s NOT on the list, Congress usurps power & acts unlawfully when it interferes.

Is “education” on the list of delegated powers? Raising children? Health Care? Environmental regulation? Is most of what they do on the list? Since these are not delegated powers listed in our Constitution, the federal government usurps power and acts unlawfully when it meddles.
So then, what do we do when the federal government usurps powers not on the list?
Don’t Submit to Unconstitutional Laws – Nullify Them! 3
Our Framers said the federal government is our “creature” and must obey our Will as enshrined in our Constitution. And when it doesn’t, we must defend the Constitution by invoking our natural right of self-defense:
Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist No. 28 (last 5 paras): [I’m condensing]
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted … [by] … State governments [which] will … afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority…” [emphasis mine]
Hamilton says in Federalist No. 33 (5th para):
“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.” [emphasis mine]
Thomas Jefferson said in his draft of The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, 8th Resolution:
“…where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact … to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them…” [emphasis mine]
James Madison commented on this in his Notes on Nullification (1834):
“… the right of nullification meant by Mr. Jefferson is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression…” [emphasis mine]
Note that Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison said nullification is a natural right – it is NOT a “constitutional right”. Rights don’t come from the Constitution – they come from God. 4
HERE is Madison’s “Report of 1799-1800 on the Virginia Resolutions”. He said under his discussion of the 3rd Resolution [I’m condensing]:
The States, in their sovereign capacity, are the parties to the constitutional compact; and are thus the final authority on whether the federal government has violated the Constitution. There can be no tribunal above the authority of the States to decide whether the compact made by them has been violated by the federal government. (p 192)
That if, when the federal government usurps power, the States don’t stop the usurpation, and thereby preserve the Constitution; there would be no relief from usurped power. This would subvert the Rights of the People as well as betray the fundamental principle of our Founding. (p195)
That the Judicial Branch is as likely to usurp as are the other two Branches. Thus, the Sovereign States have as much right to judge the usurpations of the Judicial Branch as they do the Legislative and Executive Branches. (p196)
That all 3 Branches of the federal government obtain their delegated powers from the Constitution; and they may not annul the authority of the States. And if the Judicial Branch connives with other Branches in usurping powers, our Constitution will be destroyed. (p196)
So the Judicial Branch does not have final say as to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact. Otherwise, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of the judicial branch with the other branches in usurping powers, would subvert the Constitution forever. (p196)
In Federalist No. 46, Madison says, respecting unconstitutional acts of the federal government:

  • The People can refuse to cooperate with federal officers [7th para];
  • State officials can oppose the feds [7th para];
  • State Legislatures can invent legislative devices to impede & obstruct the federal government [7th para];
  • States can cooperate in concerted plans of resistance [8th para];
  • States can easily defeat the federal government’s schemes of usurpation [10th para]; and as the last resort,
  • States must defend themselves from the federal government – that’s why the People are armed.

So Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison tell us: When the federal government asks or directs States to do things which aren’t on the list, the proper response is, “No!”
State Governments Must Man Up and Preserve our Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence says at the 7th para that the colonials “opposed with manly firmness” the King’s “invasions on the rights of the people”.
We need today that same manly opposition to tyranny. And we are starting to see some: The Tenth Amendment Center says over 200 bills have been filed this year in State Legislatures to nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government. E.g.:

  • To allow terminally ill people access to experimental drugs & medical treatments despite FDA rules – drugs & medical treatments are not on the list! And the 10th Amendment didn’t stop them from usurping powers in this area.
  • Deny resources and assistance to the National Security Agency – spying on us is not on the list! And the 4th Amendment didn’t stop them from spying on us!
  • Nullify federal bans on growing hemp & marijuana. Agriculture and drugs are not on the list! And the 10th Amendment didn’t stop them from usurping powers in this area.

