Tag Archives: federal government

Supreme Court Refusal Protects Illegal Immigrants' "Right to Vote"

By Joe Wolverton for THE NEW AMERICAN
Yet another rejection of constitutional principles by the Supreme Court has been overlooked in the furor over the pro-Obamacare and same-sex marriage decisions.
This time, it’s not what the justices said, but what they refused to say that is noteworthy.
Reuters reports that the high court’s refusal to hear an appeal of the decision in the case of Kobach, et al. v. Election Assistance Commission, et al, had the effect of upholding the ruling handed down last November by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Kansas City Star provided the following summary of the facts of the case:
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled that Kansas cannot require proof-of-citizenship documents — almost always a birth certificate or passport — from prospective voters who register using a federal voter registration form. The court also said that a federal agency doesn’t have to alter the form to fit Kansas requirements.
Arizona has a similar proof-of-citzenship requirement, and Kobach argued the case on behalf of both states in conjunction with Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett.
In other words, individuals showing up to the polls in Arizona and Kansas can no longer be required to demonstrate proof of U.S. citizenship, opening the ballot box to illegal immigrants.
Daily Caller reported on the president’s support of the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal: “Both the Obama administration and various voter-rights groups — including the League of Women Voters and the League of United Latin-American Citizens — urged the Supreme Court not the hear the case, and SCOTUS’ rejection marks what Bloomberg called a landmark victory for the ‘groups that battled the two states in court.'”
Roll Call similarly recorded the glee of those opposed to the higher Arizona and Kansas eligibility standards:
In a joint statement, the League of Women Voters of Arizona and Kansas and the Brennan Center for Justice praised the court for “reaffirming the important role Congress plays in preserving a fair voter registration process across the country.” The LWV, represented by the Brennan Center and several law firms, was a defendant in the case with the EAC.
“This is an important win for the National Voter Registration Act and an important step forward in making sure that all that are eligible are registered to vote,” President of the League of Women Voters of the U.S. Elisabeth MacNamara said in a statement.
The Kansas secretary of state isn’t convinced that the Supreme Court can interfere with the state’s imposition of voter registration requirements. Again, from Daily Caller:
“Our position in court is that we’re exercising our state’s right to define the qualifications of electors,” Kobach told CQ Roll Call Monday afternoon. “By creating this loophole, the federal agency is interfering,” he said in reference to the EAC.
Kobach emphasized the court’s decision not to review the case does not reflect its opinion on the issues of the case.
“The Supreme Court decision not to review was not particularly surprising given the fact that there was no circuit split yet,” he said.
Typically, Kobach continued, “the Supreme Court favors reviewing decisions where one circuit has gone one way and another circuit has gone another way. It appears that the Supreme Court is waiting for another circuit to weigh in.” He expects the 11th Circuit, which he said has jurisdiction over two states with similar proof-of-citizenship laws, to eventually get involved.
Kobach is right.
The very idea that the federal government should have power over the voter rolls is anathema to the Constitution. Article I, Section 4 clearly mandates that, “The times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.”
The voter eligibility issue isn’t Kobach’s first foray into fighting the federal government.
In 2013, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Kansas Governor Sam Brownback informing him that the Obama administration would ignore a Kansas law nullifying federal gun control laws. Furthermore, Holder warned the governor that federal agents would “take all appropriate actions” to enforce federal gun control laws, calling the Kansas statute “unconstitutional.”
In an interview with Fox News conducted after receiving Holder’s threat, Kobach laid out his state’s position.
“We are very, very confident of our position,” he said. “The state of Kansas is not in any way afraid of a legal challenge.”
With his stance on the proof of citizenship voting requirement, Kobach shows he’s committed to keeping his word.
As for why he is willing to fight so hard to hold on to the citizenship standard for voting, Kobach said, “Every time an alien votes, it may not steal an election, but it will cancel out a vote of a U.S. citizen.”
The Founders shared Kobach’s dedication to maintaining the integrity of the ballot. In 1763, John Adams wrote:
We electors have an important constitutional power placed in our hands; we have a check upon two branches of the legislature … the power I mean of electing at stated periods [each] branch…. It becomes necessary to every [citizen] then, to be in some degree a statesman, and to examine and judge for himself of the tendency of political principles and measures. Let us examine, then, with a sober, a manly … and a Christian spirit; let us neglect all party [loyalty] and advert to facts; let us believe no man to be infallible or impeccable in government any more than in religion; take no man’s word against evidence, nor implicitly adopt the sentiments of others who may be deceived themselves, or may be interested in deceiving us.
Sam Adams shared his cousin’s opinion: “Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual — or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.”
Alexander Hamilton declared, “A share in the sovereignty of the state, which is exercised by the citizens at large, in voting at elections is one of the most important rights of the subject, and in a republic ought to stand foremost in the estimation of the law.”
Finally, Thomas Jefferson said, “The elective franchise, if guarded as the ark of our safety, will peaceably dissipate all combinations to subvert a Constitution, dictated by the wisdom, and resting on the will of the people.”
The Supreme Court’s refusal to consider the Kobach case could be considered part of a larger “combination to subvert” our Constitution. If those who have no legal status in the United States are allowed to share suffrage with citizens, there is a good chance that candidates promising more “bread” and free tickets to the federal “circuses” will be elected.
State authority to set the manner of elections must be protected, if not by the Supreme Court then by the supreme sovereign: the people.
 

