TheBlaze has been at the forefront in uncovering the disturbing details of the nationalized curriculum standard known as Common Core. One of the most troubling aspects of this federal program is that government bureaucrats are currently mining sensitive and highly personal information on children through Common Core’s tracking system.
The data will then reportedly be sold by the government to outside sources for profit.
To discuss Common Core’s practice of data mining, Glenn Beck hosted an array of guests on TheBlaze TV Wednesday, including documentarian Andrew Marcus, columnist Kyle Olson; Kris Nielsen, author of “Children of the Core”; Jane Robbins of the American Principles Project; and lawmakers T.W. Shannon, Michael Caldwell and Clarence Mingo III.
Watch part of the segment via TheBlaze TV here:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/27/indoctrination-and-data-mining-in-common-core-heres-why-americas-schools-may-be-in-more-trouble-than-you-think/
According to the conservative think tank American Principles Project, Common Core’s technological project is “merely one part of a much broader plan by the federal government to track individuals from birth through their participation in the workforce.” As columnist and author Michelle Malkin has pointed out, the 2009 stimulus package included a “State Fiscal Stabilization Fund” to provide states incentives to construct “longitudinal data systems (LDS) to collect data on public-school students.”
In other words, an aggregation system to mind personal data on children including information about their health, family income, religious affiliation and homework.
Even more off-putting is the revelation that a 44-page Department of Eduction Report released in February indicates that the Common Core data-mining system could one day implement monitoring techniques like “Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging” (scanning one’s brain function), as well as “using cameras to judge facial expressions, an electronic seat that judges [a child's] posture, a pressure-sensitive computer mouse and a biometric wrap on kids’ wrists.”
MORE: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/27/indoctrination-and-data-mining-in-common-core-heres-why-americas-schools-may-be-in-more-trouble-than-you-think/
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Byron York: Immigration fight stirs debate over federal benefits
Did you know that U.S. law forbids the admission of any immigrant who is likely to depend on public assistance? It's right there in Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, first passed in the 1950s and still the law today:
"Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible."
The plain language of the law hardly squares with reports that the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has sought to promote the use of food stamps and other welfare programs among newly arrived immigrants. (Legal ones; the law forbids those benefits for illegal immigrants.) In 2004, in the Bush years, the feds even began a partnership with the Mexican government to encourage Mexicans to sign up for government assistance as soon as they arrived in the U.S.
And now, the Obama administration forbids American consular officers from even considering whether a prospective immigrant might end up on dozens of public assistance programs when evaluating that immigrant's admissibility to the U.S. The policy came as a surprise to four top Republican senators when they learned about it last year.
"It has long been a sound principle of immigration law that those who seek citizenship in this country ought to be financially self-sufficient," Sens. Jeff Sessions, Orrin Hatch, Charles Grassley and Pat Roberts wrote in an August 2012 letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "We were thus shocked to discover that both the State Department and DHS exclude reliance on almost all governmental welfare programs when evaluating whether an alien is likely to become a public charge." Specifically, the senators were stunned to discover that while government policy allows an American official to consider whether a prospective immigrant might end up on Supplemental Security Income, or on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the official cannot weigh whether the immigrant would need more than 70 other means-tested programs: Medicaid, food stamps, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, childcare benefits, educational assistance and more than a dozen nutritional programs.
"Indeed, under your interpretation," the senators wrote in that letter to Napolitano and Clinton, "an able-bodied immigrant of working age could receive the bulk of his or her income in the form of federal welfare and still not be deemed a 'public charge.' "
CONTINUED: http://washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-immigration-fight-stirs-debate-over-federal-benefits/article/2525383?utm_source=Washington%20Examiner%20E-dition%20(March%2026,%202013)%20-%2003/26/2013&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20E-dition
"Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible."
The plain language of the law hardly squares with reports that the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has sought to promote the use of food stamps and other welfare programs among newly arrived immigrants. (Legal ones; the law forbids those benefits for illegal immigrants.) In 2004, in the Bush years, the feds even began a partnership with the Mexican government to encourage Mexicans to sign up for government assistance as soon as they arrived in the U.S.
And now, the Obama administration forbids American consular officers from even considering whether a prospective immigrant might end up on dozens of public assistance programs when evaluating that immigrant's admissibility to the U.S. The policy came as a surprise to four top Republican senators when they learned about it last year.
"It has long been a sound principle of immigration law that those who seek citizenship in this country ought to be financially self-sufficient," Sens. Jeff Sessions, Orrin Hatch, Charles Grassley and Pat Roberts wrote in an August 2012 letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "We were thus shocked to discover that both the State Department and DHS exclude reliance on almost all governmental welfare programs when evaluating whether an alien is likely to become a public charge." Specifically, the senators were stunned to discover that while government policy allows an American official to consider whether a prospective immigrant might end up on Supplemental Security Income, or on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the official cannot weigh whether the immigrant would need more than 70 other means-tested programs: Medicaid, food stamps, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, childcare benefits, educational assistance and more than a dozen nutritional programs.
"Indeed, under your interpretation," the senators wrote in that letter to Napolitano and Clinton, "an able-bodied immigrant of working age could receive the bulk of his or her income in the form of federal welfare and still not be deemed a 'public charge.' "
CONTINUED: http://washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-immigration-fight-stirs-debate-over-federal-benefits/article/2525383?utm_source=Washington%20Examiner%20E-dition%20(March%2026,%202013)%20-%2003/26/2013&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20E-dition
Obamavote: Healthcare application registers voters, too
The 61-page online Obamacare draft application for health care includes asking if the applicant wants to register to vote, raising the specter that pro-Obama groups being tapped to help Americans sign up for the program will also steer them to register with the Democratic Party.
On page 59, after numerous questions about the applicant's identity and qualification for Obamacare, comes the question: "Would you like to register to vote?" The placement of the question could lead some to believe they have to register to vote to get health care.
In the introduction of the document, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services declare: "This document-the 'questionnaire'-represents each possible item that may need to be asked for successful eligibility determinations." In a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Monday, Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., chair of the House Ways and Means Oversight subcommittee, said HHS is overstepping its bounds by a mile.
"The draft documents wander into areas outside the department's purview and links applications for health insurance subsidies to voter registration," he wrote in the letter provided to Secrets. "The position of the question could lead some to think voter registration is somehow tied to subsidy eligibility," he added.
Boustany, a Louisiana Republican, said the application raises two alarming issues: What does HHS plan to do with all the information it collects on each applicant and will pro-Obama groups like AARP and Families USA that might be tapped as "navigators" to sign people up to Obamacare, steer them to register as Democrats. Others have indicated that groups like Planned Parenthood and ACORN could also act as a navigator.
In his letter, Boustany demands from HHS guidance for the navigator program, especially whether they will be encouraged to ask applicants about their voting status. He set an April 8 deadline for HHS' response.
He added that the Affordable Care Act does not let HHS probe into an applicant's choice to vote. What's more, he said the Paperwork Reduction Act requires that federal agencies seek only information needed to do their job. CONTINUED: http://washingtonexaminer.com/obamavote-healthcare-application-registers-voters-too/article/2525323
On page 59, after numerous questions about the applicant's identity and qualification for Obamacare, comes the question: "Would you like to register to vote?" The placement of the question could lead some to believe they have to register to vote to get health care.
In the introduction of the document, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services declare: "This document-the 'questionnaire'-represents each possible item that may need to be asked for successful eligibility determinations." In a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Monday, Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., chair of the House Ways and Means Oversight subcommittee, said HHS is overstepping its bounds by a mile.
"The draft documents wander into areas outside the department's purview and links applications for health insurance subsidies to voter registration," he wrote in the letter provided to Secrets. "The position of the question could lead some to think voter registration is somehow tied to subsidy eligibility," he added.
Boustany, a Louisiana Republican, said the application raises two alarming issues: What does HHS plan to do with all the information it collects on each applicant and will pro-Obama groups like AARP and Families USA that might be tapped as "navigators" to sign people up to Obamacare, steer them to register as Democrats. Others have indicated that groups like Planned Parenthood and ACORN could also act as a navigator.
In his letter, Boustany demands from HHS guidance for the navigator program, especially whether they will be encouraged to ask applicants about their voting status. He set an April 8 deadline for HHS' response.
He added that the Affordable Care Act does not let HHS probe into an applicant's choice to vote. What's more, he said the Paperwork Reduction Act requires that federal agencies seek only information needed to do their job. CONTINUED: http://washingtonexaminer.com/obamavote-healthcare-application-registers-voters-too/article/2525323
Gasoline Taxes Are Going Up
March 25, 2013
By Sara Noble Gas & oil companies make about a 7 cent per gallon profit on every gallon of gas sold while the state and federal government make an average of about a 49.5 cent per gallon profit or 12% (depending on the state). (More in NC.)
The profits for gas & oil companies does not include the profits from refining (about 29.6 cents per gallon).
Gas stations make almost nothing and need to make their money from car repairs and convenience shops.
The government is not satisfied with their take of the profits for doing nothing.
The states governors are running out of cash and are heading back to the gasoline tax kitty. Many plan to raise the gas taxes to cover transportation costs such as road repair but the money will continue to be used for other government purposes.
The federal government will be back at the trough soon as well.
It is a regressive tax, meaning everyone gets hit the same. When this doesn’t work, they will go to the “tax by the miles you drive” tax.
Ben Husch, a National Conference of State Legislatures director, is calling it a “bold action.” Raising taxes is not only “revenue” and an “investment,” it can now be a “bold action.”
Two states already approved the tax. Wyoming’s tax will go from 14 cents to 24 cents a gallon in July and California’s tax will go up 3.5 cents to about 52 cents tax per gallon.
Maryland’s O’Malley wants to raise the taxes by 4% in 2014, bringing their gas tax to 43.7 cents in five years, almost doubling their rate by 2018.
Fourteen other states including Maryland, Massachusetts and Minnesota are considering similar increases. CONTINUED: http://www.independentsentinel.com/2013/03/gasoline-taxes-are-going-up/
By Sara Noble Gas & oil companies make about a 7 cent per gallon profit on every gallon of gas sold while the state and federal government make an average of about a 49.5 cent per gallon profit or 12% (depending on the state). (More in NC.)
The profits for gas & oil companies does not include the profits from refining (about 29.6 cents per gallon).
Gas stations make almost nothing and need to make their money from car repairs and convenience shops.
The government is not satisfied with their take of the profits for doing nothing.
The states governors are running out of cash and are heading back to the gasoline tax kitty. Many plan to raise the gas taxes to cover transportation costs such as road repair but the money will continue to be used for other government purposes.
The federal government will be back at the trough soon as well.
It is a regressive tax, meaning everyone gets hit the same. When this doesn’t work, they will go to the “tax by the miles you drive” tax.
Ben Husch, a National Conference of State Legislatures director, is calling it a “bold action.” Raising taxes is not only “revenue” and an “investment,” it can now be a “bold action.”
Two states already approved the tax. Wyoming’s tax will go from 14 cents to 24 cents a gallon in July and California’s tax will go up 3.5 cents to about 52 cents tax per gallon.
Maryland’s O’Malley wants to raise the taxes by 4% in 2014, bringing their gas tax to 43.7 cents in five years, almost doubling their rate by 2018.
Fourteen other states including Maryland, Massachusetts and Minnesota are considering similar increases. CONTINUED: http://www.independentsentinel.com/2013/03/gasoline-taxes-are-going-up/
Honoring the Recovery of NC’s Bill of Rights
The North Carolina House of Representatives met last Monday in special session in the Old House Chamber at the State Capitol to honor the 10th anniversary of an FBI sting operation that returned North Carolina’s copy of the Bill of Rights. During the special session, the House adopted House Resolution 286, introduced by Representatives Paul Stam, Deborah Ross, Duane Hall, and Josh Dobson.