An Indiana Legislator filed a bill to nullify all federal EPA Regulationsenvironmental protection is not on the list! And the 10th Amendment didn’t stop them from usurping power over the environment.
Disarming the American People: If Congress by law, or the President by executive order, or the BATF by rule, or the supreme Court by opinion, or the federal government by UN Treaty, orders The People to turn in our arms, We must refuse to comply. The Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to disarm us. Gun control is not on the list! And the 2nd Amendment didn’t stop them from regulating ammunition, firearms, and firearms dealers.
Accordingly, States should pass laws directing their firearms and ammo dealers to ignore all federal dictates which pretend to restrict arms, firearms, ammo, and sales of same. The Law should also provide that the State Attorney General will defend any Citizen of the State from unlawful acts committed against him by agents of the federal government attempting to enforce unconstitutional federal dictates within the borders of the State.
Prayer in the Public Schools: When, in 1962, the US supreme Court began its war against Christianity by banning prayers in the public schools, State legislatures should have passed laws directing their public schools to ignore the unconstitutional opinion of the supreme Court. “Religion”, “prayers”, and “public schools” are not on the list of delegated powers. And the 1st Amendment didn’t stop them from “prohibiting the free exercise of religion”.
Brave Citizens Must Man up Also.
As noted above, Madison says in Federalist No. 46 that the People can refuse to cooperate with federal officers.
Rosa Parks & Martin Luther King showed us spine 50 years ago when they nullified the State & local Jim Crow laws by refusing to obey those unconstitutional laws.
Recently in Connecticut, Citizens refused to obey an unconstitutional State law which pretends to require them to register their firearms. Art. I, §15, CT Constitution says:
“Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”
If you are a “Citizen”, you have the right to bear arms – that’s all you need in Connecticut. So the Connecticut Statute making it a felony to possess guns which are not registered is unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, §15 of the State Constitution.
And The People – as the creators of the State government – are the ones to ultimately decide!
All nullification requires is a spine. And Rosa Parks & MLK showed us what spine looks like: You say, “No more!”
The “we lost the civil war” objection to Nullification.
Those who chant this objection seem to have in mind the “nullification crisis of 1832”. Let’s debunk it:
The southern States were agricultural. They bought manufactured goods from England. England bought southern cotton. Infant industries in the North East were producing some of the same manufactured goods as England; but because they were more expensive than the imports, they couldn’t compete.
So in 1828, Congress imposed a high tariff on the imports. The Southern States called this the “tariff of abominations”, because it made the English goods too expensive to buy; and when the Southern States stopped buying English goods, England stopped buying Southern cotton. This devastated the Southern economy.
Note that Congress has specific authority to impose tariffs on imports: Art. I, § 8, cl. 1. So the Tariff Act of 1828 was constitutional.
The nullification crisis of 1832 was brought on because S. Carolina wanted to “nullify” the Tariff Act of 1828 – a constitutional law! South Carolina developed a bizarre theory that

  • A State has a “constitutional right” to nullify any federal law; and
  • The nullification is presumed valid unless ¾ of the States say it isn’t valid.

In James Madison’s Notes on Nullification (1834), he discussed and debunked S. Carolina’s theory. He said:

  • The federal government has delegated authority to impose tariffs;
  • The Constitution requires that tariffs be uniform throughout the United States;
  • States can’t nullify tariffs authorized by the Constitution;
  • ¼ of the States don’t have the right to dictate to ¾ of the States on matters within the powers delegated to the federal government; and
  • Nullification is not a constitutional right.

Near the end of his Notes, Madison quoted Thomas Jefferson’s famous statement:
“…but where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact …to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits …” [emphasis mine]
Madison then says:
“Thus the right of nullification meant by Mr. Jefferson is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression.” [emphasis mine]
Do you see? Madison’s points are:

  • States may not properly nullify constitutional acts of the federal government; and
  • When an act of the federal government is unconstitutional, nullification is a NATURAL RIGHT – not a “constitutional right”. 5

