Thursday, June 30, 2011

A Message from David Barton and WallBuilders!

Vindicating American Exceptionalism

America has a wonderful spiritual and constitutional legacy. It is no surprise that Secularists, Atheists, Leftists, and Liberals have relentlessly attacked every aspect of that heritage. They must sever citizens from a knowledge of their true history if they are to succeed in moving the country in a new direction.

Such attacks are to be expected, but what is surprising that some who would be described as conservative Christians have now joined with them and become leaders in the attack on America’s rich Christian heritage. They are trying to convince Christians not only that America does not have a Biblical foundation but specifically that the Founding Fathers were largely pagans who represented the spirit of the Anti-Christ. They further assert that Christians should not be involved in the political arena or similar areas of culture.

The new DVDs by these Christians impugning America’s foundations have recently received wide distribution in some church circles thus created much confusion amongmany sincere believers who have respectfully asked us to help them sort out the facts and discern the truth. We have prepared a detailed response to these insidious attacks so that Christians can be better equipped to defend and assert America’s Biblical foundations.

It is time for God-fearing Americans to become better informed about America’s remarkable moral, religious, and constitutional foundations and to reject and aggressively rebut efforts of those who would attempt to undermine the positive aspects of America’s extraordinary heritage – a heritage that has provided unprecedented blessings, and a heritage for which we should be humbly grateful to Almighty God.

We hope that you find this new report (also available for download) to be helpful, and hope you will distribute this information to others willing to defend America’s foundations.

God bless!
David Barton


Victory for children with special needs

Tax credit measure becomes law at midnight

History will be made for thousands of children across North Carolina on Friday when House Bill 344 (Tax Credits for Children with Disabilities) officially became law.

Gov. Beverly Perdue released a final list of bills under her consideration this afternoon, which included a statement saying that she will let the measure become law without her signature. This means the bill will become law at midnight.

This is the first piece of K-12 legislation in North Carolina that gives parents statewide school choice where private education is an option. The measure allows parents of special needs children to claim a tax credit of up to $6,000 for educational expenses that include private school tuition, therapy and tutoring. With this bill, parents can better afford placing their disabled child in an educational environment that best meets their needs.

PEFNC President Darrell Allison would like to thank Gov. Beverly Perdue for not vetoing the measure, which became law behind strong legislative and public support, including 65 percent of all Democrats – 14 out of 19 Democrats in the Senate and 32 out of 52 Democrats in the House – voting for the bill. A February statewide poll of Democratic voters, commissioned by PEFNC, found that 82 percent favored such a program.

PEFNC has remained vigilant in its support for House Bill 344, including nearly 800 supporters calling Gov. Perdue and pleading with her to support the bill as well as the production of this video featuring parents and children who would benefit from the measure.

Allison would also like to thank legislators for their support as well as the statewide coalition of groups, who along with PEFNC, gave their expertise and commitment to House Bill 344: Jennifer Mahan with the Autism Society of North Carolina, Joni Alberg with BEGINNINGS for Parents of Children Who are Deaf or Hard or Hearing and Julia Adams with The ARC of North Carolina.

“Special thanks goes to Rep. Paul Stam for his years of work and dedication towards helping our children with special needs,” Allison said. “Allowing all of our children to receive a good, sound education in North Carolina means having them learn in the educational environment that best meets their needs. This will now be possible for thousands more of our children.”

Nearly 200,000 K-12 students in North Carolina public schools are estimated to be receiving special education and other related services this school year. This costs the state $8,160 and school districts $1,931 per student. It is estimated that up to five percent of qualified students will take advantage of the tax credit, which would annually save taxpayers up to $10 million and school districts up to $4 million per year within the next five years. This savings will be placed in a fund for special needs programs in public schools.

Programs similar to House Bill 344 exist in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah.

“Now we can add North Carolina to the list of states that are going above and beyond by embracing the ideals of real parental school choice for families,” Allison said. “This piece of legislation lays the foundation for similar options in the future for our students.”

Parents for Educational Freedom in North Carolina
4900 Falls of Neuse Rd. Suite 155
Raleigh, NC 27609

Read Before Monday – Share With Friends…The Nationalist Myth and the Fourth of July

This weekend, millions of Americans will gather in stadiums across the country to celebrate a myth — one that has been carefully constructed over many years to elicit the highest levels of emotion and devotion, while just as carefully concealing the historical facts which undermine it. The myth: we commemorate the birth of our nation on the Fourth of July.

The truth is that there was no birth of an American nation on 4 July 1776. Instead, there was merely a joint declaration of independence of thirteen States from their former allegiance to the British Crown — an allegiance that each, while in their colonial character, owed separately, not collectively, to the King via their individual charters. The official title of this declaration was "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America." This was a shortened form of "The unaminous Declaration of Georgia, New York, Virginia, Massachusetts, etc." According to the rules of English grammar, the lower case letter in the word "united" rendered it an adjective rather than a part of the proper noun which followed, thus identifying their association with each another as one of purpose, not of a political nature. Prior to 1781, the closest the several States had ever come to establishing a common political bond between themselves was the First Continental Congress, which met briefly in Philadelphia in 1774 and consisted of delegates from twelve of the colonies (Georgia was not represented), chosen to consider an economic boycott of British trade and to petition King George III for a redress of their grievances. The Second Continental Congress was simply a reconvening of the First, for the purpose of organizing the defense of the colonies against British invasion and whose power was limited to issuing resolutions which had no legally binding authority whatsoever over any of the thirteen coloinies. In fact, the resolutions of the Congress and its requests for funding for the Continental Army were frequently ignored.


Trading Of Over The Counter Gold And Silver To Be Illegal Beginning July 15!!

Important Account Notice Re: Metals Trading

We wanted to make you aware of some upcoming changes to’s product offering. As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act enacted by US Congress, a new regulation prohibiting US residents from trading over the counter precious metals, including gold and silver, will go into effect on Friday, July 15, 2011.

In conjunction with this new regulation, must discontinue metals trading for US residents on Friday, July 15, 2011 at the close of trading at 5pm ET. As a result, all open metals positions must be closed by July 15, 2011 at 5pm ET.

(Excerpt) Read more at …

Clinton Admits We Are Now Reaching Out to the Muslim Brotherhood

BUDAPEST, Hungary (The Blaze/AP) — The Obama administration is reaching out to the Muslim Brotherhood in a “limited” effort to build ties and promote democratic principles ahead of Egypt’s upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the U.S. isn’t adopting a new policy. She says the administration wants to engage all Egyptian groups as long as they espouse nonviolence.

Clinton says the hardline group also must respect minority rights and the full inclusion of women in the political sphere.  READ MORE:

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Sun Journal Letter to the Editor: Have no illusions…… Louis Call

June 27, 2011

The Sun Journal
Letter to the Editor

Have no illusions……

Have no illusions , we are at War within our own borders. This is not a conflict between Republicans and Democrats but between a far sinister force, Socialism, Marxism and yes, Communism. They are aligned against American moderates, conservatives and even some liberals.

This new movement, led by communist revolutionary group founder Van Jones seeks to counter the tea party, while petitioning for a progressive agenda that includes "making Wall Street and the super-rich pay their fair share." Van Jones, you may remember, was appointed by his friend Obama to an administrative post commonly referred to as his ‘Green Czar.’ (He later resigned)

The organization, dubbed "The American Dream Movement," is partnered with a slew of radical groups funded by billionaire George Soros. The movement has been described as a grassroots progressive group seeking to emulate the success of the tea party.

The movement, however, is anything but grassroots. It is already partnered with two of the nation's largest unions, the AFL-CIO and the SEIU, who boast an army of millions of public employees.

Also supporting Van Jones is the confessed domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers. The far-left AlterNet, whose board has included Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers, summarized Jones' new movement: "The goal is nothing less than a broad 'open source' movement of millions who, via organizing, house parties, events, technological savvy, and electoral activity, will attempt to shift America's focus away from the budget-cut mentality and the protection of big corporations and banks, to the human and economic support of tens of millions of unemployed and downsized Americans, including returning war vets and young people.

And in Chicago, on the July 4th weekend, the Marxists, are holding a rally. They are trying to soften their message by referring to it as Socialism and/or Social Justice, but in reality giving the ABC's of Marxism, makes it Communism they are after. Make no mistake about it, these people are planning a "Revolution" to put in place their Marxist ideals.