The resolution tells the 1789 story of President George Washington sending every state an original copy of the Bill of Rights for ratification. In 1865, North Carolina’s copy of the Bill of Rights was stolen by a Union soldier during the occupation of Raleigh. Over the next 140 years, there were numerous attempts to sell this stolen copy back to North Carolina, but the State refused to buy back what rightfully belonged to its citizens. On March 18, 2003, the document was seized by federal authorities in Philadelphia. Finally in 2008, the document was turned over to the State of North Carolina after 5 years of litigation and 143 years of being out of the custody of the state.
The document was displayed in the Legislative Building on Tuesday afternoon after being escorted by Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest. The document was also accompanied by a group of Richards Elementary School students from Onslow County on Monday. From the "Raleigh Update" Week of March 18, 2013 Newsletter from NC House District 93 Representative Jonathan C. Jordan His email is: Jonathan.Jordan@ncleg.net
The resolution tells the 1789 story of President George Washington sending every state an original copy of the Bill of Rights for ratification. In 1865, North Carolina’s copy of the Bill of Rights was stolen by a Union soldier during the occupation of Raleigh. Over the next 140 years, there were numerous attempts to sell this stolen copy back to North Carolina, but the State refused to buy back what rightfully belonged to its citizens. On March 18, 2003, the document was seized by federal authorities in Philadelphia. Finally in 2008, the document was turned over to the State of North Carolina after 5 years of litigation and 143 years of being out of the custody of the state.
The document was displayed in the Legislative Building on Tuesday afternoon after being escorted by Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest. The document was also accompanied by a group of Richards Elementary School students from Onslow County on Monday. From the "Raleigh Update" Week of March 18, 2013 Newsletter from NC House District 93 Representative Jonathan C. Jordan His email is: Jonathan.Jordan@ncleg.net
Monday, March 25, 2013
Glen Bradley for Vice Chairman
Please join Glen and me on May 4.
Come and support a strict Constitutionalist in his bid for the Vice Chairman position in the NC GOP.
There will be Beef BBQ, Potato salad, macaroni salad, grilled squash salad, a vegan bean stew, iced tea, and more.
All participants will be registered in a raffle for prizes.
Early Bird Special $12 RSVP and donate by April 13
Tax Day Special $15 RSVP and donate by April 20
Final Online Special $17 RSVP and donate by April 30
At the door $20
1335 Cole Mill Rd, Durham, NC
http://glenbradley.net/?pg=donate
Jacque Esslinger
919-272-7168
Note: CCTA is a non partisan organization. We do not endorse any particular candidate or political party. News items are presented for you the reader to help you become informed and reach your own conclusions.
How liberalism became our state religion
By Benjamin Wiker
March 25, 2013
As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against gay marriage we might stand back from the whole judicial fracas and ask ourselves a larger and hopefully more startling question: “What is the government doing deciding what marriage is?”
This is really two questions in one. First, how did it come to be that we, as a culture, are in a position where something seemingly so natural, something that existed long before any governments were around, is now up for debate? Second, why is it that we would look to a branch of the government to settle that debate? The answer to the first question is rather complex. For centuries (not just decades) liberalism has been picking away at the Christian foundations of Western culture. Liberalism is, in essence, a secular and secularizing movement; it is historically defined by its opposition to Christianity. Wherever secular liberalism spreads, Christianity recedes. Look at Europe .
Christianity defined marriage by what we might call radical monogamy: a life-long, entirely exclusive union of one man and one woman. No sex before marriage. No concubines. No polygamy. No divorce (except for infidelity). No homosexuality. No fiddling with little boys.
The pagan Roman culture into which Christianity was born smiled on sex wherever, whenever, and with whomever it occurred. Marriage was an important social institution in Rome, but it was not defined by radical monogamy. Concubines? No problem. Sex with your male and female slaves? No big deal. Divorce? Happens all the time. Got a favorite boy? Don’t we all. Like pornography? We’ll paint the walls of your villa next week. Homosexuality was as widespread in Rome as it was in Greece, and, yes, in Rome there was gay marriage. Right at the top of society. The emperor Nero married one Pythagoras, and we have reports of other such unions.
That was the marital, sexual status quo of the society into which Christianity was born. As Rome fell, and Christianity rose, the Christian understanding of sexuality and marriage transformed the Roman Empire—proto-Europe, we might call it. With that transformation the radical monogamy of Christianity became the social, moral, legal standard, so normal that it was regarded as natural.
It is only because Christianity won out over pagan Rome that we are having arguments about marriage today. If Christians had been summarily extinguished by imperial Rome, radical monogamy would have disappeared with it, along with opposition to homosexuality.
CONTINUED: http://www.humanevents.com/2013/03/25/god-gay-marriage-and-the-imperial-court/
American Thinker: Obama's Tyranny: Petty or Something More Sinister?
March 25, 2013
Last week, headlines informed us that, because of the Sequester, the FAA will be reducing the number of Air Traffic Controllers and closing 149 control towers completely. Earlier, the Department of Homeland Security released hundreds of illegal aliens awaiting deportation because they could not afford to hold them because of cuts mandated by the Sequester, they said.
Head Start is to face cuts due to Sequestration. Native American children are being sacrificed to Sequestration according to Slate Magazine. The Marine Corps faces massive reductions in manpower reports the Wall Street Journal. The U.S.S. Harry Truman and its escorts are sitting idle in Norfolk, VA because of the Sequester when they should be on their way to the other side of the world.
The TSA is threatening cuts that will push airport security lines out onto the street, while the government had been threatening to cut meat inspections until Congress pushed back. In other words the Administration is holding a gun to the head of almost every single American in its quest to inflict the maximum pain possible on each of us to achieve its political objectives.
When has this occurred in our country's history? When has a president orchestrated such a symphony of hardship for party politics? When has a president gone to such lengths for such a small amount of money?
The Sequester represents $85 Billion out of a budget of $3.5 Trillion, or just a 2.42% reduction in federal spending. On year on year basis, spending is still increasing by over 2% over last year. The math used by the Administration to generate this pain is simply crazy.
But this is the same Administration that decided at the outset to assault conventional energy in order to raise prices so that green energy could compete. I was in some of the meetings where the Green Lobby advocated this, and was stunned at their audacity. So now gasoline is at all time high levels; natural gas is being stymied; coal is in the Most Wanted list and nuclear has been sidelined.
We have a Department of Homeland Security that has become one of the largest bureaucracies in the history of our government in the space of 11 years. There is very little accountability and DHS has extraordinary powers to infringe the constitutional rights of our citizenry. Drones, computer monitoring, and wiretaps are all allowed under the Obama Administration's overwhelming control of the mechanisms of state. Just the other day, DHS announced plans to scan even more private e mail traffic.
There is a simple word for all of this; tyranny.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/obamas_tyranny_petty_or_something_more_sinister.html#.UVApLYcEPBc.facebook#ixzz2OYmnUeBU
Last week, headlines informed us that, because of the Sequester, the FAA will be reducing the number of Air Traffic Controllers and closing 149 control towers completely. Earlier, the Department of Homeland Security released hundreds of illegal aliens awaiting deportation because they could not afford to hold them because of cuts mandated by the Sequester, they said.
Head Start is to face cuts due to Sequestration. Native American children are being sacrificed to Sequestration according to Slate Magazine. The Marine Corps faces massive reductions in manpower reports the Wall Street Journal. The U.S.S. Harry Truman and its escorts are sitting idle in Norfolk, VA because of the Sequester when they should be on their way to the other side of the world.
The TSA is threatening cuts that will push airport security lines out onto the street, while the government had been threatening to cut meat inspections until Congress pushed back. In other words the Administration is holding a gun to the head of almost every single American in its quest to inflict the maximum pain possible on each of us to achieve its political objectives.
When has this occurred in our country's history? When has a president orchestrated such a symphony of hardship for party politics? When has a president gone to such lengths for such a small amount of money?
The Sequester represents $85 Billion out of a budget of $3.5 Trillion, or just a 2.42% reduction in federal spending. On year on year basis, spending is still increasing by over 2% over last year. The math used by the Administration to generate this pain is simply crazy.
But this is the same Administration that decided at the outset to assault conventional energy in order to raise prices so that green energy could compete. I was in some of the meetings where the Green Lobby advocated this, and was stunned at their audacity. So now gasoline is at all time high levels; natural gas is being stymied; coal is in the Most Wanted list and nuclear has been sidelined.
We have a Department of Homeland Security that has become one of the largest bureaucracies in the history of our government in the space of 11 years. There is very little accountability and DHS has extraordinary powers to infringe the constitutional rights of our citizenry. Drones, computer monitoring, and wiretaps are all allowed under the Obama Administration's overwhelming control of the mechanisms of state. Just the other day, DHS announced plans to scan even more private e mail traffic.
There is a simple word for all of this; tyranny.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/obamas_tyranny_petty_or_something_more_sinister.html#.UVApLYcEPBc.facebook#ixzz2OYmnUeBU
Town Hall with Commissioner Scott Dacey Thursday!
This is your opportunity to make your voices heard and get your questions answered about Craven County government! ~Lynn
Listening Session with Craven County
Commissioner Scott Dacey
Thursday, March 28, 2013
4:00-5:00 pm
River Bend Town Hall, 45 Shoreline Drive, New Bern, NC
Sunday, March 24, 2013
CCTA Watchdog Report -Craven County Board of Education meeting- 21 March 2013
March 22, 2013
CCTA Members and Friends,
As is usually the case, this evening meeting of the Board of Eduction featured various awards and honors received by staff, teachers and students. Good for morale. The remaining time was mostly taken up with "facilitating" (we used to call it in the military) goal setting, direction, etc. They call it "Strategic Direction Alignment." They did spent a good deal of time on "Communication with Stakeholders" which included CCTA and other community groups, organizations and agencies. I do appreciate their willingness to listen to us.
The only "contentious" portion of the meeting was when I petitioned the Board concerning Transparency. I told them that I had spent 2 or 3 hours on the School Board's website looking for information about textbooks, digital media, and other teaching material to include lesson plans, course outlines, etc.
I found some great links to American and North Carolina history on the West Craven High school site such as Shay's Rebellion and the Making of a Nation, and Learn North Carolina, a history of North Carolina by era.
Unfortunately, I also found a lot of bad links and empty folders. MORE IMPORTANTLY, I FOUND TOO MUCH OF THE MATERIAL I WAS LOOKING FOR WAS "PASSWORD PROTECTED."
At the end of the meeting (actually, to my surprise) my concerns were taken up by the Board and Staff. I was thanked graciously for my input and told that they were in a transition sort of period and all agreed with me that the information I was seeking should be on line on their website and available for everyone to access.
I did also observe that there is a high tolerance for poor English at the board meeting. I hope that can change, too.
I was accompanied to the meeting by Lillian Kraiger, who lives in Stately Pines. Lillian is very concerned about the impact of the "Common Core" Standards Initiative. We all should find out more about this. Lillian will keep us appraised of what she is able to learn about these federally driven standards.
Respectfully submitted: Hal James, CCTA Watchdog Chairman
CCTA Members and Friends,
As is usually the case, this evening meeting of the Board of Eduction featured various awards and honors received by staff, teachers and students. Good for morale. The remaining time was mostly taken up with "facilitating" (we used to call it in the military) goal setting, direction, etc. They call it "Strategic Direction Alignment." They did spent a good deal of time on "Communication with Stakeholders" which included CCTA and other community groups, organizations and agencies. I do appreciate their willingness to listen to us.