Start Doing YOUR Duty
Your Duty is to read our Declaration of Independence and Constitution and learn The List of Enumerated Powers. YOU were supposed to enforce the Constitution with your votes. But instead of supporting only candidates who knew and obeyed our Constitution, you abdicated your Responsibility and voted for candidates who told you what you wanted to hear.
For the Sake of your Country and Posterity, you must also renounce cowardice and appeasement as the response to evil.
If you fail us, hell on Earth is just around the corner.
Endnotes:
1 The other Remedy is to elect faithful representatives. At the Virginia Ratifying Convention on June 20, 1788 at [223], James Madison said our Constitution depends on the people having the “virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom” to office. In Federalist No. 44 [12th para from end], he says when Congress usurps powers, and the executive and judiciary departments go along with it,
“…a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers…” [emphasis mine]
We must start electing candidates who know the Constitution!
2 THIS Chart lists the enumerated powers over the Country at Large and illustrates how Principles in our Declaration of Independence were implemented in our Constitution.
3 Stop quibbling over terminology. As a People, we have lost the ability to think conceptually. When some don’t see the word, “nullification”, in a writing, they insist the writer didn’t support it. But the concept is refusal to submit to unconstitutional laws. You can call it “non-violent civil disobedience”, “that original right of self-defense”, “resistance”, “refusal to obey”, “impeding & obstructing”, “nullification”, “interposition”, or something else. I use “nullification” because the term has a distinctive meaning and was used by our beloved Thomas Jefferson. You may call broccoli “broccoli”, a “green vegetable”, a “cruciferous vegetable”, a “super food”, or “little trees”. But “broccoli” is the most precise and distinctive term. Do you see?
4 So when Michael Farris, and others who tell us a convention is the only way out, disparage nullification as an “extra-constitutional doctrine”, the proper response is: Nullification is NOT a “constitutional right or remedy” – it is that NATURAL RIGHT of self-defense which pre-dates and pre-exists the Constitution. Farris has repudiated our Founding Principles that Rights come from the Creator God, and that the purpose of government is to secure the Rights GOD gave us (Declaration of Independence, 2nd para). In Farris’ brave new world, “rights” come from the Constitution – where they are subject to the will of human governments. See, e.g., his so-called “parental rights” amendment HERE. “Child raising” is not now on the list of delegated powers – but §3 of Farris’ “parental rights” amendment would delegate power over children to the federal government. Read it.
5 Rights don’t come from the Constitution! They come from GOD! PH
 
 

Salinas Rodeo and Animal Cruelty

by Rev. Austin Miles
SALINAS, CA (7/27/14)—The Salinas Valley is known as The Lettuce Bowl, the former home for author John Steinbeck, a setting for the movie, East of Eden starring James Dean and also for their rodeo each year which is one of the top 20 regular season rodeos in the U.S.
They boast that “The Salinas event draws over 700 of the best cowboys and cowgirls across America to compete for almost $400,000 in prize money and the coveted gold and silver Salinas belt buckle. The four day event draws over 50,000 fans to the Salinas Sports Complex each year.”
The classic American rodeo is a featured event throughout the land.  Filled with the sounds of, “YEEEHAW,” “EEEHAAAA,” along with screaming and fan excitement, the adrenaline runs high as this Man against Animal Contest rips off to a roaring start.  Even so, it is a contest where man has the distinct advantage over a confused animal.
These cowboys like to exhibit their prowess by demonstrating strength and superiority over animals that are not mentally equipped to deal with these public spectacles which often result in severe injuries to them.  But these cowboys mistakenly believe that roughing up animals prove their masculinity by subduing lesser creatures.  On the contrary, it does not.
While some parts of the rodeo may be a noble contest, one portion is anything but noble or even acceptable to most, except for those who are oblivious to the feelings of animals. That is the calf roping event, where the calf is turned loose as a man on horseback thunders after the frightened animal running full speed across the arena when the cowboy lassoes the little calf with the rope tightening around its neck, then bringing his horse to an abrupt stop causing the rope to tighten around the neck of the calf yanking it backwards so violently that the calf does a somersault, landing heavily on its back, leaving it with rope burns on its neck.
The cowboy jumps from his horse and wrestles the calf to get its feet up in the air where he ties the rope around its legs, then jumps up with his hands in the air triumphantly as a symbol of victory, hoping this was accomplished in the number of seconds allowed for the conquest.  The little calf on the ground is in severe pain, many times with broken bones.
Last weekend, July 18th, the Salinas rodeo was taped for a San Francisco TV station.  What was seen in that clip outraged viewers. One little calf had been lassoed and yanked into the air with that rope causing damage to his neck in what had the effect of being hanged. It was so violent that when the calf was untied, then forced up to its feet.  He could only balance on three legs. His front right leg extended straight out with a curve in that leg which was severely injured, in all probability broken, as it tried to hobble away.  This image will forever be in my mind.   And this is considered, ENTERTAINMENT??
The next calf roping was even worse. That little calf, running for its life was overtaken by the horse and rider. For some reason the rider cued his horse to get directly behind the calf, running it over, leaving it rolling under the feet of the horse that crushed every part of the innocent calf’s body as it rolled helplessly under the horse’s pounding hooves.
calf
The rodeo states that it has a veterinarian on the scene ready to take care of any injured animal. BULL EXCREMENT!   I did not see one person come to aid the little suffering calf with the broken leg that he held out in front of him. Nor did anyone come to the other that was trampled under the feet of a horse. Nor a horse that had been injured and was on the ground.
A calf is gentle, friendly and can bond with people who care for it.  A calf has the same emotions as us, feeling fear, anxiety, pain, love and excitement.  And their little bodies are broken for the amusement of spectators at a rodeo.  This is savage!
This writer is not against rodeos or cowboys.   They are an American tradition. Riding a bucking bronco or steer is a legitimate contest along with barrel racing, lassoing exhibitions on the ground and while standing on the back of a horse.  This is a proper spectator sport. If a cowboy is injured when tossed from a horse or bull, then so be it. He is the one that instigated the situation that led to the injury. The animals have never instigated any of this.
But we are STRONGLY opposed to calf roping which should be made illegal, and will be.  Violently taking down an innocent little calf that has done nothing wrong, causing it intense suffering from broken bones and rope burns on its neck while spectators cheer is totally incompatible with a civilized people.
Contact the Humane Society and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals –ASPCA) and ask them to observe rodeos and then to take immediate action. People, we are much better than this….at least I would hope so.
Final NoteRodeo fans; please do not buy a rodeo ticket if calf roping is part of the program. Let management know you will not attend any future rodeos until calf roping is abolished. Then one can see a real rodeo where masculinity is affirmed. And we will prove to be real human beings with a heart. Rodeo management, please take notice.
Photo Caption: Innocent Calf Being Injured in Rodeo
Photo Credit: Article.wn.com
 