But if none of this moves you, consider the words of Nikita Khrusshev, “Despite the differences between the stages of Communism and Socialism, no wall of any kind exists between them..... Communism grows from Socialism and it's direct continuation.”

What is it that you can do to join the fight? First, seek your news from different sources rather than relying on MSNBC, etc.

Secondly, on Friday, July 1st, CCTA (Coastal Carolina Taxpayers Association) will hold a rally at Union Point Park starting at 6:00pm. There will be information available and an open mic on the bandstand for speakers. Please come, raise your voices and let Freedom Ring.

Louis Call
River Bend


Come kick off your Independence Day Weekend with Coastal Carolina Taxapayers Association on Friday evening, July 1st at Union Point Park in Downtown New Bern (Front Street) on the water for an open mike rally from 6:00-9:00pm. Refreshments by Cooper's Snowballs!

This will be an opportunity to celebrate our freedom of speech and speak our minds! Attendees may sign up to speak their minds on the direction of our country and our government!

Remarks must be limited to four minutes. All elected officials are invited to attend and hear what the voters and taxpayers have to say! We hope to be able to record citizens remarks and share with those officials who can not attend.

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Current Status of Key Bills Presented to the Governor of North Carolina

June 28, 2011

Current Status of Key Bills Presented to the Governor

1. Abortion - A Woman's Right to Know Act (HB854) - was vetoed by our "education" governor on Monday, Jun 27. Governor Perdue wrote in her objection and veto message, "This bill is a dangerous intrusion into the confidential relationship that exists between women and their doctors. The bill contains provisions that are the most extreme in the nation in terms of interfering with that relationship. Physicians must be free to advise and treat their patients based on their medical knowledge and expertise and not have their advice overridden by elected officials seeking to impose their own ideological agenda on others."

The bill requires pregnant women to have information from a medical doctor, an ultrasound, and a waiting period of 24-hours before ending the life of an unborn baby.

The Senate passed the legislation on Jun 15th in a vote of 29 to 20 with 1 not voting. Republican Senator Stan Bingham (Davidson, Guilford) voted with the Democrats; and Republican Senator Richard Stevens (Wake) did not vote.

The House passed the measure on Jun 8th in a vote of 71 to 48. All Republicans voted for the legislation and were joined by Democrat Representatives William Brisson, Dewey Hill and Tim Spear.

Only one vote is needed in the Senate and one in the House to override the governor's veto.

In the Senate call: Senator Bingham (R) (336) 859-0999 and Senator Stevens (R) Business (919) 851-0228 or home (919) 851-1177.

In the House call the following conservative Democrats:

Rep. Jim Crawford (Granville, Vance) (919) 733-5824; and Bill Owens (Camden, Currituck, Pasquotank, Tyrrell) (919) 733-0010.

2. An Act to Authorize Additional Water Supply Lines Funded by the Clean Water and Natural Gas Critical Needs Bond Act of 1998 and to Direct the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to Waive the Penalty Assessed Against Certain Poor Counties for Certain Water Quality Violations" (HB482) - was vetoed by the governor on Jun 27th, stating, "This bill is unconstitutional. The North Carolina Constitution, as interpreted by our Supreme Court, requires that money paid as civil penalties be given to the public school system and not be used for any other purposes." Further she believes that the measure would allow the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to remit money to counties that could be used for other purposes than education.

The bill was unanimously passed by the Senate filled with lawyers on Jun 14th in a vote of 47 to 0 with 3 excused absences; and in the House the bill passed on Jun 16th in a vote of 64 to 41 with 14 not voting and 1 excused absence.

The vetoed legislation addresses additional water connections and waives environmental penalties assessed in poor counties where at least 18 % of the county population is below the poverty level; and the unemployment rate is at least 2.5 % higher than the state average.

3. Medical Malpractice (SB 33) - The governor vetoed the bill on Jun 24. She said, "Once the bill is revised to adequately protect those that are catastrophically injured, I will proudly sign it into law."

The bill changes medical malpractice laws and the ratified edition caps noneconomic damages at $500,000. Noneconomic damages are defined in the law as "Damages to compensate for pain, suffering, emotional distress, loss of consortium, inconvenience, and any other nonpecuniary compensatory damage." Complainants still get punitive damages as defined in the General Statutes.

The bill passed the Senate on Jun 9th in a vote of 32 to 9 with 1 not voting and 1 excused absence. The House passed the bill on Jun 9th in a vote of 62 to 44 with 6 not voting and 8 with excused absences.

4. Tort Reform for Citizens and Businesses (HB542) - Governor Perdue signed the bill on Jun 24th that "will allow juries to hear how much of a plaintiff's medical expenses have been paid by insurance." (News & Observer)

5. Workmen's Compensation Reform (HB709) - Signed by the governor on Jun 24th, the bill "lifts the regulatory burden on the state's businesses, large and small, while also adding protection for employees hurt on the job," according to House Speaker Pro Tempore Dale R. Folwell.

It must be noted that a report released recently by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce "shows North Carolina is ranked in the bottom half in many metrics of competitiveness." Specifically, "'Enterprising States: Recovery and Renewal for the 21st Century' ranks North Carolina in the bottom 25 in nineteen of the thirty-two metrics of competitiveness including long term and short-term job growth, budget gap and tax climate." ( NCGOP Communications Office)

Recent U.S. House of Representatives' Votes

1. "Authorizing the limited use of the United States Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya" (House Joint Resolution 68) failed in a vote of 123 to 295 with 13 not voting on Jun 24, 2011. Only eight Republicans voted for the measure, none were from North Carolina.

NC Representatives voting for the Resolution: David E. Price (D-4th), Larry Kissell (D-8th), Melvin L. Watt (D-12th), and Brad Miller (D-13th).

NC Representatives voting against the Resolution: Renee Ellmers (R-2nd), Walter B. Jones (R-3rd), Virginia Foxx (R-5th), Howard Coble (R-6th), Mike McIntyre (D-7th), Sue Myrick (R-9th), Patrick T. McHenry (R-10th), and Heath Shuler (D-11th).  Rep. G. K. Butterfield (D-1st) did not vote.

2. "To limit the use of funds to support NATO Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya" (HR 2278) failed on Jun 24th in a vote of 180 to 238 with 13 not voting. The bill was intended to defund U.S. military operations under NATO in Libya that would include combat operations such as airstrikes; and would have restricted U.S. participation to support activities including "intelligence, surveillance, and search and rescue." (Megavote)

NC Representatives voting for the bill: Virginia Foxx (R-5th), Howard Coble (R-6th), Sue Myrick (R-9th) and Heath Shuler (D-11th).

NC Representatives voting against the bill: Renee Ellmers (R-2nd), Walter B. Jones (R-3rd), David E. Price (D-4th), Mike McIntyre (D-7th), Larry Kissell (D-8th), Patrick T. McHenry (R-10th), Melvin L. Watt (D-12th), and Brad Miller (D-13th).  Rep. G. K. Butterfield (D-1st) did not vote.

Republican Representative Renee Ellmers (2nd District) presented the weekly radio Republican address last week. She focused on job creation in the private sector by removing government regulatory barriers; stopping tax hikes; expanding domestic energy production; and approving pending free-trade agreements.

NC Redistricting

Proposed congressional maps are scheduled to be released this week, and public hearings will be held on Jul 7th. Further details have not been released.

Politico has reported that Democrat Representatives Brad Miller (13th) and David E. Price (4th) may likely compete for one seat and that Democrat Representatives Larry Kissell (8th) and Mike McIntyre (7th) may also go against each other for a seat. Further, Democrat Heath Shuler (11th) may see his district increasingly Republican.




SPONSOR: Coastal Carolina Taxpayer Association

TIME: 6 PM – 9PM

COMMENTS: Citizens are invited to celebrate their FREEDOM OF SPEECH at an

OPEN MIKE Tea Party Rally. Participants must register to speak and will have four minutes to give their opinion on any relevant subject.

All local public officials have been invited to attend.  The event will be taped for officials who are unable to attend.


Lynn Childs, CCTA Tea Party Chair

ML Hynes, CCTA PR Chair

Hal James, CCTA Watchdog Chair

‘Low-Sloping Foreheads’: Beck Slams NY Times Writer’s Description of Middle America

The New York Times never fails to rear its elitist head and this time is no exception. During a recent episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, NY Times columnist David Carr didn’t even attempt to conceal his disdain for people in Middle America. For Carr, fly-over country is basically comprised of what he calls the “low-sloping forehead” variety.