The only "contentious" portion of the meeting was when I petitioned the Board concerning Transparency. I told them that I had spent 2 or 3 hours on the School Board's website looking for information about textbooks, digital media, and other teaching material to include lesson plans, course outlines, etc.
I found some great links to American and North Carolina history on the West Craven High school site such as Shay's Rebellion and the Making of a Nation, and Learn North Carolina, a history of North Carolina by era.
Unfortunately, I also found a lot of bad links and empty folders. MORE IMPORTANTLY, I FOUND TOO MUCH OF THE MATERIAL I WAS LOOKING FOR WAS "PASSWORD PROTECTED."
At the end of the meeting (actually, to my surprise) my concerns were taken up by the Board and Staff. I was thanked graciously for my input and told that they were in a transition sort of period and all agreed with me that the information I was seeking should be on line on their website and available for everyone to access.
I did also observe that there is a high tolerance for poor English at the board meeting. I hope that can change, too.
I was accompanied to the meeting by Lillian Kraiger, who lives in Stately Pines. Lillian is very concerned about the impact of the "Common Core" Standards Initiative. We all should find out more about this. Lillian will keep us appraised of what she is able to learn about these federally driven standards.
Respectfully submitted: Hal James, CCTA Watchdog Chairman
Letter to the Editor: Is this the future? By CCTA Member, Lou Call
March 25th, 2013
Letter to the Editor
Is this the future?
What you are about to read is a little troubling to say the least; most of you aren’t even aware that this has taken place. The fact that this has happened in New York State would make you believe that we live in North Carolina and it can’t happen here; and you would be wrong.
It gives us a glimpse into the mind of the true liberal progressive and what they have in store of America.
It is no secret that New York State is one of the most hostile environments in the Country when it comes to gun ownership and control. Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action recently stated that, “Governor Andrew Cuomo and the New York State Legislature usurped the legislative and democratic process in passing extreme anti-gun measures with no committee hearings and no public input. This obvious disrespect for New Yorkers and their Second Amendment rights and will not be tolerated.”
He went on to say that “Despite the wishes of Governor Cuomo, law-abiding citizens have a fundamental right to keep commonly possessed firearms for defense of themselves and their families.”
What Mr. Cox is referring to is the New York State SAFE act; the Secure Ammunition & Firearms Enforcement act. SAFE encourages state residents to report “illegal” gun owners in exchange for a $500 reward. New Yorkers can call a "Gun Tip Line" if they believe someone they know has an illegal gun, according to CBS6Albany.com. Hotline calls are answered by state police and tips are referred to local law enforcement.
Reminiscent of programs in Cuba or the former Soviet Union, the "reward for turning in your neighbor" program is another example of overreaching by the anti-freedom, power-hungry Cuomo administration. It is outrageous, and it is un-American. These Gestapo like tactics were once employed in Germany during the thirties when true Germans were asked to report anyone harboring Jews or in the Soviet Union if your neighbor wasn’t on board with the Stalinist regime.
It can and will happen here unless we as a free people stand up and speak out. If nothing else we owe it to those who came before us who spilled their blood so that our Republic would continue. Our Constitution has stood fast against many internal threats; none greater than those threats of the last four years.
Louis Call River Bend, NC
Letter to the Editor
Is this the future?
What you are about to read is a little troubling to say the least; most of you aren’t even aware that this has taken place. The fact that this has happened in New York State would make you believe that we live in North Carolina and it can’t happen here; and you would be wrong.
It gives us a glimpse into the mind of the true liberal progressive and what they have in store of America.
It is no secret that New York State is one of the most hostile environments in the Country when it comes to gun ownership and control. Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action recently stated that, “Governor Andrew Cuomo and the New York State Legislature usurped the legislative and democratic process in passing extreme anti-gun measures with no committee hearings and no public input. This obvious disrespect for New Yorkers and their Second Amendment rights and will not be tolerated.”
He went on to say that “Despite the wishes of Governor Cuomo, law-abiding citizens have a fundamental right to keep commonly possessed firearms for defense of themselves and their families.”
What Mr. Cox is referring to is the New York State SAFE act; the Secure Ammunition & Firearms Enforcement act. SAFE encourages state residents to report “illegal” gun owners in exchange for a $500 reward. New Yorkers can call a "Gun Tip Line" if they believe someone they know has an illegal gun, according to CBS6Albany.com. Hotline calls are answered by state police and tips are referred to local law enforcement.
Reminiscent of programs in Cuba or the former Soviet Union, the "reward for turning in your neighbor" program is another example of overreaching by the anti-freedom, power-hungry Cuomo administration. It is outrageous, and it is un-American. These Gestapo like tactics were once employed in Germany during the thirties when true Germans were asked to report anyone harboring Jews or in the Soviet Union if your neighbor wasn’t on board with the Stalinist regime.
It can and will happen here unless we as a free people stand up and speak out. If nothing else we owe it to those who came before us who spilled their blood so that our Republic would continue. Our Constitution has stood fast against many internal threats; none greater than those threats of the last four years.
Louis Call River Bend, NC
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Feinstein, Obama to Continue Push for Gun, Magazine Ban; Magpul Stands Firm with Gun Owners
On Monday, the Senate announced that Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.) gun and magazine ban legislation (S. 150) will not be a part of the Senate’s base gun control bill, but that Feinstein will be allowed to offer it as an amendment to the gun control bill, the primary element of which is a proposal by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) that would criminalize the private transfer of firearms between law-abiding Americans. The legislation is expected to be considered the week of April 8. Feinstein’s legislation, which proposes to ban nearly every semi-automatic shotgun and detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle, several other categories of firearms, and any ammunition magazine holding 11 or more rounds, will not be included in the Senate’s gun control bill at the outset, out of concern that it would decrease the chance of Schumer’s legislation being approved. Also aimed at boosting Schumer’s effort, New York City Nanny-in-Chief Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun group, MAIG, is running an ad showing a few law enforcement agency employees, who are supposed to impartially enforce laws adopted by legislatures, instead saying they “demand” that Congress pass the law that Schumer is proposing. As Bloomberg said today--not while ranting about guns, large soda pops, greasy hamburgers, or the retail display of cigarette packs, but commenting on the inevitability of drones in America’s skies--“everybody everybody demagogues on all these things.”
CONTINUED: http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2013/3/feinstein,-obama-to-continue-
CONTINUED: http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2013/3/feinstein,-obama-to-continue-
Friday, March 22, 2013
CCTA MEETING 3/19/13--Glen Bradley Presentation
Tuesday night, at the CCTA meeting, a request was made for the text of Glen Bradley's presentation, and it is posted here.
For those of you who weren't there, you missed an excellent meeting on Interposition vs Nullification. A panel discussion with Glen Bradley, former NC House Representative, Jeff Lewis from Patriot Coalition and The Intolerable Acts, and Phil Routszong, Crystal Coast Republican Liberty Caucus, gave us some very valuable information!
Hope to see you next month: April 16th. 7 PM at the BridgePointe for an update with experts on Obamacare!
Our terms and definitions have become slippery and malleable over the years
The words nullification and interposition as they were originally conceived have become twisted into something else entirely.
The current nullification movement is at once an effort to apply the rightful Constitutional remedy provided by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson to address the problem of runaway federal encroachments of power, and to reclaim the terms once distorted by John C. Calhoun into something else entirely.
For some background into the confusing state of the debate before digging into the meat of these measures,
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison proposed and passed the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions in response to the Congressional Alien and Sedition Acts. These resolutions were at once statements of noncompliance as well as a judgement of the Congressional Acts as unconstitutional, and directions to the States' Congressional delegations to work repeal of these offenses.
The Kentucky resolution specifically described the Acts as "utterly void and of no force" which law was described as 'null' and therefore the term 'nullification.'
Now, John C. Calhoun around 1830 took up the idea of nullification and morphed it into something else entirely, a single-state veto. His argument being if a single state claimed that a federal law was void, then that federal law de-facto no longer existed, or was vetoed by the sovereign State. Madison, still around at the time vehemently disagreed with that position, and rightly so. Were Calhoun correct, then any State Legislature could simply pass a resolution rejecting any given federal law whether constitutional or not, and before long there would no longer be any sort of federal government in existence.
Sometimes, as activists trying to advance these measures - particularly in the State of North Carolina - it can feel like we are banging our heads against a brick wall. It is almost as if we are speaking a completely different language than the people we are talking to. Well, we are.
The problem we encounter now, in our modern era, is that proponents of nullification and interposition are working from the Jefferson-Madison definitions, while opponents of nullification are working from the Calhoun definition. This should help to explain why when we talk to some people about the doctrine, they seem to immediately jump to 'secession,' which proper Jeffersonian nullification seeks to actively prevent.
What we must bear in mind when bringing these issues to other activists or State Legislators, is that while proponents and opponents of nullification are using the same WORD, the opponents of nullification are actually talking about the deeply flawed "Single State veto" proposed by John C. Calhoun in 1830.
To be honest, when all of this began to crop up in 2009, we probably should have picked a different set of terms, given that the Calhoun episode came to be known as "the nullification crisis," this confusion should have been seen as inevitable. However, four years in the die is set, and we are working with the terms that we have before us.
Constitutional foundation of Nullification:
The primary Constitutional foundation of Nullification is found in Article 6 of the US Constitution. One major error we make as activists working to promote these measures, is to cite the 10th Amendment as the primary justification, when in reality it is more like supporting documentation to what is already found in Article 6.
On a practical basis, starting from the 10th Amendment a nullification opponent will immediately jump to Article 6 and then we are left to say "well, Article 6 allows it anyway" whereupon we have already lost the argument. Instead, we need to make the case from Article 6 directly, cut the opposition off at the knees, and then support the conclusion with the 10th Amendment.
If anybody has their copy of the US Constitution handy, now would be a good time to open it to the Article 6 Supremacy Clause.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Allow me to direct you attention to the clause "in Pursuance thereof."
This is a precise legal term that has a very well defined meaning in jurisprudence. A policeman can enter your home without permission only PURSUANT to a judicial warrant.
It means, consistent with, to follow from, in agreement or conformity with. To do an act pursuant to the law is to conform to the requirements of a statute. In this context, only those laws which conform to the US Constitution are the supreme law of the land.
That, in a nutshell is the entire proper Jeffersonian doctrine of nullification.
If a federal law is NOT pursuant to the text or the enumerated powers of the Constitution, then that law is NOT the supreme law of the land, and the several States are free to ignore it at will.
While the pursuance clause of the of the Supremacy clause should in and of itself be clear enough for anybody who has studied law, or who has a firm grasp of the English language, the antifederalists knew that a time would come when vain men would seek to usurp the rightful powers of the States and the citizens, so they included in the Bill of Rights the 9th and the 10th Amendments to describe the proper delegation of powers, in support of this concept so as to eliminate any possible confusion.
Turning now to the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This is simply a very precise way of saying that if the Constitution doesn't give Washington a certain power, that Washington doesn't have that power. Most of you will have already picked up that this is just re-stating the very same exact thing I spoke of with the pursuance clause of the supremacy clause in Article 6.
To deny Washington DC any powers that are not explicitly authorized in the text of the Constitution does not even require the existence of the Tenth Amendment, it is found in it's entirety in the very Article 6 Supremacy clause that most lawyers will cite to claim that the the 10th Amendment is invalid, or irrelevant. Clearly, that is not the case. To that end, when we go about our political activism working to advance these measures that have been called nullification in our modern era, I would suggest making the bulk of the argument directly from Article 6, and only relying on the Tenth Amendment for supporting documentation of a doctrine found in the Constitution proper, without even needing to go to the Amendments. This will eliminate the first and foremost objection raised by opponents.