Supreme Court Refusal Protects Illegal Immigrants’ “Right to Vote”

By Joe Wolverton for THE NEW AMERICAN

Yet another rejection of constitutional principles by the Supreme Court has been overlooked in the furor over the pro-Obamacare and same-sex marriage decisions.

This time, it’s not what the justices said, but what they refused to say that is noteworthy.

Reuters reports that the high court’s refusal to hear an appeal of the decision in the case of Kobach, et al. v. Election Assistance Commission, et al, had the effect of upholding the ruling handed down last November by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Kansas City Star provided the following summary of the facts of the case:

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled that Kansas cannot require proof-of-citizenship documents — almost always a birth certificate or passport — from prospective voters who register using a federal voter registration form. The court also said that a federal agency doesn’t have to alter the form to fit Kansas requirements.

Arizona has a similar proof-of-citzenship requirement, and Kobach argued the case on behalf of both states in conjunction with Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett.

In other words, individuals showing up to the polls in Arizona and Kansas can no longer be required to demonstrate proof of U.S. citizenship, opening the ballot box to illegal immigrants.

Daily Caller reported on the president’s support of the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal: “Both the Obama administration and various voter-rights groups — including the League of Women Voters and the League of United Latin-American Citizens — urged the Supreme Court not the hear the case, and SCOTUS’ rejection marks what Bloomberg called a landmark victory for the ‘groups that battled the two states in court.'”

Roll Call similarly recorded the glee of those opposed to the higher Arizona and Kansas eligibility standards:

In a joint statement, the League of Women Voters of Arizona and Kansas and the Brennan Center for Justice praised the court for “reaffirming the important role Congress plays in preserving a fair voter registration process across the country.” The LWV, represented by the Brennan Center and several law firms, was a defendant in the case with the EAC.

“This is an important win for the National Voter Registration Act and an important step forward in making sure that all that are eligible are registered to vote,” President of the League of Women Voters of the U.S. Elisabeth MacNamara said in a statement.

The Kansas secretary of state isn’t convinced that the Supreme Court can interfere with the state’s imposition of voter registration requirements. Again, from Daily Caller:

“Our position in court is that we’re exercising our state’s right to define the qualifications of electors,” Kobach told CQ Roll Call Monday afternoon. “By creating this loophole, the federal agency is interfering,” he said in reference to the EAC.

Kobach emphasized the court’s decision not to review the case does not reflect its opinion on the issues of the case.

“The Supreme Court decision not to review was not particularly surprising given the fact that there was no circuit split yet,” he said.

Typically, Kobach continued, “the Supreme Court favors reviewing decisions where one circuit has gone one way and another circuit has gone another way. It appears that the Supreme Court is waiting for another circuit to weigh in.” He expects the 11th Circuit, which he said has jurisdiction over two states with similar proof-of-citizenship laws, to eventually get involved.

Kobach is right.

The very idea that the federal government should have power over the voter rolls is anathema to the Constitution. Article I, Section 4 clearly mandates that, “The times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.”

The voter eligibility issue isn’t Kobach’s first foray into fighting the federal government.

In 2013, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Kansas Governor Sam Brownback informing him that the Obama administration would ignore a Kansas law nullifying federal gun control laws. Furthermore, Holder warned the governor that federal agents would “take all appropriate actions” to enforce federal gun control laws, calling the Kansas statute “unconstitutional.”

In an interview with Fox News conducted after receiving Holder’s threat, Kobach laid out his state’s position.

“We are very, very confident of our position,” he said. “The state of Kansas is not in any way afraid of a legal challenge.”

With his stance on the proof of citizenship voting requirement, Kobach shows he’s committed to keeping his word.