“If it’s Kansas, Missouri, no big deal. You know, that’s the dance of the low-sloping foreheads. The middle places, right? [pause] Did I just say that aloud?”

Yes, Carr. You actually revealed your true colors and said that out loud.

Rep. Clyburn Targets Christians Who Support GOP Medicare Plan: ‘Immoral’ and ‘Un-American’

Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) has a bone to pick with Republicans who claim allegiance to Christianity, yet support the GOP Medicare plan. In an appearance on MSNBC yesterday, the congressman believes that these individuals are acting contrary to Christian doctrine, as they continue to make life more difficult for the poor and those in need. He said:

“I always find it very interesting that people talk all about their from Christianity and all these other religions that teach love. All that teach taking care of the poor. All of which talk about doing for the least of these. Yet, they continue to heap burden upon burden upon people who can stand it the least.”

Click to watch Clyburn’s comments for yourself:

Beck & Family Accosted and Harassed During Outdoor Movie Night in NYC Park

There are those who love freedom of expression, as long as it’s not conservatives who are doing the expressing. Just ask Glenn Beck. On radio Tuesday, he told the stunning story of how he and his family were accosted and harassed during an outdoor movie in New York City’s Bryant Park.

For those unfamiliar with Bryant Park, it hosts weekly showings of classic films during the summer months. Attendees bring blankets and picnic dinners and sprawl out on the park’s great lawn while watching the films on a giant screen.


Saturday, June 25, 2011

Us Supreme Court Precedent States That Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President


The title of this article is correct. After having completed a more thorough review of the relevant US Supreme Court cases discussing the Constitution’s natural-born citizen clause, I have discovered precedent which states that a natural-born citizen is a person born in the jurisdiction of the US to parents who are citizens. Read that again. I said precedent, not dicta. The precedent holds that Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States.

Up until the publication of this report today, all discussion of the natural-born citizen issue (from both sides of the argument) agreed there had never been a precedent established by the US Supreme Court, and that the various cases which mentioned the clause did so in “dicta”.

Dicta are authoritative statements made by a court which are not binding legal precedent.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “precedent” as a “rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases“.

Precedent that must be followed is known as binding precedent. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, a lower court must honor findings of law made by a higher court. On questions as to the meaning of federal law including the U.S. Constitution, statutes, and regulations, the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedents must be followed.

It can no longer be denied that there is controlling US Supreme Court precedent concerning the definition of a natural-born citizen according to Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution. I predict satori will overcome those of you who have labored over this issue. This is not a remote obscure reading. It is, when revealed, a clear undeniable holding and binding precedent established by the highest Court of our nation which specifically defines an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens.

Therefore, Obama – according to US Supreme Court precedent – is not eligible to be President.


The direct US Supreme Court precedent is stated in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). Furthermore, the precedent stated in Minor is consistent with other US Supreme Court cases – both before and after Minor – which discuss the natural born citizen issue. While that part of the holding in Minor regarding woman’s suffrage was superseded by the 19th Amendment – which Constitutionally established a woman’s right to vote – the rest of the case is good law. And the remaining precedent stated regarding the definition of “natural-born citizen” – with regard to Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution – is still binding upon all lower courts.

Therefore, lower court decisions – such as the holding in Arkeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana – which have misconstrued the US Supreme Court’s holding in Minor v. Happersett are wrong. Below, we will review what the Indiana Court of Appeals had to say and explain why they got it wrong. But first we must revisit Minor v. Happersett.


Before revisiting Minor, we must revisit Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) to review a clearly erroneous statement made by Justice Gray concerning the prior holding in the Minor case:

“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: ‘The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ “ (Wong Kim Ark at 655.)

This unfortunate remark by Justice Gray contains a clearly erroneous statement. The Supreme Court in Minor did not construe the 14th Amendment as to the issue of citizenship. Gray is absolutely wrong. The Court in Minor construed Article 2 Section 1, not the 14th Amendment. For over a century, it has been wrongly assumed that the Court in Minor did construe the 14th Amendment, and that the holding of Minor was later superseded by Wong Kim Ark. This is not correct.

A more careful reading of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Minor makes it clear that it did not construe the 14th Amendment with regard to the citizenship of the woman who wished to vote. The question presented was whether, since the adoption of the 14th Amendment, women had gained the right to vote. The Supreme Court in Minor held that nowhere in the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, was anyone, man or woman, granted a right to vote. And it was only this part of the Minor case which was superseded by the 19th Amendment.

The other issue decided by the Court in Minor required the Supreme Court to determine if the woman was, in fact, a US citizen. As to this determination, the Court did not construe the 14th Amendment. In fact, the Court specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment with regard to her citizenship. Instead, the Supreme Court in Minor chose to construe Article 2 Section 1:

“There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ‘ are expressly declared to be ‘citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’ But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position …

“The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption. If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of the United States, then the constitution and laws of Missouri confining it to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as amended, and consequently void. The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters. (Emphasis added.)

There you have it. The Court stops short of construing the 14th Amendment as to whether the woman in question was a US citizen. The Court made a certain, direct determination that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen before the adoption of the 14th Amendment and that she did not need the 14th Amendment to be a US citizen.

The Court then, having determined that she was a US citizen, avoided any construction of the 14th Amendment as to her citizenship status. Therefore, the holding in Minor is in no way superseded by Wong Kim Ark.

The Court in Minor went on to decide the issue of whether citizens are granted a right to vote by the Constitution, holding that it did not. Again, this part of the holding was superseded by the 19th Amendment, but the determination that Mrs. Minor was a “natural-born citizen” is still controlling precedent.

Since the Court in Minor specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment as to citizenship, it is clear that Justice Gray’s statement – concerning the citizenship passage by Justice Waite in Minor – was clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court in Minor chose to construe Article 2 Section 1 instead of the 14th Amendment. As such, Minor is the only US Supreme Court case which has directly construed the Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen clause. Therefore, Minor’s construction below creates binding legal precedent:

“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,‘ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.“ (Emphasis added.)

Whether the holding here was influenced by Vattel is not truly important. Sure, it looks just like Vattel’s definition, but Vattel does not make legal precedent – the US Supreme Court does. All that matters here is what the Supreme court held. So we must carefully examine the actual words stated by the Supreme Court. We must not allow ourselves to be guided by what the Supreme Court did not say. What the Court actually said is what makes law.

In the above passage, the Court noted that Mrs. Minor was born in the US to parents who were citizens. The Court stated that such persons were “natural-born citizens”. The Court also stated – as to such persons – that their “citizenship” was never in doubt.

By recognizing Mrs. Minor as a member of the class of persons who were natural-born citizens, they established her citizenship. Establishing her citizenship was required before they could get to the issue of whether she had the right to vote. In doing so, the Court in Minor directly construed Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution.

The Court also noted that some authorities include as “citizens” those born in the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. The Court refers to these people as a different “class”. The Court in Minor refused to comment on the “citizenship” of such persons since Mrs. Minor was not in that class. They didn’t need to reach the 14th Amendment to determine if Mrs. Minor was a US citizen since the Court previously established that she was a “natural-born citizen”. Read the following again:

“It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.“

This class is specifically defined as “natural-born citizens” by the Court. The other class – those born in the US without citizen “parents” – may or may not be “citizens”. But the Minor Court never suggested that this other class might also be natural-born citizens.

It’s quite the opposite. The Minor Court makes clear that this class are not Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizens. If this other class were natural-born there would be no doubt as to their citizenship.

The Minor Court refrained from making a “citizenship” determination as to that class, but the Court did note that they were a different class. Later, in 1898, the Court in Wong Kim Ark took the question on directly as to who is a citizen under the 14th Amendment, but that case did not directly construe Article 2 Section 1, whereas Minor did.

In order to avoid construing the 14th Amendment, the Court in Minor had to define those who fit into the class of “natural-born citizens”. Mrs. Minor fit into that class. Mr. Obama does not.

This is so very evident by the fact that the Minor Court specifically states that the “citizenship” of those who have non-citizen parents was historically subject to doubt. Whether the 14th Amendment nullified those doubts was irrelevant to the Court in Minor, since Mrs. Minor was a natural-born citizen.