I will try to push through this next section quickly but there is a lot of information here and it's going to come out like a firehose, but in my limited time I want to cover the successful Wisconsin nullification of the Fugitive Slave Acts, as well as some of the objections you will encounter from nullification opponents, how to answer them, and I am probably going to run out of time before I really get into interposition and how that relates to both the original and the modern nullification acts.
Since proper Jeffersonian nullification is really nothing more than "Washington can't do anything that isn't listed in the Constitution" then the foremost important aspect to cover when teaching about nullification is 'what powers are listed in the Constitution that Washington CAN do?"
If you have a pen or a pencil or a highligher handy and you want to mark these sections off as I touch on them, then get it ready because I am about to push through the entire Constitution identifying every last single power granted to the federal government in the US Constitution.
First, we have to be mindful of context. Contrary to the doctrines of those who would seek loopholes to expand federal power, the Preamble to the US Constitution confers no powers to the federal government. Instead, it simply explains the purpose of the Constitution - what they hope to accomplish with the following text, or why the Constitution was written and submitted for ratification.
Article 1 Sections 1 through 7 are procedural and apply only to the operations of the Congress, there are no powers conferred to Washington to levy against the States or the people there. I do want to note in passing Article 1 Section 7 clause 1, "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
If there was ever a question about the fallacy of Judicial Review, then Justice John Roberts position that Obamacare was a Constitutional tax that arose from the US Senate should put that notion to rest immediately.
The actual powers of the federal government begin with the powers of Congress enumerated in Article 1 Section 8. I will not read the entire section, but if you are following along and want to mark or hilight Article 1 Section 8 here is the first place we find powers that have been delegated to the federal government in the US Constitution. These 19 discrete powers are the primary powers that Congress is allowed to exercise. This one section makes up the vast majority of Congressional power.
Before I move on I would like to call your attention to the very last paragraph in Article 1 Section 8. The "necessary and proper" clause. Here is one of the primary sections of the Constitution that big government politicians like to abuse to claim unconstitutional power. They like to claim that this clause gives them to power to make 'any necessary or proper law.' This claim should be absurd on it's face. The clause authorizes the Congress to make any laws necessary and proper for carrying out the previously listed 19 enumerated powers or any other powers granted the federal government IN the Constitution, and it only authorizes the passing of laws that carry out those listed powers. Again, this dovetails perfectly with Article 6 and with the 10th Amendment.
Section 9 mostly tells Congress what they cannot do, but the end of clause 2 it does authorize Congress to exercise a power to suspend Habeas Corpus in case of rebellion or invasion. Note that it gives this power to CONGRESS, not the President.
Section 10 lists powers that are prohibited to the States. Remember that the 10th Amendment addresses this specifically. Because the powers in Article 1 Section 10 are prohibited to the States, the US Congress does have the power to legislate these prohibitions. If they are not found in Article 1 Section 10, then Congress is not allowed to prohibit it to the States.
For the purposes of this discussion, Article 2 is very simple. The President's job is to carry out the Acts of Congress. No new powers are conferred on the federal government in Article 2.
Article 3 Section 3 defines treason and grants Congress power to establish the punishment for treason. Of particular note, nowhere in Article 3 is the Supreme Court given the authority to decide whether a law is Constitutional or not.
Article 4 does grant a few implied powers, in
Article 6 we've already discussed, but at the very end it grants Congress the power to prohibit the States from making religious tests for any public office in the United States government.
And Article 7 confers no power to the federal government.
Moving on to the Amendments...
Amendments 1 through 12 only limit the power of the federal government, they do not grant any new powers. The first Amendment to grant any power to the federal government is the 13th Amendment, which grants to Congress the power to enforce the prohibition of slavery.
The 14th Amendment grants the federal government the power to establish US citizenship and the power to prohibit the States from violating individual human and civil rights and to prevent insurrectionists from serving in public office.
The 15th Amendment grants Congress the power to prevent the States from limiting the right to vote based on race.
The 16th Amendment grants Congress the power to levy unapportioned tax on incomes.
The 17th Amendment establishes the popular election of Senators but does not technically grant the federal government any powers.
The 19th Amendment grants Congress the power to prevent the States from limiting the right to vote based on gender.
The 23rd Amendment grants Congress the power to authorize Presidential Electors from the District of Columbia
The 24th Amendment grants Congress the power to prohibit poll taxes for the privilege of voting.
And finally, the 26th Amendment grants Congress the power to prevent the States from limiting the right to vote based on age, and to establish the voting age at 18 years old.
Now if you have been following along and marking or highlighting the sections I have pointed out, then you have marked or hilighted every last power that the federal government has and is allowed to exercise.
Only those laws that are explicitly authorized by those marked or hilighted sections are supreme, per Article 6 of the US Constitution. Any laws that are not pursuant to the marked or hilighted sections are not laws at all, they are null and void, hence nullification.
Proper, Constitutional nullification per James Madison, the author of the US Constitution, and per Thomas Jefferson, the author of the principles that the Constitution was drafted around, does not, can not "veto" any federal laws, that was the error of John C. Calhoun which the modern opponents of nullification rely on to justify their position.
Instead, it merely recognizes an existing condition - that any federal laws which do not proceed from the powers that are now marked in each of your Constitutions, under the Article 6 Supremacy Clause simply are not laws at all. They are null, void, and can be ignored by the States.
This is NOT the "Single State Veto" which presumes to repeal federal laws, it is simply a recognition that such laws are not supreme per Article 6, and therefore State legislation takes precedence and preeminence over any and all such acts.
An amazing piece of history that usually gets lost in this debate, is the story of Wisconsin's nullification of the Fugitive Slave Acts.
Congress passed the first Fugitive Slave Law in 1793, which required that any persons on happening to encounter an escaped slave were required to capture them and return them to their owners.
As early as 1794 many of the Northern free states were passing laws refusing the State's cooperation with the original 1793 fugitive slave laws - bills almost identical to many of todays "refuse to cooperate" bills arising from the several State Legislatures around drones, or the indefinite detention provision in the NDAA, or to refuse cooperation with any federal confiscation of firearms. The 1794-1796 Nullification acts of the Fugitive Slave laws serve as the basic model for the vast majority of nullification acts arising in the several States today. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), that states did not have to offer aid in the hunting or recapture of slaves, the vast majority of the nullifiers were vindicated, and the slave trade was thrown into chaos, with the institution of slavery becoming completely untenable in the border States due to a massive increase in slaves escaping captivity and fleeing to the North.
So, with the Northern States refusing to cooperate with the recapture and the return of escaped slaves, the Southern States demanded action and in September of 1850, Congress passed a law that required any escaped slave, whether having passed into a free state or not, to be aggressively recaptured by the citizens or agents of that State, and to be returned to their slaveholder, or face fines and/or imprisonment. Gone was any ambiguity in the law, the States were explicitly disallowed from refusing to cooperate, and the failure to capture and return a slave could land one on federal prison. Anybody who gave food or shelter to a slave was subject to fines and imprisonment. No slave was allowed to seek a jury trial before being returned to their owners. A slave owner merely needed to provide an affidavit claiming ownership of a person, and that person was their property. No matter whether they lived in a free state or a slave state.
As you can imagine, abolitionists and the Free States were rightly appalled at this law, as it eliminated any possibility for refuge on the part of escaped slaves.
Wisconsin and Vermont took particular offense to the abhorrent Fugitive Slave laws of 1850, and Wisconsin ruled the Act unconstitutional and disallowed any cooperation within the State with the law, and specifically Vermont in November of 1850 ratified the "Habeas Corpus Act" that outright required all judicial and law enforcement officers in the State of Vermont to assist the SLAVES against their capture and return to their former owners.
Now, I want to stop and draw your attention to what Vermont did here. They passed a law in the Vermont State Legislature that positively required all of the officials in the State of Vermont to assist the escaped slaves in contravention of the federal fugitive slave laws. Here is where we first get the modern concept of Interposition.
In the Vermont law, the State was required to INTERPOSE itself on behalf of the victim of the unconstitutional federal law. No longer was this 'mere' nullification where a federal law was declared to be unconstitutional and that it would simply be ignored within the State (nullification), but further the State was required to interpose itself in between the affected fugitive slave and the federal government - Nullification with Interposition.
Because of the brave actions of Wisconsin to declare the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional and refuse cooperation, and of Vermont to go even further and pass legislative interposition to place the State government in between Washington DC and their victims, this ensured the survival of the Underground Railroad and led to securing the liberty of tens of thousands of slaves.
Furthermore, the brave actions of Vermont and Wisconsin led many of the rest of the Free States to find the courage to openly ignore the Fugitive Slave Laws without passing the corresponding nullification legislation to do so. Jury trials were forced for the return of slaves in places like Massachusetts - in direct violation of the federal law - which universally led to the slave's freedom via jury nullification, or a direct refusal on the part of the jury to convict, despite the letter of the law.
Without these two brilliant examples of nullification, many thousands of slaves would have been returned to the horror of their bondage, but instead lived out their lives in liberty.
Now that we have brushed against the concept of Interposition in the Vermont law, let's take a closer look at interposition.
The term was first coined by James Madison, author of the Kentucky Resolution to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts. In the context of the Kentucky Resolution, interposition referred to directing Kentucky's Congressional delegation to seek the repeal of the Alien and Sedition Acts, and not to interposing the State on behalf of the victims of the law. That was as far as interposition went in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, primarily because the Alien and Sedition Acts were not being very well enforced in the first place, and there was very little to actually interpose against.
Opponents of the doctrine will claim that asking the Congressional delegation to seek a law's repeal is the only thing that interposition can possibly mean. However, words have meaning, and taking a cue from the school of original intent we must use a dictionary that was produced in the era of the language used in order to discern what that language meant at the time it was penned.
The 1792 Samuel Johnson Dictionary of the English Language (1792) defines Interposition thus:
INTERPOSITION
1 Intervienient Agency
2 Mediation; agency between parties
3 Intervention; state of being placed between two
4 Anything interposed
Therefore we can clearly see that interposition meant the same thing in 1792 as it does today. Words have meaning, and lest we accuse James Madison, the author of the US Constitution of not knowing the meaning of words, then we have to account for the potential of Vermont style interposition having been countenanced by Madison when he described it as such. Had he not countenanced such an application, any number of words would have been more appropriate, such as Redress. Petition. or Direction.
No, James Madison quite specifically called upon interposition, even giving interposition a higher claim to legislative legitimacy than the nullification it is predicated from. Part of the reason that interposition was granted as preferable to simple nullification was to counter the "Single State Veto" distortion conceived by John C Calhoun, which perverted Madisonian and Jeffersonian nullification improperly to reach outside of the State to affect external action, where when conjoined with interposition the doctrine could only ever be seen to affect operations WITHIN the State.
So, to summarize what we've covered so far,
Nullification is the act of recognizing an Act of Congress as being unconstitutional, and therefore per the Article 6 Supremacy Clause it is not supreme, but it is null and void.
Interposition is a legislative act requiring the State to interpose itself between the federal government and any potential victims of the unconstitutional law, whether that interposition is to lobby Congress as in the case of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, or to actually interpose with the force of law and arms to defend the victim as in the case of the Vermont Habeas Corpus Act.
The doctrine of nullification can be drawn entirely from the Article 6 Supremacy clause specifying that ONLY those laws pursuant to the powers granted in the US Constitution are supreme, and the Tenth Amendment is only supporting documentation for a doctrine that exists entirely within the Supremacy Clause itself.
The powers from which Congress may enact legitimate federal laws are few and defined, and we covered every single one of them in our copies of the US Constitution.