As for why he is willing to fight so hard to hold on to the citizenship standard for voting, Kobach said, “Every time an alien votes, it may not steal an election, but it will cancel out a vote of a U.S. citizen.”

The Founders shared Kobach’s dedication to maintaining the integrity of the ballot. In 1763, John Adams wrote:

We electors have an important constitutional power placed in our hands; we have a check upon two branches of the legislature … the power I mean of electing at stated periods [each] branch…. It becomes necessary to every [citizen] then, to be in some degree a statesman, and to examine and judge for himself of the tendency of political principles and measures. Let us examine, then, with a sober, a manly … and a Christian spirit; let us neglect all party [loyalty] and advert to facts; let us believe no man to be infallible or impeccable in government any more than in religion; take no man’s word against evidence, nor implicitly adopt the sentiments of others who may be deceived themselves, or may be interested in deceiving us.

Sam Adams shared his cousin’s opinion: “Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual — or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.”

Alexander Hamilton declared, “A share in the sovereignty of the state, which is exercised by the citizens at large, in voting at elections is one of the most important rights of the subject, and in a republic ought to stand foremost in the estimation of the law.”

Finally, Thomas Jefferson said, “The elective franchise, if guarded as the ark of our safety, will peaceably dissipate all combinations to subvert a Constitution, dictated by the wisdom, and resting on the will of the people.”

The Supreme Court’s refusal to consider the Kobach case could be considered part of a larger “combination to subvert” our Constitution. If those who have no legal status in the United States are allowed to share suffrage with citizens, there is a good chance that candidates promising more “bread” and free tickets to the federal “circuses” will be elected.

State authority to set the manner of elections must be protected, if not by the Supreme Court then by the supreme sovereign: the people.

 

Forget Jade Helm: Obama quietly implementing OUTRAGEOUS rule against gun owners

My Comments: I am not a fan of Allen West for many reasons, and I do not wish to forget about FEMA, Jade Helm, etc., but this article on our 2nd amendment rights is important, and yes, we have to get outraged about this.  Will you wake up and send this to everyone, and get them on the phone to their reps and the State Department?  Our idiot Congress is sitting there allowing this dictatorship to continue!!!!!  We MUST SCREAM!  See Allen West, Another Neo-Con?

Written by Allen West for ALLENBWEST.COM

GUNS

The Second Amendment to our U.S. Constitution states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

That statement is pretty clear to understand and comprehend, yet some folks just can’t seem to get over it. There are liberal progressive folks of the left who feel it is their mission in life to relegate the Second Amendment as meaningless. Now, what I am about to say will probably anger some people but so be it.

I’m often asked about FEMA camps along the interstate, Walmart stores closing, and the impending Operation Jade Helm. I continue to tell people that while you’re running around with your hair on fire concerning yourself about these stories, the Obama administration is doing the “Kansas City Shuffle” — you look right while they go left.

Get a load of THIS quiet assault going on – not just on our Second Amendment, but our First as well.

As reported by the Washington Examiner, “Commonly used and unregulated internet discussions and videos about guns and ammo could be closed down under rules proposed by the State Department, amounting to a “gag order on firearm-related speech,” the National Rifle Association is warning.

“In updating regulations governing international arms sales, State is demanding that anyone who puts technical details about arms and ammo on the web first get the OK from the federal government — or face a fine of up to $1 million and 20 years in jail. According to the NRA, that would include blogs and web forums discussing technical details of common guns and ammunition, the type of info gun owners and ammo reloaders trade all the time.”

“Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities,” said the NRA in a blog posting. “This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second,” warned the NRA’s lobbying shop. “Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published,” it added.”

The result is that the Obama administration is going to assault the First Amendment in order to undermine the Second. Once again the bureaucratic regulatory state has reared its ugly head, developed a rule and posted it to the Federal Registry without the consent and knowledge of the American people, nor their Representatives. This is yet another means by which the Obama administration — aka, the liberal progressive left, is seeking to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Of course you’re asking, how can this be done and what does the State Department have to do with this?

As the Examiner writes, “At issue is the internet. State is updating International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The rules govern everything from guns to strategic bombers. The NRA said that the rules predate the internet, and now the federal government wants to regulate technical arms discussions on on the internationally available web.”

As typical for the government gobbledegook, it took State Department 14-pages to explain but the NRA sought to encapsulate their overreach: “With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be ‘clarifying’ the rules concerning ‘technical data’ posted online or otherwise ‘released’ into the ‘public domain.’ To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the ‘authorization’ of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.”