The 14th Amendment specifically confers only “citizenship”. In Minor, the US Supreme Court directly recognized that natural-born citizens were a class of citizens who did not need the 14th Amendment to establish citizenship. The class of natural-born citizens was perfectly defined in the Minor case.

Therefore, we have a direct determination by the US Supreme Court which defines a natural-born citizen as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens. The citizenship of this class has never been in doubt. The citizenship of the other class was in doubt. But even if that doubt was erased – as to their citizenship – that they are not natural-born citizens was established as precedent by the Supreme Court in Minor. In order for that precedent to be reversed, one of two things are necessary:

- a Constitutional amendment which specifically defines “natural-born Citizen” more inclusively than Minor did , or;
- a Supreme Court case which overrules the definition of natural-born citizen in the Minor case

We have neither.

Minor was decided seven years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court in Minor did not consider anyone but those born of citizen parents on US soil to be natural-born citizens. Later, in Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court stated that persons born on US soil to (some) alien parents were “citizens”, but that case specifically construed only the 14th Amendment.

Read again Justice Gray’s statement as to Minor, “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said…“ Nope. Not true. Gray was wrong in that Justice Waite did not construe the 14th Amendment in the quoted passage. Chief Justice Waite construed Article 2 Section 1. Whereas, Justice Gray construed the 14th Amendment. Therefore, the two cases are not in conflict.


The Minor case has been severely misconstrued in the Arkeny opinion issued by the Indiana Court of Appeals. That court quoted Minor’s natural-born citizen language, then stated:

“Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”

False. The Minor Court did not leave that question open. Nowhere in the Minor opinion does it state that the class of persons who are natural-born citizens is an open question. The Arkeny Court has it backwards.

The Supreme Court in Minor stated that the “citizenship” of persons who were not natural born citizens was an open question.

That is the most important sentence I’ve ever written at this blog. So please read it again.

The “citizenship” of those born to non-citizen parents was a question that the Minor Court avoided. But they avoided that question by directly construing Article 2 Section 1. In doing so, the Supreme Court in Minor defined the class of persons who were born in the US to citizen parents as “natural-born citizens”.

Since Minor, no Amendment has been adopted which changes that definition, and no other Supreme Court case has directly construed Article 2 Section 1.

The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark only construed the question of who was a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment, it did not construe Article 2 Section 1. Therefore, Minor and Wong Kim Ark do not compete with each other at all. Minor is the standing precedent for construction of the natural-born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1, and Wong Kim Ark is the standing precedent as to “citizenship” under the 14th Amendment.


That the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark limited its holding strictly to the issue of 14th Amendment citizenship – and did not make any new determination as to Article 2 Section 1 – is evident from the following statement by Gray regarding the dissent by Justice Curtis in the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford:

“In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:

‘The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.’

19 How. 60 U. S. 576. And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.”

At first glance, Gray’s reliance upon the dissent’s passage in the Dred Scott case would appear to contradict everything I have written above. But it doesn’t. It actually confirms my analysis.

Justice Gray chooses his words carefully and so we must examine them carefully. Note where Gray says, “And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.” Well, if we are talking only about “citizenship”, then – to this extent – Justice Gray is correct. But if we are talking about the definition of a “natural-born citizen”, then Gray is grossly mistaken.

The Dred Scott majority may not have expressed a different opinion as to “citizenship”, but the majority’s definition of a natural-born citizen is vastly different than that of Justice Curtis in his dissent. The majority opinion in Dred Scott, citing Vattel directly, stated:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.”


“I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.”

Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.

From the views here expressed, and they seem to be unexceptionable…”

Unexceptionable is defined as; ” not open to any objection or criticism.” The Supreme Court majority, in the Dred Scott case, clearly states that a natural-born citizen is a person born in the US to parents who are citizens. Therefore, Justice Gray’s reliance upon the dissent in the Dred Scott case is strictly limited to its discussion of “citizenship” by Gray’s very choice of the words, “to this extent”.

Since Gray stated that none of the other justices in the Dred Scott case expressed a different opinion than Curtis did in his dissent, it is obvious that Gray’s statement only applies to general citizenship, and not to the definition of those who fall into the class of natural-born citizens. The majority in Dred Scott did, in fact, express a completely different opinion than Curtis on the issue of who was an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen.

Gray’s use of the words, “to this extent” – with regard to the dissent by Curtis – indicates that the extent to which the holding in Wong Kim Ark applies is to the definition of “citizenship”, not to the definition of who is a natural-born citizen eligible to be President. The precedent stated by the Court in Minor still stands to this day.


In 1996, the US Supreme Court’s majority opinion by Justice Breyer in Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996), stated that when the Court discusses a certain “…reason as an ‘independent’ ground in support of our decision”, then that reasoning is not simply dictum:

“Although we gave other reasons for our holding in Schleier as well, we explicitly labeled this reason an ‘independent’ ground in support of our decision, id., at 334. We cannot accept petitioners’ claim that it was simply a dictum.”

The Supreme Court in Minor specifically construed Article 2 Section 1 by defining – as natural-born citizens – those persons born in the US to parents who were citizens.

Again, the Supreme Court specifically avoided the 14th Amendment, by specifically construing Article 2 Section 1.

In order to determine whether Mrs. Minor had the right to vote, the Court first needed to determine if she was a US citizen. They determined that she was a citizen because she was in the class of “natural-born citizens”. And, in doing so, they made it clear that persons born of non-citizen parents were not natural-born citizens.

The Court left open the question of whether those born of non-citizen parents were “citizens”. But the Court did not leave open their specific construction of Article 2 Section 1. Their definition of a “natural-born citizen” was the core reason they found Mrs. Minor to be a citizen. Therefore, the Minor Court established binding precedent as follows:

“…[A]ll children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners...”

Please also note that the Court here makes specific reference to both aliens and foreigners as distinguished from natural-born citizens. Aliens are just that, aliens. They are not citizens. But we have always had many foreigners in this country who were citizens. Those who came here from foreign lands were foreigners naturalized as citizens. Some who were born in the US with dual citizenship – like Obama – were also citizens of the nation of their parents. These are citizens, but also foreigners. The Court in Minor made the careful distinction that a natural-born citizen is not an alien or a foreigner.


A common misconception of those who argue in favor of Obama’s eligibility is that if one is, at the time of their birth, a US citizen, then that person is also a natural-born citizen. False. This was unequivocally established by the majority holding in Minor, which states:

“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it providesthat ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

Again, at first glance this appears to provide a neat little soundbite for Obama supporters. But it doesn’t. The quote above is taken out of context. The Court’s opinion goes on to state:

“Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided…that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since.”

Here, the Minor Court cites the first naturalization act of 1790 to the effect that persons born of US citizen parents – outside the jurisdiction of the US – are “considered as natural-born citizens”. So, here we can see that while the Minor Court only recognizes two paths to citizenship, birth and naturalization… it is clear that some persons who, at the time of their birth, are US citizens, require naturalization for such status.

So, it’s clear that while there are only two paths to US citizenship, birth and naturalization, those two paths sometimes merge. But naturalized citizens are not eligible to be President. (The Minor Court failed to mention that the words “natural-born” were repealed from the naturalization act of 1795.)

Additionally, the current US Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, at “7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency“, comments on the 1790 act as follows:

“This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.”

This is most likely because the statute did not actually deem such a person to be a natural-born citizen, the act simply stated that such a person was to be “considered as” a natural-born citizen.

The Minor Court also noted that the “substance” of the 1790 act, which granted US citizenship at birth via naturalization, had remained as law up until 1875 when the Minor case was decided. So, clearly, while citizens may either be born or naturalized, some born citizens are simultaneously naturalized at birth. Naturalized citizens are not natural-born citizens. Therefore, they are not eligible to be President.

I am not arguing that Obama was naturalized. But Minor does establish that not all “born citizens” are “natural-born”. Minor also gives an unequivocal definition of who fits into the class of natural-born citizens. Obama does not fit into that class. Born in the US to a citizen mother and a British/Kenyan father, Obama was born with dual nationality and dual allegiance, part US citizen, part foreigner. Minor makes a clear distinction between natural-born citizens and aliens or foreigners.