Kentucky and Virginia in 1798 did it correctly. The Free States from 1794-1840 did it correctly. Wisconsin and Vermont in 1850-1854 did it correctly. These were all examples of proper Constitutionally correct nullification.
John C Calhoun in 1832 did it wrong. This was an example of the improper application of nullification, further, this was a distortion of the primary definition, intent, and purpose of nullification.
Opponents of nullification point to the Calhoun bills of 1832 and like to pretend that the rest of them never actually happened. The Heritage Foundation, for example, in it's oppositional dissertation against nullification, points only to the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, demonstrating their difference from the Calhoun distortion, and summarily declares nullification as a Constitutional heresy.
Of course, it's pretty easy to wrestle out a predetermined conclusion when you just ignore 80% of the evidence of history.
This finally brings us to the modern nullification movement.
First it is important to recognize that the only times nullification has ever been proper or successful in American history, has been to defend personal human and civil rights against the federal overreach of unconstitutional law. Whenever nullification has been used for any purpose other than defending human and civil rights, it has not only failed spectacularly, it has generally been found in retrospect to be improper.
Therefore, modern nullification bills have been universally directed towards the protection of human and civil rights. Nullifying federal gun control. Nullifying federal drone surveillance and attacks. Nullifying the federal suspension of habeas corpus in the NDAA, nullifying the federal regulation of personal food gardens, nullifying the federal regulation of personal commerce via the abuse of the interstate commerce clause, and so on.
Nullification bills have been considered and or passed into law, in every single state in the region except for North Carolina.
Virginia signed into law the nullification of federal identification cards in 2009, and signed into law the nullification of indefinite detention in the NDAA in 2012, and passed drone nullification in 2013 currently awaiting the Governor's signature.
South Carolina signed into law the nullification of federal identification cards in 2007.
Georgia signed into law the nullification of federal identification cards in 2007.
Tennessee enacted Firearms Freedom into law in 2009,
Alabama passed a Constitutional Amendment to nullify Obamacare in 2012
Nearly every State in the Union has at the very least allowed these bills to be heard, including California and Illinois.
Except for North Carolina.
North Carolina is on course to become the last State in the United States that to give any of these kinds of bills even a basic hearing. In fact, the North Carolina General Assembly is openly hostile to the notion of hearing any bill that stands up against Washington DC, and the primary opponent in the General Assembly against these measures has directly threatened any Member who introduces such bills with shutdown and electoral removal.
There are two primary reasons for this. First, Article 1 Section 5 of the North Carolina State Constitution requiring that no laws in contravention to the government of the United States may be binding has been blatantly misinterpreted to mean that no such laws may exist, and second, while the opponents of our standing up to Washington DC are a very small minority of Republicans in the General Assembly, they have the reins of leadership, and have since before the Republican Majority.
The primary opponent to nullification in the General Assembly argues, "the Civil War answered that question once and for all," which of course is nonsense because the Civil War did not repeal the US Constitution, and their second argument is based in case law such that Wickard v Filburn (1942) allegedly gives the federal government the power to do anything it wants, regardless of what the Constitution may or may not say, which is also nonsense, because no amount of case law from the Supreme Court or otherwise can serve to repeal the US Constitution.
My friend and former US Marine, Representative George Cleveland has been pushing a State Sovereignty resolution since 2009, and these efforts have been hamstrung by the exact same resistance. Another friend and former Marine, and as I recall a friend of the CCTA, Representative Michael Speciale I know would like to work bills more substantive towards the protection of North Carolina citizens, but he is running against this very same wall.
If we want to see legislation that stands up for North Carolina citizens against the unconstitutional overreach of the federal government, if we want to see the North Carolina Legislature stand up and do it’s duty and honor their oaths, then we have to stand up for those who have stuck their necks out, Michael Speciale, Larry Pittman, John Bell. We have to stand up and be heard, because this leadership doesn’t believe that we exists or that we have the popular will to stand against Washington DC.
And the other thing, we have to stop reelecting Republicans who are ONLY conservative in one issue. When a Republican is good on social issues, but terrible on gun rights, pro Agenda 21, accepting of the nanny state, and so on, especially when such people have the fundraising power to participate in legislative leadership, and exerts that power to prevent the advance or even the consideration of other measures by legislators who propose measures that stand up against federal overreach, then we are going to continue to get what we reelect every two years.
The North Carolina Republican Party is no longer a minority Party. We are a majority party, and it’s time to start acting like one. The voters are not inspired by compromise and capitulation - the only people who claim that they are, are those begging for us to compromise and capitulate.
We saw when Senator Rand Paul stood on the floor of the US Senate to filibuster on a question of the Constitutional separation of powers, that it is NOT compromise that inspires conservatives, it is courage. The Republican Party has not had truly inspirational leadership since Ronald Reagan, and over the course of the last 25 years our power has been in a slow steady decline. We have seen that Senator Rand Paul during his monumental drone filibuster delivered to Barack Obama the first real defeat of his Presidency.
What I am telling you, is that Americans WANT leaders who have the courage to stand up against federal overreach of power. The Republican party is LOSING support because of the lack of courage on the part of our General Assembly leadership. We are no longer a minority party, and it’s time to stop acting like one.
It’s time to ratify nullification with interposition in North Carolina now. We have super-majorities in both chambers, and a Republican Governor. if we can’t do it this, year, then we frankly have no excuse.
~ Glen Bradley
For those of you who weren't there, you missed an excellent meeting on Interposition vs Nullification. A panel discussion with Glen Bradley, former NC House Representative, Jeff Lewis from Patriot Coalition and The Intolerable Acts, and Phil Routszong, Crystal Coast Republican Liberty Caucus, gave us some very valuable information!
Hope to see you next month: April 16th. 7 PM at the BridgePointe for an update with experts on Obamacare!
Glen Bradley Presentation
Our terms and definitions have become slippery and malleable over the years
The words nullification and interposition as they were originally conceived have become twisted into something else entirely.
The current nullification movement is at once an effort to apply the rightful Constitutional remedy provided by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson to address the problem of runaway federal encroachments of power, and to reclaim the terms once distorted by John C. Calhoun into something else entirely.
For some background into the confusing state of the debate before digging into the meat of these measures,
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison proposed and passed the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions in response to the Congressional Alien and Sedition Acts. These resolutions were at once statements of noncompliance as well as a judgement of the Congressional Acts as unconstitutional, and directions to the States' Congressional delegations to work repeal of these offenses.
The Kentucky resolution specifically described the Acts as "utterly void and of no force" which law was described as 'null' and therefore the term 'nullification.'
Now, John C. Calhoun around 1830 took up the idea of nullification and morphed it into something else entirely, a single-state veto. His argument being if a single state claimed that a federal law was void, then that federal law de-facto no longer existed, or was vetoed by the sovereign State. Madison, still around at the time vehemently disagreed with that position, and rightly so. Were Calhoun correct, then any State Legislature could simply pass a resolution rejecting any given federal law whether constitutional or not, and before long there would no longer be any sort of federal government in existence.
Sometimes, as activists trying to advance these measures - particularly in the State of North Carolina - it can feel like we are banging our heads against a brick wall. It is almost as if we are speaking a completely different language than the people we are talking to. Well, we are.
The problem we encounter now, in our modern era, is that proponents of nullification and interposition are working from the Jefferson-Madison definitions, while opponents of nullification are working from the Calhoun definition. This should help to explain why when we talk to some people about the doctrine, they seem to immediately jump to 'secession,' which proper Jeffersonian nullification seeks to actively prevent.
What we must bear in mind when bringing these issues to other activists or State Legislators, is that while proponents and opponents of nullification are using the same WORD, the opponents of nullification are actually talking about the deeply flawed "Single State veto" proposed by John C. Calhoun in 1830.
To be honest, when all of this began to crop up in 2009, we probably should have picked a different set of terms, given that the Calhoun episode came to be known as "the nullification crisis," this confusion should have been seen as inevitable. However, four years in the die is set, and we are working with the terms that we have before us.
Constitutional foundation of Nullification:
The primary Constitutional foundation of Nullification is found in Article 6 of the US Constitution. One major error we make as activists working to promote these measures, is to cite the 10th Amendment as the primary justification, when in reality it is more like supporting documentation to what is already found in Article 6.
On a practical basis, starting from the 10th Amendment a nullification opponent will immediately jump to Article 6 and then we are left to say "well, Article 6 allows it anyway" whereupon we have already lost the argument. Instead, we need to make the case from Article 6 directly, cut the opposition off at the knees, and then support the conclusion with the 10th Amendment.
If anybody has their copy of the US Constitution handy, now would be a good time to open it to the Article 6 Supremacy Clause.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Allow me to direct you attention to the clause "in Pursuance thereof."
This is a precise legal term that has a very well defined meaning in jurisprudence. A policeman can enter your home without permission only PURSUANT to a judicial warrant.
It means, consistent with, to follow from, in agreement or conformity with. To do an act pursuant to the law is to conform to the requirements of a statute. In this context, only those laws which conform to the US Constitution are the supreme law of the land.
That, in a nutshell is the entire proper Jeffersonian doctrine of nullification.
If a federal law is NOT pursuant to the text or the enumerated powers of the Constitution, then that law is NOT the supreme law of the land, and the several States are free to ignore it at will.
While the pursuance clause of the of the Supremacy clause should in and of itself be clear enough for anybody who has studied law, or who has a firm grasp of the English language, the antifederalists knew that a time would come when vain men would seek to usurp the rightful powers of the States and the citizens, so they included in the Bill of Rights the 9th and the 10th Amendments to describe the proper delegation of powers, in support of this concept so as to eliminate any possible confusion.
Turning now to the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This is simply a very precise way of saying that if the Constitution doesn't give Washington a certain power, that Washington doesn't have that power. Most of you will have already picked up that this is just re-stating the very same exact thing I spoke of with the pursuance clause of the supremacy clause in Article 6.
To deny Washington DC any powers that are not explicitly authorized in the text of the Constitution does not even require the existence of the Tenth Amendment, it is found in it's entirety in the very Article 6 Supremacy clause that most lawyers will cite to claim that the the 10th Amendment is invalid, or irrelevant. Clearly, that is not the case. To that end, when we go about our political activism working to advance these measures that have been called nullification in our modern era, I would suggest making the bulk of the argument directly from Article 6, and only relying on the Tenth Amendment for supporting documentation of a doctrine found in the Constitution proper, without even needing to go to the Amendments. This will eliminate the first and foremost objection raised by opponents.
I will try to push through this next section quickly but there is a lot of information here and it's going to come out like a firehose, but in my limited time I want to cover the successful Wisconsin nullification of the Fugitive Slave Acts, as well as some of the objections you will encounter from nullification opponents, how to answer them, and I am probably going to run out of time before I really get into interposition and how that relates to both the original and the modern nullification acts.
Since proper Jeffersonian nullification is really nothing more than "Washington can't do anything that isn't listed in the Constitution" then the foremost important aspect to cover when teaching about nullification is 'what powers are listed in the Constitution that Washington CAN do?"
If you have a pen or a pencil or a highligher handy and you want to mark these sections off as I touch on them, then get it ready because I am about to push through the entire Constitution identifying every last single power granted to the federal government in the US Constitution.
First, we have to be mindful of context. Contrary to the doctrines of those who would seek loopholes to expand federal power, the Preamble to the US Constitution confers no powers to the federal government. Instead, it simply explains the purpose of the Constitution - what they hope to accomplish with the following text, or why the Constitution was written and submitted for ratification.
Article 1 Sections 1 through 7 are procedural and apply only to the operations of the Congress, there are no powers conferred to Washington to levy against the States or the people there. I do want to note in passing Article 1 Section 7 clause 1, "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
If there was ever a question about the fallacy of Judicial Review, then Justice John Roberts position that Obamacare was a Constitutional tax that arose from the US Senate should put that notion to rest immediately.