 
 

Kerry bombshell: U.N. in ‘secret deal’ with Iran

By Leo Hohmann for WND

GERMANY/

Secretary of State John Kerry testified on Capitol Hill Wednesday that the U.S. government will not be revealing to the American people the contents of “secret side deals” made with Iran on its nuclear enrichment program.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, a unit of the United Nations, has negotiated two side deals with Iran involving critical data collection processes.

Astonishingly, Kerry himself said Wednesday that he has not read the agreements but has been “briefed” on their contents.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., wanted to know why these deals can’t be made public.

“Why can’t we confirm or deny the content of these agreements in public?” Cotton asked in a Senate hearing. “Why is this classified? It’s not a sensitive U.S. government document. The Ayatollahs know what they agreed to.”

“Because we respect the process of the IAEA and we don’t have their authorization to reveal what is a confidential agreement between them and another country,” said Kerry.

Cotton said, “So the ayatollahs will know what they agreed to but not the American people?”

Watch the testy exchange between Sen. Cotton and Secretary of State Kerry:

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMHJktQV8M4&feature=player_detailpage

Kerry said members of Congress would be able to learn about it in a classified briefing.

Kerry said he believes one staffer in his department may have read the agreement “at their facility” but didn’t possess a copy of it. “The IAEA is an independent entity under the United Nations, Senator, which I know you know.”

“I have received several classified briefings on the deal, and look forward to another one, but what Congress would like is the text of the deal,” Cotton said.

Cotton said reports by media, including the latest by the Associated Press, indicate that Iran will be allowed to collect its own samples and submit those samples to the IAEA, “much like an NFL player taking his own urine sample and sending it to Roger Goodell for a drug test. Can you confirm or deny that that is the content of those side deals?”

Sen. Tom Cotton

“I can’t here in this session,” Kerry responded.

Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz also said he was not aware if anyone in his agency has read the secret side agreements.

“I’m not sure. I don’t know. I’m not sure. I can ask. In terms of the technical team, maybe somebody saw something,” Moniz said.

What’s next? Find out in “Showdown with Nuclear Iran.”

Today’s testy exchanges in the Senate hearing come a day after similarly heated exchanges between Kerry and Rep. Scott Perry in the House.

Perry gave Kerry a public dress-down on the Iran deal, suggesting the secretary of state could have forged a better deal if he had only kept America’s interests as the top priority.

Perry said: “There is a history for … getting a better deal and if the ayatollah doesn’t like it and doesn’t want to negotiate it, oh boo hoo, we’re here for America, we stand for America. You represent America,” according to news video of the Capitol Hill committee meeting.

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rZ3qat-XEFA

Kerry replied a bit tersely: “Congressman, I don’t need any lessons from you about who I represent. I represent and fought for our country since I was out of college.”