No Constitutional amendment supersedes Minor by defining natural-born citizen in a more inclusive way. No US Supreme Court case has overruled it. Justice Gray’s statement that the Court in Minor construed the 14th Amendment in the passage quoted is wrong. The Court in Minor directly construed Article 2 Section 1 while directly avoiding construction of the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark directly construed the 14th Amendment and specifically avoided construction of Article 2 Section 1. The two case are not in contradiction. They are consistent.

Wong Kim Ark is specifically limited to determining who is a citizen under the 14th Amendment.

Minor is specifically limited to determining who is a US citizen, natural-born.

According to the US Supreme Court precedent established by Minor, Obama is not eligible to the office of President of the United States.

Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.

AFL-CIO Union Chief Pledges 12 Million Workers to Van Jones Progressive Tea Party

Well, according to AFL-CIO president Rich Trumka, only the American “labor movement” is all about the “real” American Dream. I guess that means the rest of us haven’t got a clue.

Opening with Van Jones’ “American Dream” mantra, Trumka announced his pledge of 12 million union laborers and their families to support Van Jones’ “Rebuild the Dream” movement.

Trumka then goes on to explain that the real American Dream is not about a few of us having a lot, but about all of us having a “fair portion.”

“The American Dream is not that a few of us will get to be rich, but that all of us will have a fair portion of the good things in life.”


Are You Subsidizing Media Matters’ War on Fox News?

Could you be subsidizing a declared war on Fox News?

That question may sound absurd at first, but according to a former lawyer in the administration of the elder George Bush, the answer is yes.

Media Matters, the far-left website that has become a mouthpiece for the Democratic party, currently enjoys tax-exempt status. It’s also declared a war on Fox News, working hard to discredit and attack cable’s most popular news channel. That, says C. Boyden Gray, violates the rules behind receiving tax-free donations. In an op-ed in the Washington Times this week, Gray explains his argument:


Friday, June 24, 2011

Tillis Announces House to Take Override Vote on Voter ID

Office of the Speaker
Rep. Thom Tillis, Speaker of the House
Contact: Jordan Shaw, Communications Director


June 24, 2011

Tillis Announces House to Take Override Vote on Voter ID

Raleigh –House Speaker Thom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg) announced today that the North Carolina House will attempt to override Gov. Bev Perdue’s veto of the voter ID bill when the body reconvenes in July.

“Governor Perdue has chosen to veto a bill that over 75% of North Carolinians support and more than a dozen other states utilize,” Tillis said. “Governor Perdue continues to play politics and she has once again turned her back on the voters of our state. Republicans in the state House will not let this stand. We will take the lead and we will work for an override vote on the voter ID bill when the House reconvenes in July.”

Tillis said the House will notice the veto override once the House reconvenes in July for a brief session on redistricting. The override vote will occur during the July session.

“This legislation is a no-brainer,” Tillis said. “Requiring a photo ID to vote is a measure that provides confidence in voting and protects the integrity of our electoral process. Why this bill was vetoed is beyond me, but we will not stand idly by while the Governor and her liberal allies put politics before principle. We simply want North Carolina to join the majority of states that have an ID requirement when someone shows up to vote.”

The voter ID bill, known as the “Restore Confidence in Government Act,” has consistently received substantial support of the voters across party lines. If citizens do not possess photo identification, the bill stipulates that free photo identification can be provided at DMV locations or local Boards of Elections.

“This is not a partisan issue, nor is it defined by political controversy in other states,” said Tillis. “The Governor is out of touch with the people in her state, and we intend to make that very clear to the citizens of North Carolina in the days and months ahead.”


BREAKING…FAA NO Fly Zone Due To “Hazards” Over Minot, North Dakota…what’s the Army Corps of Engineers Hiding??

The town is gone!! Totally flooded and washed away as more Levy’s give way from flooding. Citizens were given a 24 hour warning few days back, but prior to the 24 hr mandatory evacuation, the Army Corp of Engineers reduced down to hours. Telling citizens to leave now or die.
Randy’s Right


LulzSec Hackers Attack AZ Law Enforcement, Release Phone Numbers of Officers and Spouses

PHOENIX (The Blaze/AP) — A group that boasts of successfully hacking Sony and the Senate and CIA web pages in recent months claimed Thursday to have hacked into the computer files of an Arizona law enforcement agency. The attacked, it said, was motivated by Arizona’s immigration policy.

The Lulz Security hacking collective said on its web site that it was releasing “hundreds of private intelligence bulletins, training manuals, personal email correspondence, names, phone numbers, addresses and passwords belonging to Arizona law enforcement.


Thursday, June 23, 2011

And to the Republic for Which It Stands

This is the first time that I have turned an email into an article for comments. I left the information intact without any edits.

David DeGerolamo


Race at issue in plan for voting districts - Elections -


Race at issue in plan for voting districts
A Republican plan that could put more African-Americans in the N.C. General Assembly also could spark another round of court fights over the role of race in drawing voting districts.

The three dozen new districts proposed so far could boost the number of African-American senators by almost half and the number of black House members by a third.

GOP mapmakers say they designed the districts to conform to the 1965 Voting Rights Act. They added two so-called majority-minority districts in Mecklenburg County and one in Wake.   cont......

Race at issue in plan for voting districts - Elections -

CQ ROLL CALL: Daily Briefing

June 23, 2011

Today In Washington

THE WHITE HOUSE: Obama and Biden spent more than an hour in the West Wing with Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn and Van Hollen, starting at 10, to talk about foreign policy and the party’s posture in the debt-increase-for-deficit-reduction talks — which appeared at an impasse this morning.

The president leaves in an hour for Fort Drum in upstate New York, where he’ll meet at 2:30 with soldiers from the Army's 10th Mountain Division, many of whom have just returned from Afghanistan. Then he heads down to the city to appear at evening fundraisers in a midtown Sheraton, a foodie-favorite restaurant (Daniel) and a Broadway theater. Air Force One takes off at 11 for Pittsburgh, where Obama will spend the night.

THE HOUSE: Convened at 10 and in about an hour will resume debate on the increasingly troubled patent overhaul bill. The vote that may well determine the measure’s future will come before 2 — on whether to drop a provision letting the patent and trademark office keep the fees it collects so that the agency can speed up its review process. Almost all Democrats and many Republicans back that funding stream and may have the votes to sink the bill if that language is dropped.

No matter what happens, the last vote of the day will be by 5 — so that lawmakers can attend this evening’s cavalcade of end-of-the-second-quarter fundraisers. Work will begin on the annual defense spending package, but debate has been put off until the week after next on amendments that would tug on the Pentagon’s purse strings in order to change Obama’s polices on Afghanistan, Pakistan and maybe (again) Libya.

THE SENATE: Convened at 10 and is about to vote on two GOP amendments to the confirmation streamlining legislation. One would prevent the president from installing policy “czars” in the West Wing who haven’t been blessed by the Senate. The other would keep the head of the Bureau of Justice Statistics as a confirmable post. Senators have made a bipartisan promise to keep their amendments relevant to the bill, but the vote on passage won’t come before next week.

DEBT WALKS: Cantor announced this morning that he would not go to today’s budget summit meeting, which is set to start at 2. He said the negotiators were at an impasse over taxes and so the session was pointless — and he called on Obama and Boehner to take it from here. Kyl is preparing to join him.

The surprise development could mean one of two things: The House majority leader realizes that the Biden talks are really on the verge of collapse and wants to be the first to get his side clear of the coming political debris, or he has concluded that fellow Republicans won’t support even the slightest boost in revenue unless the Speaker himself insists on it (and maybe not even then). So, Cantor’s decision is designed either to distance himself from Boehner (whose job he wants sooner or later) or to raise the political pressure on his superior.

“Once resolved,” Cantor said of the tax question, “we have a blueprint to move forward to trillions of spending cuts and binding mechanisms to change the way things are done around here.” That statement was a tacit confirmation of what has become clear in recent days, and made the Democrats very apprehensive: The negotiators had come to accord on perhaps $2 trillion in projected savings in the next decade, an amount that would allow an increase in the debt ceiling beyond the election under the dollar-for-dollar formula that both sides have adopted.

It has also become clear that Democrats have dramatically downgraded their expectations for how much new revenue they can get to contribute to the deficit reduction formula. They are now talking only about cutting corporate and other “special interest” tax breaks, like the one for ethanol that ran into a Senate buzzsaw last week.