The actual powers of the federal government begin with the powers of Congress enumerated in Article 1 Section 8. I will not read the entire section, but if you are following along and want to mark or hilight Article 1 Section 8 here is the first place we find powers that have been delegated to the federal government in the US Constitution. These 19 discrete powers are the primary powers that Congress is allowed to exercise. This one section makes up the vast majority of Congressional power.
Before I move on I would like to call your attention to the very last paragraph in Article 1 Section 8. The "necessary and proper" clause. Here is one of the primary sections of the Constitution that big government politicians like to abuse to claim unconstitutional power. They like to claim that this clause gives them to power to make 'any necessary or proper law.' This claim should be absurd on it's face. The clause authorizes the Congress to make any laws necessary and proper for carrying out the previously listed 19 enumerated powers or any other powers granted the federal government IN the Constitution, and it only authorizes the passing of laws that carry out those listed powers. Again, this dovetails perfectly with Article 6 and with the 10th Amendment.
Section 9 mostly tells Congress what they cannot do, but the end of clause 2 it does authorize Congress to exercise a power to suspend Habeas Corpus in case of rebellion or invasion. Note that it gives this power to CONGRESS, not the President.
Section 10 lists powers that are prohibited to the States. Remember that the 10th Amendment addresses this specifically. Because the powers in Article 1 Section 10 are prohibited to the States, the US Congress does have the power to legislate these prohibitions. If they are not found in Article 1 Section 10, then Congress is not allowed to prohibit it to the States.
For the purposes of this discussion, Article 2 is very simple. The President's job is to carry out the Acts of Congress. No new powers are conferred on the federal government in Article 2.
Article 3 Section 3 defines treason and grants Congress power to establish the punishment for treason. Of particular note, nowhere in Article 3 is the Supreme Court given the authority to decide whether a law is Constitutional or not.
Article 4 does grant a few implied powers, in
- Section 1 to require the full sharing of records and proceedings between the States,
- Section 2 to require recognition of citizens from other states and to require just treatment, as well as to return those accused of crimes back to their original State for trial or to carry out their sentences
- Section 3 to govern the admittance of territories and the formation of States, and to legislate matters on properties belonging exclusively to the United States Government
- and Section 4 the power to enforce a republican form of government upon the States, and to put down insurrections.
Article 6 we've already discussed, but at the very end it grants Congress the power to prohibit the States from making religious tests for any public office in the United States government.
And Article 7 confers no power to the federal government.
Moving on to the Amendments...
Amendments 1 through 12 only limit the power of the federal government, they do not grant any new powers. The first Amendment to grant any power to the federal government is the 13th Amendment, which grants to Congress the power to enforce the prohibition of slavery.
The 14th Amendment grants the federal government the power to establish US citizenship and the power to prohibit the States from violating individual human and civil rights and to prevent insurrectionists from serving in public office.
The 15th Amendment grants Congress the power to prevent the States from limiting the right to vote based on race.
The 16th Amendment grants Congress the power to levy unapportioned tax on incomes.
The 17th Amendment establishes the popular election of Senators but does not technically grant the federal government any powers.
The 19th Amendment grants Congress the power to prevent the States from limiting the right to vote based on gender.
The 23rd Amendment grants Congress the power to authorize Presidential Electors from the District of Columbia
The 24th Amendment grants Congress the power to prohibit poll taxes for the privilege of voting.
And finally, the 26th Amendment grants Congress the power to prevent the States from limiting the right to vote based on age, and to establish the voting age at 18 years old.
Now if you have been following along and marking or highlighting the sections I have pointed out, then you have marked or hilighted every last power that the federal government has and is allowed to exercise.
Only those laws that are explicitly authorized by those marked or hilighted sections are supreme, per Article 6 of the US Constitution. Any laws that are not pursuant to the marked or hilighted sections are not laws at all, they are null and void, hence nullification.
Proper, Constitutional nullification per James Madison, the author of the US Constitution, and per Thomas Jefferson, the author of the principles that the Constitution was drafted around, does not, can not "veto" any federal laws, that was the error of John C. Calhoun which the modern opponents of nullification rely on to justify their position.
Instead, it merely recognizes an existing condition - that any federal laws which do not proceed from the powers that are now marked in each of your Constitutions, under the Article 6 Supremacy Clause simply are not laws at all. They are null, void, and can be ignored by the States.
This is NOT the "Single State Veto" which presumes to repeal federal laws, it is simply a recognition that such laws are not supreme per Article 6, and therefore State legislation takes precedence and preeminence over any and all such acts.
An amazing piece of history that usually gets lost in this debate, is the story of Wisconsin's nullification of the Fugitive Slave Acts.
Congress passed the first Fugitive Slave Law in 1793, which required that any persons on happening to encounter an escaped slave were required to capture them and return them to their owners.
As early as 1794 many of the Northern free states were passing laws refusing the State's cooperation with the original 1793 fugitive slave laws - bills almost identical to many of todays "refuse to cooperate" bills arising from the several State Legislatures around drones, or the indefinite detention provision in the NDAA, or to refuse cooperation with any federal confiscation of firearms. The 1794-1796 Nullification acts of the Fugitive Slave laws serve as the basic model for the vast majority of nullification acts arising in the several States today. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), that states did not have to offer aid in the hunting or recapture of slaves, the vast majority of the nullifiers were vindicated, and the slave trade was thrown into chaos, with the institution of slavery becoming completely untenable in the border States due to a massive increase in slaves escaping captivity and fleeing to the North.
So, with the Northern States refusing to cooperate with the recapture and the return of escaped slaves, the Southern States demanded action and in September of 1850, Congress passed a law that required any escaped slave, whether having passed into a free state or not, to be aggressively recaptured by the citizens or agents of that State, and to be returned to their slaveholder, or face fines and/or imprisonment. Gone was any ambiguity in the law, the States were explicitly disallowed from refusing to cooperate, and the failure to capture and return a slave could land one on federal prison. Anybody who gave food or shelter to a slave was subject to fines and imprisonment. No slave was allowed to seek a jury trial before being returned to their owners. A slave owner merely needed to provide an affidavit claiming ownership of a person, and that person was their property. No matter whether they lived in a free state or a slave state.
As you can imagine, abolitionists and the Free States were rightly appalled at this law, as it eliminated any possibility for refuge on the part of escaped slaves.
Wisconsin and Vermont took particular offense to the abhorrent Fugitive Slave laws of 1850, and Wisconsin ruled the Act unconstitutional and disallowed any cooperation within the State with the law, and specifically Vermont in November of 1850 ratified the "Habeas Corpus Act" that outright required all judicial and law enforcement officers in the State of Vermont to assist the SLAVES against their capture and return to their former owners.
Now, I want to stop and draw your attention to what Vermont did here. They passed a law in the Vermont State Legislature that positively required all of the officials in the State of Vermont to assist the escaped slaves in contravention of the federal fugitive slave laws. Here is where we first get the modern concept of Interposition.
In the Vermont law, the State was required to INTERPOSE itself on behalf of the victim of the unconstitutional federal law. No longer was this 'mere' nullification where a federal law was declared to be unconstitutional and that it would simply be ignored within the State (nullification), but further the State was required to interpose itself in between the affected fugitive slave and the federal government - Nullification with Interposition.
Because of the brave actions of Wisconsin to declare the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional and refuse cooperation, and of Vermont to go even further and pass legislative interposition to place the State government in between Washington DC and their victims, this ensured the survival of the Underground Railroad and led to securing the liberty of tens of thousands of slaves.
Furthermore, the brave actions of Vermont and Wisconsin led many of the rest of the Free States to find the courage to openly ignore the Fugitive Slave Laws without passing the corresponding nullification legislation to do so. Jury trials were forced for the return of slaves in places like Massachusetts - in direct violation of the federal law - which universally led to the slave's freedom via jury nullification, or a direct refusal on the part of the jury to convict, despite the letter of the law.
Without these two brilliant examples of nullification, many thousands of slaves would have been returned to the horror of their bondage, but instead lived out their lives in liberty.
Now that we have brushed against the concept of Interposition in the Vermont law, let's take a closer look at interposition.
The term was first coined by James Madison, author of the Kentucky Resolution to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts. In the context of the Kentucky Resolution, interposition referred to directing Kentucky's Congressional delegation to seek the repeal of the Alien and Sedition Acts, and not to interposing the State on behalf of the victims of the law. That was as far as interposition went in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, primarily because the Alien and Sedition Acts were not being very well enforced in the first place, and there was very little to actually interpose against.
Opponents of the doctrine will claim that asking the Congressional delegation to seek a law's repeal is the only thing that interposition can possibly mean. However, words have meaning, and taking a cue from the school of original intent we must use a dictionary that was produced in the era of the language used in order to discern what that language meant at the time it was penned.
The 1792 Samuel Johnson Dictionary of the English Language (1792) defines Interposition thus:
INTERPOSITION
1 Intervienient Agency
2 Mediation; agency between parties
3 Intervention; state of being placed between two
4 Anything interposed
Therefore we can clearly see that interposition meant the same thing in 1792 as it does today. Words have meaning, and lest we accuse James Madison, the author of the US Constitution of not knowing the meaning of words, then we have to account for the potential of Vermont style interposition having been countenanced by Madison when he described it as such. Had he not countenanced such an application, any number of words would have been more appropriate, such as Redress. Petition. or Direction.
No, James Madison quite specifically called upon interposition, even giving interposition a higher claim to legislative legitimacy than the nullification it is predicated from. Part of the reason that interposition was granted as preferable to simple nullification was to counter the "Single State Veto" distortion conceived by John C Calhoun, which perverted Madisonian and Jeffersonian nullification improperly to reach outside of the State to affect external action, where when conjoined with interposition the doctrine could only ever be seen to affect operations WITHIN the State.
So, to summarize what we've covered so far,
Nullification is the act of recognizing an Act of Congress as being unconstitutional, and therefore per the Article 6 Supremacy Clause it is not supreme, but it is null and void.
Interposition is a legislative act requiring the State to interpose itself between the federal government and any potential victims of the unconstitutional law, whether that interposition is to lobby Congress as in the case of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, or to actually interpose with the force of law and arms to defend the victim as in the case of the Vermont Habeas Corpus Act.
The doctrine of nullification can be drawn entirely from the Article 6 Supremacy clause specifying that ONLY those laws pursuant to the powers granted in the US Constitution are supreme, and the Tenth Amendment is only supporting documentation for a doctrine that exists entirely within the Supremacy Clause itself.
The powers from which Congress may enact legitimate federal laws are few and defined, and we covered every single one of them in our copies of the US Constitution.
Kentucky and Virginia in 1798 did it correctly. The Free States from 1794-1840 did it correctly. Wisconsin and Vermont in 1850-1854 did it correctly. These were all examples of proper Constitutionally correct nullification.
John C Calhoun in 1832 did it wrong. This was an example of the improper application of nullification, further, this was a distortion of the primary definition, intent, and purpose of nullification.
Opponents of nullification point to the Calhoun bills of 1832 and like to pretend that the rest of them never actually happened. The Heritage Foundation, for example, in it's oppositional dissertation against nullification, points only to the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, demonstrating their difference from the Calhoun distortion, and summarily declares nullification as a Constitutional heresy.
Of course, it's pretty easy to wrestle out a predetermined conclusion when you just ignore 80% of the evidence of history.
This finally brings us to the modern nullification movement.