Perry cut in to say, “and God bless you for your service,” but Kerry’s temper was irked.

“So I don’t need any lessons from you about that, OK,” Kerry said. “Let me just make it crystal clear to you, this is America’s interest because America is the principle guarantor of security in the region. And particularly with respect to some of our closest friends. Now, we believe that Iran was marching toward a weapon or the capacity to have a weapon, and we’ve rolled that back. That’s indisputable.”

Perry cut in to disagree: “That’s your opinion, Mr. Secretary.”

“No,” Kerry said, “that’s a fact. That’s a fact.”

The Iranian deal forged largely at the pressing of America has been criticized as giving away too many U.S. interests. Specifically, the deal allows Iran to hold up inspections for a period of 24 days, something opponents of the pact say will give Tehran the ability to construct a nuclear weapon eventually.

 

 

 

Kerry bombshell: U.N. in 'secret deal' with Iran

By Leo Hohmann for WND
GERMANY/
Secretary of State John Kerry testified on Capitol Hill Wednesday that the U.S. government will not be revealing to the American people the contents of “secret side deals” made with Iran on its nuclear enrichment program.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, a unit of the United Nations, has negotiated two side deals with Iran involving critical data collection processes.
Astonishingly, Kerry himself said Wednesday that he has not read the agreements but has been “briefed” on their contents.
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., wanted to know why these deals can’t be made public.
“Why can’t we confirm or deny the content of these agreements in public?” Cotton asked in a Senate hearing. “Why is this classified? It’s not a sensitive U.S. government document. The Ayatollahs know what they agreed to.”
“Because we respect the process of the IAEA and we don’t have their authorization to reveal what is a confidential agreement between them and another country,” said Kerry.
Cotton said, “So the ayatollahs will know what they agreed to but not the American people?”
Watch the testy exchange between Sen. Cotton and Secretary of State Kerry:
http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMHJktQV8M4&feature=player_detailpage
Kerry said members of Congress would be able to learn about it in a classified briefing.
Kerry said he believes one staffer in his department may have read the agreement “at their facility” but didn’t possess a copy of it. “The IAEA is an independent entity under the United Nations, Senator, which I know you know.”
“I have received several classified briefings on the deal, and look forward to another one, but what Congress would like is the text of the deal,” Cotton said.
Cotton said reports by media, including the latest by the Associated Press, indicate that Iran will be allowed to collect its own samples and submit those samples to the IAEA, “much like an NFL player taking his own urine sample and sending it to Roger Goodell for a drug test. Can you confirm or deny that that is the content of those side deals?”
Sen. Tom Cotton
“I can’t here in this session,” Kerry responded.
Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz also said he was not aware if anyone in his agency has read the secret side agreements.
“I’m not sure. I don’t know. I’m not sure. I can ask. In terms of the technical team, maybe somebody saw something,” Moniz said.
What’s next? Find out in “Showdown with Nuclear Iran.”
Today’s testy exchanges in the Senate hearing come a day after similarly heated exchanges between Kerry and Rep. Scott Perry in the House.
Perry gave Kerry a public dress-down on the Iran deal, suggesting the secretary of state could have forged a better deal if he had only kept America’s interests as the top priority.
Perry said: “There is a history for … getting a better deal and if the ayatollah doesn’t like it and doesn’t want to negotiate it, oh boo hoo, we’re here for America, we stand for America. You represent America,” according to news video of the Capitol Hill committee meeting.
http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rZ3qat-XEFA
Kerry replied a bit tersely: “Congressman, I don’t need any lessons from you about who I represent. I represent and fought for our country since I was out of college.”
Perry cut in to say, “and God bless you for your service,” but Kerry’s temper was irked.
“So I don’t need any lessons from you about that, OK,” Kerry said. “Let me just make it crystal clear to you, this is America’s interest because America is the principle guarantor of security in the region. And particularly with respect to some of our closest friends. Now, we believe that Iran was marching toward a weapon or the capacity to have a weapon, and we’ve rolled that back. That’s indisputable.”
Perry cut in to disagree: “That’s your opinion, Mr. Secretary.”
“No,” Kerry said, “that’s a fact. That’s a fact.”
The Iranian deal forged largely at the pressing of America has been criticized as giving away too many U.S. interests. Specifically, the deal allows Iran to hold up inspections for a period of 24 days, something opponents of the pact say will give Tehran the ability to construct a nuclear weapon eventually.