The Democratic rank-and-file are extremely worried that the budget deal will rely disproportionately on cuts to health care and other social programs for the poor and old, which is why they are now pushing hard to get some economic stimulus sweeteners that would offset some of the coming cuts to entitlements. And GOP leaders show shows signs of willingness to support provisions that will help create jobs or minimize the pain of unemployment — perhaps a payroll tax holiday for employers or more highway spending or the preservation and maybe even expansion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program.

LIBYA VOTES: The president’s timetable for the Afghanistan drawdown is getting decidedly mixed congressional reviews — and after July Fourth, Pelosi may lead House Democrats in pushing legislation that would force Obama to bring more of the troops home sooner. But within hours of last night’s speech, the bulk of congressional short-term anti-war angst was back on Libya, and originating mainly with House Republicans.

Boehner has lined up a pair of House votes (probably tomorrow) that would amount to a swift kick of the presidential behind. One will be on a straightforward “use of force” resolution that would back the president's policy — and that everyone now knows is doomed to rejection. And so the marquee moment will come when majorities of both Republicans and Democrats vote to prohibit the use of funds for direct U.S. military engagement in Libya. Only “non-hostile actions” would be allowed under the measure (refueling other NATO planes, surveillance, etc.) — a direct swipe at the president’s declaration that the U.S. role in the bombing campaign does not amount to hostilities and so he’s not required to ask permission to keep at it.

FILL 'ER UP: Thirty million barrels of oil will be released from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in an effort to respond to lost oil supplies caused by turmoil in the Middle East and Libya, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced this morning. That amount will be matched by the other 27 member countries of the International Energy Agency. The release is designed in part to hold pump prices in line this summer — not only to mollify vacationers but also because the spring’s high oil prices and the resulting increase in the cost of gasoline are part of the reason for the continuing economic slowness.

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton excoriated the move, saying the reserve should be tapped only for genuine emergencies and that the better way to boost domestic supply would be to support the GOP legislative agenda for expanded drilling and exploration. “Releasing our reserves to calm the market is emblematic of an administration whose energy policy is irrational and counterproductive,” he said.

MARITAL PROBLEMS: Obama’s first fundraiser tonight is a top-dollar affair for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender donors — and he could be arriving just as the state Senate is casting the climactic vote on whether to legalize gay marriage in New York. (The bill still seems to be a vote shy of passage, and negotiations are under way to create exceptions on religious grounds that would assure passage.)

Members of the LGBT world are overwhelmingly in the president’s corner, but less overwhelmingly than three years ago. And the reason is simple: The president’s “still evolving” thoughts about gay marriage have not been evolving nearly fast enough for them. And so — even if the donors inside are willing to give the president a pass on the issue — the arriving presidential motorcade will be confronted by a candlelight vigil of protesters.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY: Freshman GOP Rep. Bob Dold of Illinois (42).

— David Hawkings, editor

Become a Facebook fan at Or follow me on Twitter at

Legislative Alert: Contact Governor Perdue NOW! Ask her to sign HB 854!

June 23, 2011

In a great victory for prolife supporters, HB 854-Abortion-Woman's Right to Know Act, passed the NC General Assembly with wonderful support. Now, this important measure, one that will save the lives of almost 3,000 unborn children each year, awaits action from Governor Beverly Perdue. Please contact her office and let them know that you support HB 854 and ask her to sign the bill.

Contact Governor Perdue NOW!

HB 854, will require all doctors who perform abortions to provide specific information to the women who are making the irreversible decision to end the life of their unborn child.

The bill requires a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion could be performed in North Carolina. That time period would start after the woman is provided with the following information:

  • The medical risks associated with the procedure
  • The psychological risks
  • The probable gestational age of the unborn child
  • Information about the opportunity to view an ultrasound
  • The name of the physician who will perform the abortion
  • Whether the abortionist has malpractice liability insurance
The location of the hospital that offers obstetrical or gynecological care within 30 miles, should hospitalization be necessary, and if the abortionist has clinical privileges there.

The Governor has until Monday, June 27 to take action on the bill, or it becomes law without her signature. Please contact her office today. We recommend sending an email and making a call. There are several phone numbers and offices, so if you can't get through on one, try another that is listed. The link below will take you to the contact page on her website.

Please contact Governor Perdue NOW and ask her to SUPPORT HB 854-Abortion-Woman's Right to Know Act.

Thank you for your help!

NUMBERS USA: H.R. 2164 Has SIX AGGRESSIVE TOOLS To End Grandfather-Amnesty Loophole for Existing Illegal-Alien Workers

Urge Your U.S. Representative to Push These Tools to a Vote This Summer

June 23, 2011

H.R. 2164 -- the Legal Workforce Act -- is exceptional in the way it not only tries to prevent employers from HIRING illegal aliens but in the many aggressive ways it will search out and order the FIRING of millions of illegal aliens in their current jobs.

This bill that is working its way to a vote on the floor of the U.S. House this summer radically changes the Grandfather-Amnesty Loophole that is in current federal E-Verify law and which has resulted in that loophole also being in all the state laws that mandate E-Verify for hiring.

The problem is that all current laws are about stopping the hiring when an illegal aliens changes jobs. That means that illegal aliens who choose to remain the rest of their working lives in the same job can be outside the reach of E-Verify.

H.R. 2164 eliminates the Grandfather Amnesty once and for all with Six Aggressive Tools. Take a good look at these six tools below.

Be sure you have sent all the faxes that are posted on your customized NumbersUSA Action Board.

TOOL No. 1 ENDS Ban on Running Existing Illegal Workers Through E-Verify.
The Legal Workforce Act would finally overturn the federal ban that prohibits employers from running their existing employees through E-Verify so they can voluntarily move illegal aliens out of their workforce.

The ban is the reason that many of the companies that now use E-Verify to screen new hires still seem to have a lot of illegal aliens working for them. This usually isnt the companys fault. Once they start using E-Verify for new hires, it is against the law for them to use E-Verify on their existing employees.

Businesses that have wanted to be certain that their entire workforce is legal are currently prevented from doing so. This leaves them susceptible to government audits later on that may easily find the old illegal workforce and then create a public relations nightmare and a severe sudden disruption of the companys operations.

Many companies have begged the government to allow them to find the illegal aliens in their workforce and to allow them to fire them without facing lawsuits from civil liberties groups and unions.

I hope you can see how insane it is for our government to prevent employers from ridding their workforce of previously hired illegal aliens.

House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smiths H.R. 2164 would end this insanity and allow any employer to choose to run 100% of its workers through E-Verify.

TOOL No. 2 Mandates Running All Existing Federal, State & Local Government Workers Through E-Verify
Many of you are probably like me and live in a city or country where it is hard to imagine the government insisting that all of its employees be legal workers.

But H.R. 2164 would make this happen at the six-month mark!

Every government agency, at every level, would have to run its entire workforce through E-Verify within six months. That means your tax dollars would no longer be used directly to employ illegal aliens.

TOOL No. 3 Private Companies with Federal & State Contracts Would Have to Run Contract Employees Through E-Verify

H.R. 2164 would make this happen by the six-month mark.

Perhaps one-quarter of all private jobs in America are in companies with contracts with state and federal governments. These companies would have to run every employee working on the contract through E-Verify, so that your tax dollars would no longer be used even indirectly to employ illegal aliens.

TOOL No. 4 Annual No-Match Letters Would Require Firing of Illegal Aliens with Fictitious or Mismatched Social Security Numbers
All illegal aliens who got their jobs before mandatory E-Verify and who made up a Social Security number would be identified through a No-Match notification system and ordered run through E-Verify.

This would start happening with the largest firms at the six-month mark and with 99% of firms by the two-year mark.

Unlike the E-Verify requirement for new hires (which can happen only once during a workers term of employment with a particular company), the no-match computers would run their dragnet for illegal aliens.

TOOL No. 5 Goes After Over-Stayed & Deported Aliens Who Have Valid Social Security Numbers
The fact that almost every alien with permission to work in the United States I issued a Social Security number has created a huge loophole in our current system. The problem is that Social Security numbers dont ever expire, even if the permission to work here does. The SS numbers dont even expire if persons holding them are deported.

This means that temporary workers who overstay their visas and illegal aliens who are ordered to leave the country can still get through E-Verify if they have an unexpired drivers license because they have a valid SS number in the federal database.