First it is important to recognize that the only times nullification has ever been proper or successful in American history, has been to defend personal human and civil rights against the federal overreach of unconstitutional law. Whenever nullification has been used for any purpose other than defending human and civil rights, it has not only failed spectacularly, it has generally been found in retrospect to be improper.
Therefore, modern nullification bills have been universally directed towards the protection of human and civil rights. Nullifying federal gun control. Nullifying federal drone surveillance and attacks. Nullifying the federal suspension of habeas corpus in the NDAA, nullifying the federal regulation of personal food gardens, nullifying the federal regulation of personal commerce via the abuse of the interstate commerce clause, and so on.
Nullification bills have been considered and or passed into law, in every single state in the region except for North Carolina.
Virginia signed into law the nullification of federal identification cards in 2009, and signed into law the nullification of indefinite detention in the NDAA in 2012, and passed drone nullification in 2013 currently awaiting the Governor's signature.
South Carolina signed into law the nullification of federal identification cards in 2007.
Georgia signed into law the nullification of federal identification cards in 2007.
Tennessee enacted Firearms Freedom into law in 2009,
Alabama passed a Constitutional Amendment to nullify Obamacare in 2012
Nearly every State in the Union has at the very least allowed these bills to be heard, including California and Illinois.
Except for North Carolina.
North Carolina is on course to become the last State in the United States that to give any of these kinds of bills even a basic hearing. In fact, the North Carolina General Assembly is openly hostile to the notion of hearing any bill that stands up against Washington DC, and the primary opponent in the General Assembly against these measures has directly threatened any Member who introduces such bills with shutdown and electoral removal.
There are two primary reasons for this. First, Article 1 Section 5 of the North Carolina State Constitution requiring that no laws in contravention to the government of the United States may be binding has been blatantly misinterpreted to mean that no such laws may exist, and second, while the opponents of our standing up to Washington DC are a very small minority of Republicans in the General Assembly, they have the reins of leadership, and have since before the Republican Majority.
The primary opponent to nullification in the General Assembly argues, "the Civil War answered that question once and for all," which of course is nonsense because the Civil War did not repeal the US Constitution, and their second argument is based in case law such that Wickard v Filburn (1942) allegedly gives the federal government the power to do anything it wants, regardless of what the Constitution may or may not say, which is also nonsense, because no amount of case law from the Supreme Court or otherwise can serve to repeal the US Constitution.
My friend and former US Marine, Representative George Cleveland has been pushing a State Sovereignty resolution since 2009, and these efforts have been hamstrung by the exact same resistance. Another friend and former Marine, and as I recall a friend of the CCTA, Representative Michael Speciale I know would like to work bills more substantive towards the protection of North Carolina citizens, but he is running against this very same wall.
If we want to see legislation that stands up for North Carolina citizens against the unconstitutional overreach of the federal government, if we want to see the North Carolina Legislature stand up and do it’s duty and honor their oaths, then we have to stand up for those who have stuck their necks out, Michael Speciale, Larry Pittman, John Bell. We have to stand up and be heard, because this leadership doesn’t believe that we exists or that we have the popular will to stand against Washington DC.
And the other thing, we have to stop reelecting Republicans who are ONLY conservative in one issue. When a Republican is good on social issues, but terrible on gun rights, pro Agenda 21, accepting of the nanny state, and so on, especially when such people have the fundraising power to participate in legislative leadership, and exerts that power to prevent the advance or even the consideration of other measures by legislators who propose measures that stand up against federal overreach, then we are going to continue to get what we reelect every two years.
The North Carolina Republican Party is no longer a minority Party. We are a majority party, and it’s time to start acting like one. The voters are not inspired by compromise and capitulation - the only people who claim that they are, are those begging for us to compromise and capitulate.
We saw when Senator Rand Paul stood on the floor of the US Senate to filibuster on a question of the Constitutional separation of powers, that it is NOT compromise that inspires conservatives, it is courage. The Republican Party has not had truly inspirational leadership since Ronald Reagan, and over the course of the last 25 years our power has been in a slow steady decline. We have seen that Senator Rand Paul during his monumental drone filibuster delivered to Barack Obama the first real defeat of his Presidency.
What I am telling you, is that Americans WANT leaders who have the courage to stand up against federal overreach of power. The Republican party is LOSING support because of the lack of courage on the part of our General Assembly leadership. We are no longer a minority party, and it’s time to stop acting like one.
It’s time to ratify nullification with interposition in North Carolina now. We have super-majorities in both chambers, and a Republican Governor. if we can’t do it this, year, then we frankly have no excuse.
~ Glen Bradley
NEW BERN BOARD OF ALDERMEN WORKSHOP OF MARCH 19, 2013
CCTA WATCHDOG REPORT FOR NEW BERN BOARD OF ALDERMEN
WORKSHOP OF MARCH 19, 2013
The Agenda consisted of two items which were:
1. To meet with the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) and Board of Adjustment (BoAdj) to discuss each board's purpose, scope of duties, board membership, and the minimum housing process.
2. City Attorney discussion about status of demolition by neglect process and specific properties.
Meeting attendees included Mayor Bettis, the 6 aldermen, the city manager, the city attorney, the chairs and/or vice-chairs of each of the 3 boards, boards' members. Due to length of the meeting (appx 2 hrs, 20 min) only Item #1 was addressed. Over an hour was spent specifically on HPC issues. After each Board's introductory presentation, questions from the audience were taken and answered. Most of the audience comprised members or former members of the various boards.
Please refer to the city website @ http://www.newbern-nc.org for purpose, scope of duties of each Board, meeting dates, PEG channel 3 show times, term lengths. You can do this by selecting the city hall tab, then under the heading "Departments", click on "Development Services". You will see the tabs for all the Boards. Under each Board tab are subtabs for a members list, next meeting agenda, minutes for past meetings. The city staff points of contact for the boards are Kevin Robinson 9252)639-7583 or email @ robinsonk@newbern-nc.org, Bernard; Bernard George (252)639-7584 or email @ georgeb@newbern-nc.org; or dept head Jeff Ruggieri (252)639-7587 or email @ ruggierij@newbern-nc.org.
To read the municipal ordinances governing each Board, click here: http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=11332.
In the "Search box", type in the name of the Board you wish to know about.
All city staff and Board chairs stressed that it is most advantageous and much less stressful for both the city and the citizens involved in either buying a home, planning a business site, developing a homesite, or adding-on or modifying the structures of their property to please contact the Development Services Department prior to embarking on any of those endeavors. They also pointed that they are always searching for qualified persons in relevant fields (e.g., developers, builders, realtors, architects, lawyers) to fill board vacancies.
The main topic of importance for all the boards was the training of members, mainly for new members, but also for continuing education as well. Several training resources were discussed and it was noted that there was as much as 50% of the costs paid for by the state for some training.
The second item of emphasis was the value in keeping within the boards' guidelines so as to ensure the integrity and value of New Bern's historic assets. Doing so provided high return for property owners and the city and its coffers. The important element of aesthetic value to tourists and citizens alike was also brought into discussion.
The topic that brought the most intense discussion was the third item of what to do about properties and their owners who not only were not in compliance with city ordinances or the board's guidelines but who fell out of that compliance by neglecting their responsibilities of property and dwelling upkeep thus bringing about other nuisances. On the subject of nuisances, please note that there is to be a public hearing "to amend Article II Definitions 'Family' of Appendix A 'Land Use' of the Code of Ordinances of the City New Bern" at the March 26, 2013 Board of Alderman regular meeting. "The purpose of the amendment is to further clarify the definition of 'family' when property owners rent a single-family dwelling or portions of a dwelling to individuals who are not related by blood, adoption or marriage. Staff has encountered several enforcement situations where property owners have partitioned off or leased multiple areas in a single-family dwelling in violation of the zoning ordinance. The property owners will claim the tenants are 'family', although evidence often indicates the residents actually function as multiple independent households..." This reporter's neighborhood was instrumental in helping craft the original definition and ordinance; as such I can attest to the values to both property and quality of life that passing this ordinance will bring. I can also tell you that despite the City offering workshops about these issues and their governing ordinances to rental agencies, realtors & developers that the violations of turning single-family dwellings into multi family ones continues.
It was the consensus of the Boards that the most important ways the Board of Aldermen can help the various city boards was:
1. To provide direction and assistance with criterion to assess violations and develop adverse consequences for those in violation with such, in accordance with HPC guidelines and/or city ordinances.
2. To design procedures which aid in prevention of demolition by neglect issues, including staff and funding to enforce these demolition of neglect issues.
Rhonda Taylor
New Bern, NC 28562
UPDATE
This is a very important report for all of us. Rhonda tells me that $1.5 Million of matching local taxpayer money and $28.5 Million of federal taxpayer money will likely be spent on a project to renovate the river front subsidized housing in New Bern (Trent Court Neighborhood) if nothing is done to stop it and the ball all has already been moved pretty far under the radar. We all need to study the situation.
~ Hal
Special Supplement to CCTA Watchdog Report for New Bern Board of Aldermen: NB Gateway Renaissance Plan & Federal HUD Choice Neighborhoods Grant
The New Bern of Aldermen passed a resolution on Jan 8, 2013 to adopt the New Bern Gateway Renaissance Plan. Note that this reporter had not yet been solicited to contribute to this CCTA newsletter. Truthfully, this is such a massive project with so many parts, I'm still not totally confident that the average layperson (such as myself) can fully comprehend the details of each project within the plan nor their funding sources. Since I feel it is important that the citizens are aware of some of the moving parts of this project while the majority of it is in the planning stages and being discussed among the other city boards, I will do my best to report on it. Of course for any questions, please contact any or each of the following:
1. the City of New Bern website http://www.newbern-nc.org/CityHall, click the Gateway Renaissance Plan website tab.
2. NB Development Services Dept, (252)639-7587 or Mr. Clarence Hulse at (252)639-7580 or email hulsec@newbern-nc.org .
Sometimes, by the time it gets to the Board of Aldermen, so much has been formalized. This project is massive in scope and has many moving parts. Along with the grants and matching city tax dollars, it affects the entire city and it's citizens, whether in the area of funding and potential averting of tax dollars from other projects that citizens may feel to be more important, changes to neighborhoods throughout the city, crime prevention procedures and resources, public safety improvements, workforce development & employment opportunities, and education improvement provisions. Although the following discussion occurred last year, and the discussion focused on the HUD grant application being sent for last year, all other details are pertinent and timely as concerns the actual project and it's funding.
From the Feb 28, 2012 Board of Aldermen meeting, Agenda Item 6:
"The City is working in partnership with the New Bern Housing Authority in pursuit of a Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grant focusing on the redevelopment of the Trent Court Neighborhood.
Choice Neighborhoods will employ a comprehensive approach to neighborhood transformation. The program will transform neighborhoods by revitalizing public and/or assisted housing and investing and leveraging investments in well-functioning services, high quality public schools and education programs, high quality early learning programs and services, public assets, public transportation, and improved access to jobs.
Choice Neighborhoods will ensure that current residents will be able to benefit from this transformation, by preserving affordable housing or providing residents with the choice to move to affordable and accessible housing in another existing neighborhood of opportunity.
In the development of Choice Neighborhoods, HUD has focused on directing resources into three core goals:
1. Housing: transform distressed public and assisted housing into energy efficient, mixed income housing that is physically and financially viable over the long term;
2. People: support positive outcomes for families who live in the target development(s) and the surrounding neighborhood, particularly outcomes related to residents' health, safety, employment, mobility, and education; and
3. Neighborhood: transform neighborhoods of poverty into viable, mixed income neighborhoods with access to well-functioning services, high quality public schools and education programs, high quality early learning programs and services, public assets, public transportation, and improved access to jobs.