Now of course the Obama defenders will say what does this have to do with infringing on the right to keep and bear arms — much ado about nothing. But here is the objective: the government is seeking to restrict the free speech of American gun owners and the gun industry in sharing information pertaining to their ability to keep arms. Furthermore, the government is using regulatory coercion and threat of imprisonment to create behavior modification — not exactly a positive reflection on our governing system.

In addition, the Obama administration is seeking to surrender U.S. Constitutional gun ownership rights to international code — a violation of the sovereignty of our Republic. It’s just another attempt to chip away at our liberty by circumventing the legislative process and our rule of law. THAT is why this matters.

We’re entering that dangerous area of critical mass where America has an executive branch and a president who in their final eighteen months together will complete their fundamental transformation — by any means necessary.

The Obama administration and the progressive socialist left have effectively become “da man.” And because they’ve gone down that path, we may be entering a time of warranted civil disobedience. To think, that if I, Allen West, a law-abiding American citizen, were to write technical details or make a video about my Bushmaster AR-15 on this website without prior approval of the State Department, I could face a $1 million fine or 20 years in jail is simply beyond belief and comprehension. Welcome to the new America, courtesy of your friendly neighborhood liberal progressives.

Message to State Department: first of all, teach John Kerry how to ride a bike, then leave us the heck alone and stop trying to undermine our individual rights.

Message to President Obama: get a strategy to defeat ISIS, because we are not going to allow you to disarm our citizenry so your Islamist pals can overtake us here in our homeland. And I say that fully aware that PSD-11 demonstrates the Obama administration’s collusion with the Muslim Brotherhood — and we know exactly what the Brotherhood has intended for America in their Explanatory Memorandumwritten in 1991 by Mohammed Akhram. In case you don’t know, a secret directive called Presidential Study Directive-11, or PSD-11 was produced in 2011 and outlines administration support for the Muslim Brotherhood. Of course, no one is allowed to actually read it.

So please folks, instead of FEMA camps, Walmarts, and Jade Helm, study the ITAR and realize how the Obama administration is doing everything possible to slowly undermine your right to keep and bear arms.

Then, flood State Department phone lines demanding they rescind the unconstitutional rule or face the wrath of American gun owners who will not comply.

 

Obama Unveils Plan for Nationalization of Police

Reposted from OFFGRIDSURVIVAL

I’ve been warning people for years about the militarization and federalization of our nation’s police forces. From billions of dollars in military equipment pouring into small rural police forces, to BLM thugs pointing sniper rifles at American citizens in Nevada, to border patrol being used to police American citizens, the federal government’s takeover of our nation’s policing is something that should concern everyone.

Last week President Obama unveiled a new interim report from his Task Force on 21st Century Policing. The task force is being used intimidate police departments throughout the country to follow federal policing rules.

Under the guise of civil rights, President Obama is using last year’s Ferguson riots to go after police forces around the country. Last Monday he told a reporters, “We have a great opportunity… to really transform how we think about community law enforcement relations.” …“We need to seize that opportunity… this is something that I’m going to stay very focused on in the months to come.”

Obama then instructed the media to help him with his propaganda campaign to federalize the nation’s police forces; telling the media, “I expect our friends in the media to really focus on what’s in this report and pay attention to it.”

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1C98MdIecs&feature=player_embedded

So what’s in the report?

The Task Force on 21st century policing report outlines the formation of a National Policing Practices and Accountability Division within the federal government. It also outlines how the government can use the Department of Homeland Security to “ensure that community policing tactics in state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies are incorporated into their role in homeland security.”

By framing this as a supposed civil rights problem, the President and his task force plan to use diversity initiatives to create federal training programs for police officers. Some of the action points outlined in the report include:

  • The U.S. Department of Justice supporting the “development and implementation of improved Field Training Officer programs.”
  • Banning police officers from enforcing immigration laws by “Decoupling federal immigration enforcement from routine local policing for civil enforcement and non-serious crime.”
  • Forcing law enforcement to attend sensitivity training to understand “African Americans, Latinos, recent immigrants, Muslims, and the LGBTQ community.”
  • Implementing policies on how a police officer can interact “with the LGBTQ population, including issues such as determining gender identity for arrest placement.”
  • Removing the ability for police officers to access immigration status by having the U.S. Department of Justice “remove civil immigration information from the FBI’s National Crime Information Center database.

This all sounds like the beginning of that Civilian National Security Force that President Obama promised during his campaign — the promise that the media conveniently ignored.

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Tt2yGzHfy7s