Chairman Smiths bill slams the door shut on the egregious loophole by locking out Social Security numbers that are attached to expired visas and deportees. Illegal aliens with these locked SS numbers would not get through E-Verify as new hires and would be identified in the no-match process if they are already in the workforce.

TOOL No. 6 Identifying and Firing Identity Thieves
Perhaps the biggest valid knock against E-Verify by its critics has been the claim that it fails to catch illegal aliens who are using stolen identities, allowing them to keep their jobs.

The E-Verify process has been getting better and better each year in detecting stolen identities, but it still has a long way to go.

This is another reason why state or federal laws based solely on E-Verify are not nearly strong enough.

Fortunately, H.R. 2164 includes a process that we first worked on with Rep. Shuler (D-N.C.) for his SAVE Act.

Keep in mind that the problem with identity fraud is that illegal aliens are using names, birth dates and Social Security numbers that all match within the federal database. Thus, they slip through the tools listed above.

H.R. 2164 tackles this problem by ordering the Social Security Administration to identify the valid names/numbers that most likely are being used by identity thieves. The process starts by identifying employees with more than one employer reporting income to their Social Security number. Then, it looks for unusual use patterns, such as that the employers are in different geographic regions or represent different occupations, and so on.

The SS Administration would send a letter to that name at each address listed on a W-2 form with information on all the jobs that person supposedly is holding (some Social Security numbers are used for hundreds of jobs) and a toll-free number to call if the person is not working for all those employers and so believes he or she is the victim of identity theft.

Once the actual owner of the SS number comes forward and is identified, along with his/her place(s) of employment, that SS number will be locked down as belonging only to the actual owner, and all other employers will be notified to run the persons of that name and number through E-Verify, at which point they will be ordered fired. (All the safeguards for Americans and legal immigrants under E-Verify will be there under this Multiple-Workplace Notification system.)

This tool is essential to avoid the threat of E-Verify critics that mandatory E-Verify will just create a giant increase in the stolen and forged documents industry. H.R. 2164s annual Multiple-Workplace Notification will actually reduce the profits of that industry by reducing the value of such documents.


The approaches that H.R. 2164 takes toward existing illegal employees are not the only ones that could have been ordered. Perhaps there are better ones. But the combination of the Six Tools seems to us at NumbersUSA to be a better overall attack on the illegal workforce than any combination we had previously hoped for.

Upon passage of this bill, we have no doubt based on what we have seen in the few states that have passed far-narrower E-Verify laws -- that we will see an immediate surge in illegal aliens losing jobs and in illegal aliens just giving up and moving home before the system even gets to them.

Then at the six-month mark, the first deadline will kick in, and the surge will continue. In fact, that surge will accelerate through the two-year deadline for 99% of employers.


ACTION: Be sure you have sent all the faxes that are posted on your customized NumbersUSA Action Board.


As the GOP field of potential Presidential candidates expands, activists are smart to approach this growing field with scrutiny. Newcomer, John Hunstman warrants distrust on several counts. Media buzz around his candidacy has been generated nearly overnight. This despite the fact that immediately after entering the race, he delayed his first opportunity to present himself on the grounds he was "ill."

WAM reaction to Huntsman's candidacy is ambivalent and we urge you, as a reform-minded activist, to exercise caution on several counts. What do we know about Huntsman? He has the 'right' media image to succeed. But is this a real plus or a red herring? Wake Up America Movement's in-depth analysis of the 2010 elections revealed, nationwide, several mysterious candidate entries were used as a rouse to confuse voters and drag down opposition to Democrats. Now, with Presidential fever setting in, it's smart to ask, is Huntsman's entry into the race another example of this covert strategy. Here's why:

Shortly after he announced his candidacy (in New Jersey of all places?!) FOX found the time to give him an extended interview (elaborately arranged out on a boat with the Statue of Liberty right behind him.) If all this sounds strange, well, obviously it was. During this Hannity one-to-one, his support of free U.S. education for all children of illegal aliens was mentioned twice - but Huntsman refused to comment on this hot topic both times.

That alone should give pause to all patriots. But that's not all.

Huntsman's prime resume point is his Obama appointed post as Ambassador to China. Is that really a plus? Let's see: There's that Communist country's full-light-display celebration at the Empire State building in 2009 (where a similar request to honor Mother Theresa was refused). Then there's last year's festive official U.S.state dinner of welcome for their anti-human rights leader. Not to mention our huge trade imbalance with China (contributed to by their currency manipulation) and its accompanying high cost of loss of U.S. jobs. Finally, there's China's ongoing expansion of diplomatic (and other) ties with the U.S. most fevered enemies.

The current state of our relations with China shouldn't be a plus for those who have helped frame it that way, as Huntsman has done. In interview, Hunstman has defended his prior description of Obama as a 'great man' as a remark made on the grounds that this 'important ambassadorship' was given to him, as a Republican. Now he's praised for his 'civility' toward the current leadership which he's asking to oppose. If that sounds fishy, here's more:

Hunstman supported Cap and Trade before he was against it. He now claims it just can't be implemented in a weak economy. But he's made no remarks to indicate he questions its authenticity.

Finally, we're told that Obama's campaign manager says Huntsman is the opponent he fears the most. Are we to believe that's true - or is it that statement intended to manipulate naive Republicans into his camp?

So what's really going on in this sudden skyrocketing new candidacy? Supports China, supports illegals, could delay but not oppose Cap and Trade - and believes it's important to 'respect' Obama. Since many are looking for an 'attractive' substitute for Romney, seems that we've been thrown some bait. Looks like a snake in the grass to US.

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

NC gas tax to increase in July!!

RALEIGH (WTVD) — The state gas tax is increasing in July to 35 cents per gallon, making it a record high for North Carolina.


Blacks Defend Tea Party Against Racist Claims

African Americans across the country are rising up to defend the Tea Party movement, which has faced charges their ranks were riddled with racists since rising to prominence.

Now many minorities are standing up for the Tea Party, saying there’s no proof.

Actress and activist exremely liberal Janeane Garofalo threw down the liberal gauntlet while blasting Tea Party motives on MSNBC in 2009

“It’s about hating a black man in the White House. That is racism straight up. This is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks,” she said.

A YouTube video titled “Tea Party Racism” shows signs seen at past Tea Party events.


***Illegal immigrants and their supporters are mounting an effort to convince Gov Perdue to veto H.36.***
H.36 passed the NC House and NC Senate this past Saturday, and although it did not go near as far as we would have liked, it is a "good start" to prevent illegal immigrants from getting new jobs in North Carolina. Our state unemployment rate is 9.7%, U-6 number is near 15%, so why should illegals be allowed to get jobs which belong to citizens?  We will work after H.36 is signed by the Governor and becomes law, to tighten it further.

I will be providing a more thorough review of the immigration enforcement legislation that passed the NC General Assembly and/or legislation that passed at least one Chamber, which keeps it alive for next session.

CONTACT Gov Perdue by calling (800) 662-7952 or Raleigh local at (919) 733-2391 or 733-4240 or by email at

Be polite but firm, but tell Gov Perdue to sign H.36 to start the process to make sure jobs go to citizens, NOT illegal immigrants. The real unemployment rate is close to 15%.

Woman Arrested For Recording Police From Her Front Yard

Can you be arrested for recording police from your front yard? If the video you’re about to see is for real, then yes.

A woman in Rochester, NY was allegedly arrested last month when she decided to film a traffic stop that happened in front of her house. With camera in hand, she reportedly stood in her front yard and filmed the events. But after recording for a little while, eventually an officer started addressing her, telling her that he didn’t feel “safe” with her recording him and telling her to go into her house. She refused, saying she had the right to record from her front lawn. He disagreed.

Does The New ‘White House Rural Council’ = UN’s Agenda 21?

"President Obama’s E.O. 13575 is designed to begin taking control over almost all aspects of the lives of 16% of the American people. Why didn’t we notice it? Weinergate. In the middle of the Anthony Weiner scandal, as the press and most of the American people were distracted, President Obama created something called “The White House Rural Council” (WHRC)."

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

The Daily Caller

White House loosens border rules for 2012

President Barack Obama’s administration is quietly offering a quasi-amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, while aiming to win reelection by mobilizing a wave of new Hispanic voters, say supporters of stronger immigration law enforcement.

The new rules were quietly announced Friday with a new memo from top officials at the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. The “prosecutorial discretion” memo says officials need not enforce immigration laws if illegal immigrants are enrolled in an education center or if their relatives have volunteered for the US military.

Read more:

SEE ALSO:  WARNING: Obama Issues Executive Order Amnesty for Illegal Aliens


NC General Assembly

The House and the Senate completed its session on Saturday, Jun 18, 2011, which marked the "shortest long session since 1973," that spanned "87 legislative days." In total, "715 bills passed either the House or Senate, with more than 170 of them now law." Governor Perdue has until the end of June to sign or veto about 120 bills. If she takes no action, the bills become law. (News & Observer)

The legislature will return for a special session on July 13th to address redistricting, election law and veto-overrides. Another special session will be scheduled in August or September to discuss constitutional amendments, including the Defense of Marriage amendment.

Status of Key Bills

1. Voter Photo ID (HB351/SB352) - Requires photo Identification before voting was concurred on in the House on Jun 16th in a vote of 62 to 51 with 2 not voting and 5 absent. It was sent to the governor on Jun 17th, and is in jeopardy of a veto.

2. Abortion - A Woman"s Right to Know Act (HB854/S769) - Requires information from a medical doctor and an ultrasound before an abortion can be performed. It passed in the Senate on Jun 15th in a vote of 29 to 20 with 1 not voting, and was sent to the governor on Jun 17, where it may be vetoed.

3. E-Verify (HB) "An Act to Require Counties, Cities, and Employers to Use the Federal E-Verify Program to Verify the Work Authorization of Newly Hired Employees" - The House passed the Conference Committee's Report in a vote of 67 to 45 on Jun 18. The bill requires businesses that employ 25 or more employees in NC and local government entities to use the federal E-Verify program to determine the legal status of newly hired employees. This is a change to the Senate version that only required construction companies and subcontractors to use E-Verify, not all businesses. The bill was sent to the governor on Jun 20.

4. Energy bills:  Energy Jobs Act (SB709) - The ratified bill's purpose is to increase domestic energy production in NC and to stimulate economic growth and jobs. It was presented to the governor on Jun 20th.

HB 242 an act that directs the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to study oil and gas exploration in NC and to conduct at least two public hearings on the exploration of natural gas, among other provisions, was sent to the governor on Jun 20th.

5. Charter Schools - Eliminates the cap on charter schools in NC. The governor signed it on Friday, Jun 17th.

6. An Act to Eliminate the Dues checkoff Option for Active and Retired Public School Employees (SB727) - The act eliminated the North Carolina Association of Educators (NCAE) from receiving union dues through automatic payroll deductions. The governor vetoed the legislation on Jun 18, and it will stand because the House did not achieve a veto-proof margin.

7. Protect and Put NC Back to Work (HB709/S544) - Reforms the Workers' Compensation Act. Sent to the governor on Jun 14th.

8. No Benefits for Illegal Aliens (SB205) - Clarifies that "illegal aliens are not eligible for public benefits." Passed in the Senate on Jun 8 in a vote of 45 to 5. Referred to the House Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations.

9. Real ID Compliance/Limited Duration Licenses (SB303) - Requires that the licenses issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles are only to people who are legally in the US for a limited time. Passed in the Senate on Jun 8 in a vote of 43 to 6; sent to the House Committee on Transportation.

10. Safe Students Act (HB744) - Requires that parents furnish a certified copy of a birth certificate for kindergartners entering the public school system, among other things. Passed in the Senate unanimously; sent to the governor on Jun 17th.

11. Medical Liability Reforms (SB33) - Changes medical malpractice laws and the ratified edition caps noneconomic damages at $500,000. Drug makers receive some protection from lawsuits under certain circumstances. The bill was sent to the governor on Jun 14, 2011.

12. Non-Partisan Redistricting Process (HB824) - The bill provides for a "Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission" effective in 2020, removing partisanship from the redistricting process. Since Jun 10th has been in the Senate Committee on Rules and Operations.

13. Gfeller-Waller Concussion Act (HB792) - Signed by the governor on Jun 16th, and requires that when signs of a concussion are observable, the individual is removed from playing a sport and is examined before resuming the sport.

14. Annexation - The legislature reformed annexation laws that have not been changed in more than 50 years. The changes protect private property rights against attempts from cities/towns to force the annexation of private property that often result in higher taxes, and additional charges for services. The most substantial change would allow property owners to block involuntary annexations if 60 percent of the people sign a petition opposing the annexation in about a four-month period. Currently private landowners are at the mercy of the city, except by a court action. The bills have been sent to the governor.

15. Tort Reform for NC Citizens and Businesses (HB 542) - A new section was added to the General Statutes that addresses evidence of medical expenses, the injured party as a witness when medical charges are at issue, and other reforms. The bill was sent to the governor on Jun 20, 2011.

16. Laura's Law (HB49/S86) - It is a new law that was inspired by the death of Laura Fortenberry, a Gaston County teenage girl who was killed by a drunk driver in Jul 2010. Laura was the granddaughter of Kay Roukema, Caldwell County Republican Women. The law "increases the maximum time that these offenders are going to spending prison." It also increases the minimum time in jail, raises fines, and raises penalties, according to Rep. Tim Moore of Cleveland County. The measure passed a House procedural vote on Jun 16th and was sent to the governor on Jun 17th.

 17. Tax reforms - In addition to eliminating the "temporary" sales tax hike that Democrats and the governor prefer, the legislature also enacted a $50,000 income exemption for private businesses that will create jobs.

18. Passed significant changes to NC's rules and regulations to simplify them. Over 15,000 new or amended regulations were enacted over the past 10 years that were onerous on businesses. A bill that passed both the House and the Senate "prohibits new state regulations that are more restrictive than federal rules, and requires the state to review and eliminate burdensome regulations annually." (NC Republican Senate Caucus)

19. Other legislation allowed concealed handguns in more places; and the Justice Reinvestment Act reformed sentencing laws that had not been changed in 20 years in a effort to improve ex-offender data research information.

20. Environmental bills were passed to limit the power of existing environmental regulations. Two bills, SB710 that addresses renewable energy certificates related to poultry waste as a fuel; and HB 119 that amends certain environmental and natural resources laws were both sent to the governor on Jun 20.


According to the recent census, although NC had a population growth since the last census, it did not rise enough to create another congressional House seat. NC currently has 13 House districts composed of six Republicans and seven Democrats. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 must be followed for redistricting and according to the News & Observer, House speaker Thom Tillis said that the redistricting plan will be coordinated with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for a "preclearance" instead of submitting it directly to the Department of Justice. The budget also required the NC Attorney General "to seek approval of the redistricting plan within 30 days, or else the legislature's own attorney takes over." The governor does not have veto authority on the redistricting plan. (News & Observer)

Both the House and the Senate released their minority Voting Rights Act (VRA) districts on Friday, Jun 17. Public hearings will be held in some of the affected areas, starting on Jun 23. Go to to view the maps and get the public hearings schedule.

The legislature will reconvene for a special session on redistricting on Jul 13th.

US Congress


On Jun 16, the Senate passed an amendment to eliminate tax credits for refiners that receive tax credits for "adding ethanol to gasoline and a tariff on imported ethanol." The vote was 73 to 27 and both Senators Burr and Hagan voted for the amendment.


On Jun 14, the House passed HR 2055 for Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations for fiscal year (FY) 2012. The vote was 411 to 5 with 16 not voting. All NC Representatives voted for the legislation.

On Jun 16 HR 2112 Agriculture Appropriations for FY 2012 passed the House in a vote of 217 to 203 with 12 not voting. All NC Republican Representatives voted for the measure except for Walter B. Jones (R-3rd) who voted with all NC Democrat Representatives against the bill.

Upcoming Votes:

1. Nomination of Leon E. Panetta as Secretary of Defense - scheduled today, Jun 21 in the Senate.

2. Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 (S679) requires Senate confirmation to reduce the number of executive branch appointments that the Senate is currently required to confirm.

3. Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011 (S782) - The Senate will discuss this bill that authorizes $500 million annually over the next five years for the Economic Development Commission.

4. Defense Appropriations (HR) 2219 - The House will discuss the funding of the Defense Department with $648.7 billion for FY 2012.

5. America Invents Act (HR 1249) - The House may work on this bill that changes the U.S. patent system.