The size of the grant will be based on the size of the project being proposed and will include funds for supportive services. The maximum possible grant is $30 million. A 5% match is required. The City and Housing Authority will be partnering on the required match.
The New Bern Housing Authority has authorized funding for consulting services with Goody Clancy of Boston, MA to lead the application process. This grant application is due April 10, 2012.
If the grant is approved, the city would look at three main goals: provide housing for residents of Trent Court; provide residents access to education, childcare and other benefits; and provide a mixed-income neighborhood. The grant requires replacement housing for each of the 218 units that are eliminated.
The only reasons that this did not happen was: (1) a permanent Housing Authority Directors was not in place, (2) the cut off date for applying was too close to the timeframe the city began considerations, and (3) the Trent Court residents expressed so many concerns that could not be addressed to their satisfaction that would prompt them to risk displacement.
From Planning & Zoning Board meeting of 2-5-13: http://www.newbern-nc.org/PI/documents/FinalFebruary52013.pdf
This is the discussion of this Board's concerns over some of the pertinent issues of residents' displacement & transportation.
I would encourage all citizens to go the City website http://www.newbern-nc.org and click on this link to the New Bern Gateway Renaissance project: http://www.newbernrenaissance.com/. Notice that there are tabs to click on in order to provide any public comments or questions. The current aldermen that serve the wards involved are Ward 1 Sabrina Bengel and Ward 2 Victor Taylor. Note that city elections are October 2013 and the persons in these seats could change. While several public hearings have been held over the years for portions of this project, it is definitely not too late for us to ask questions, provide our personal input and become aware. After all...IT'S OUR MONEY!!! (do the math - 5% of $30 Million = $1.5 Million of our city and federal tax dollars).
Rhonda Taylor New Bern, NC
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Obama quotes Alinsky in speech to young Israelis
In his address in Jerusalem today, President Obama channeled Saul Alinsky, citing the radical community organizer’s defining mantra as he urged young Israelis to “create change” to nudge their leadership to act.
Obama told a crowd of college students at Jerusalem’s main convention center that Israel “has the wisdom to see the world as it is, but also the courage to see the world as it should be.”
One of Alinsky’s major themes was working with the world as it “is” to turn it into the world as “it should be.”
In his defining work, “Rules for Radicals,” which he dedicated to “the first rebel,” Lucifer, Alinsky used those words to lay out his main agenda. He asserted radical change must be brought about by working within a system instead of attacking it from the outside.
“It is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system,” wrote Alinsky.
Read more: http://patriotupdate.com/2013/03/obama-quotes-alinsky-in-speech-to-young-israelis/#ixzz2OEVYzHek
Obama told a crowd of college students at Jerusalem’s main convention center that Israel “has the wisdom to see the world as it is, but also the courage to see the world as it should be.”
One of Alinsky’s major themes was working with the world as it “is” to turn it into the world as “it should be.”
In his defining work, “Rules for Radicals,” which he dedicated to “the first rebel,” Lucifer, Alinsky used those words to lay out his main agenda. He asserted radical change must be brought about by working within a system instead of attacking it from the outside.
“It is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system,” wrote Alinsky.
Read more: http://patriotupdate.com/2013/03/obama-quotes-alinsky-in-speech-to-young-israelis/#ixzz2OEVYzHek
Moore TEA Citizens TAX DAY RALLY
Moore TEA Citizens - alive, well, and preparing for our
5th annual TAX DAY RALLY
in Southern Pines at the Broad Street Post Office on
Saturday, April 13th!
Come out from 1:00 - 4:00pm
We'll be there with speeches, readings, balloons, flags, red, white and blue everywhere, and plenty of music, conversation, a little reading of the Constitution (and plenty of copies to hand out) and enthusiasm overflowing! Bring family and friends, and let's let everyone know that we're standing up and speaking out for America.
We invite all who love America to come out and Rally with us! We'll be registering voters, signing petitions, holding up signs and generally getting into the 1776 Spirit in 2013.
LET'S GO, MOORE TEA CITIZENS. MAKE THIS AN UNFORGETTABLE YEAR FOR AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES WHO LOVE THE CONSTITUTION!
Join Us On April 13th for OUR BIG RALLY!
Bring Family and Friends - Let's GO!
LINK HERE FOR MORE INFO!
Flags for Some! Or Bring Yours to Wave!
Bring a Sign or Two!
Constitutions for All! Or Bring Yours to Read!
Accounts Receivable Tax Building Permit Tax Capital Gains Tax
TAXED ENOUGH!! ALREADY
CDL License Tax * Cigarette Tax * Corporate Income Tax * Court Fines (indirect tax) * Dog License Tax * Federal Income Tax * Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) * Fishing License Tax * Food License Tax * Fuel Permit Tax * Gasoline Tax * Hunting License Tax * Inheritance Tax * Interest Expense (Tax on the money) * Inventory Tax * IRS Interest Charges (Tax on top of Tax) * IRS Penalties (Tax on top of Tax) * Liquor Tax * Local Income Tax * Luxury Taxes * Marriage Tax * Medicare Tax * Property Tax * Real Estate Tax * Recreational Vehicle Tax * Road Toll Booth Tax * Road Usage Tax (Truckers) * Sales Tax * School Tax * Septic Permit Tax * Service Charge Tax * Social Security Tax * State Income Tax * State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) * Telephone Federal Excise Tax * Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax * Telephone Federal, State, Local Surcharge Taxes * Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax * Telephone Recurring and Non-Recurring Charges Tax * Telephone State and Local Tax Telephone Usage Charge Tax * Toll Bridge Tax * Toll Tunnel Tax * Traffic Fines * Trailer Registration Tax * Utility Tax * Vehicle License Registration Tax * Vehicle Sales Tax * Watercraft Registration Tax * Well Permit Tax Workers Compensation Tax ***OBAMACARE***
Moore TEA Citizens
PO Box 4381
Pinehurst, NC 28374
Website: www.mooreteacitizens.com
Email: mooreteacitizens@gmail.com
910-783-8340
PO Box 4381
Pinehurst, NC 28374
Attorney General Eric Holder: If the President Does It, It's Legal
“I never thought I would see the day when a Justice Department would claim that only the most extreme infliction of pain and physical abuse constitutes torture and that acts that are merely cruel, inhuman and degrading are consistent with United States law and policy, that the Supreme Court would have to order the president of the United States to treat detainees in accordance with the Geneva Convention, never thought that I would see that a president would act in direct defiance of federal law by authorizing warrantless NSA surveillance of American citizens. This disrespect for the rule of law is not only wrong, it is destructive.”—Eric Holder, June 2008 speech to the American Constitution Society
Since the early days of our republic, the Attorney General (AG) of the United States has served as the chief lawyer for the government, entrusted with ensuring that the nation’s laws are faithfully carried out and holding government officials accountable to abiding by their oaths of office to “uphold and defend the Constitution.”
Unfortunately, far from holding government officials accountable to abiding by the rule of law, the attorneys general of each successive administration have increasingly aided and abetted the Executive Branch in skirting and, more often than not, flouting the law altogether, justifying all manner of civil liberties and human rights violations and trampling the Constitution in the process, particularly the Fourth Amendment.
No better example is there of the perversion of the office of the AG than its current occupant Eric Holder, who was appointed by President Obama in 2009. Hailed by civil liberties and watchdog groups alike for his pledge to “reverse the disastrous course that we have been on over the past few years” and usher in a new era of civil liberties under Obama, Holder has instead carried on the sorry tradition of his predecessors, going to great lengths to “justify” egregious government actions that can only be described as immoral, unjust and illegal.
Indeed, Holder has managed to eclipse both John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzalez, whose tenures under George W. Bush earned them constant reproach by Democrats and other left-leaning groups for justifying acts of torture, surveillance of American citizens and clandestine behavior by the government. Holder, however, has largely been given a free pass by these very same groups in much the same way that Obama has. The reason, according to former Senate investigator Paul D. Thacker, is that “Obama is a Democrat. And because he is a Democrat, he’s gotten a pass from many of the civil liberty and good-government groups who spent years watching President Bush’s every move like a hawk.”
Despite getting a “pass” from those who would normally have been crying foul, during his time as attorney general, Holder has “made the Constitution scream”—that according to one of his detractors. The colorful description is apt. Some of the Justice Department’s (DOJ) “greatest hits” under Holder begin and end with his stalwart defense of the Obama administration’s growing powers, coming as they do at the expense of the Constitution. CONTINUED: http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=43242
Since the early days of our republic, the Attorney General (AG) of the United States has served as the chief lawyer for the government, entrusted with ensuring that the nation’s laws are faithfully carried out and holding government officials accountable to abiding by their oaths of office to “uphold and defend the Constitution.”
Unfortunately, far from holding government officials accountable to abiding by the rule of law, the attorneys general of each successive administration have increasingly aided and abetted the Executive Branch in skirting and, more often than not, flouting the law altogether, justifying all manner of civil liberties and human rights violations and trampling the Constitution in the process, particularly the Fourth Amendment.
No better example is there of the perversion of the office of the AG than its current occupant Eric Holder, who was appointed by President Obama in 2009. Hailed by civil liberties and watchdog groups alike for his pledge to “reverse the disastrous course that we have been on over the past few years” and usher in a new era of civil liberties under Obama, Holder has instead carried on the sorry tradition of his predecessors, going to great lengths to “justify” egregious government actions that can only be described as immoral, unjust and illegal.
Indeed, Holder has managed to eclipse both John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzalez, whose tenures under George W. Bush earned them constant reproach by Democrats and other left-leaning groups for justifying acts of torture, surveillance of American citizens and clandestine behavior by the government. Holder, however, has largely been given a free pass by these very same groups in much the same way that Obama has. The reason, according to former Senate investigator Paul D. Thacker, is that “Obama is a Democrat. And because he is a Democrat, he’s gotten a pass from many of the civil liberty and good-government groups who spent years watching President Bush’s every move like a hawk.”
Despite getting a “pass” from those who would normally have been crying foul, during his time as attorney general, Holder has “made the Constitution scream”—that according to one of his detractors. The colorful description is apt. Some of the Justice Department’s (DOJ) “greatest hits” under Holder begin and end with his stalwart defense of the Obama administration’s growing powers, coming as they do at the expense of the Constitution. CONTINUED: http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=43242
Life At Conception Act Introduced By Senator Rand Paul
Senator and CPAC straw poll winner Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced the “Life at Conception Act” on Thursday afternoon.
He then went to Twitter and tweeted the following: According to Senator Paul, S 583 “does not amend or interpret the Constitution, but simply relies on the 14th Amendment, which specifically authorizes Congress to enforce its provisions.
From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known- that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection from that point forward,” Sen. Paul said. “The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence and ensuring this is upheld is the Constitutional duty of all Members of Congress.”
The substance of the bill reads,
“To implement equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person, and pursuant to the duty and authority of the Congress, including Congress’ power under article I, section 8, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress hereby declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.”
It also goes on to define the terms “human person” and “human being” as “each member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.” Yes, it sounds silly that we actually have to go about defining what is meant by these terms, but it is a result of the corruption of our society and devolving into not thinking that the child that grows within the womb is not a human, but merely a blob of tissue.
CONTINUED: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/life-at-conception-act-introduced-by-senator-rand-paul/#ixzz2OCG0UfTS
He then went to Twitter and tweeted the following: According to Senator Paul, S 583 “does not amend or interpret the Constitution, but simply relies on the 14th Amendment, which specifically authorizes Congress to enforce its provisions.
From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known- that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection from that point forward,” Sen. Paul said. “The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence and ensuring this is upheld is the Constitutional duty of all Members of Congress.”
The substance of the bill reads,
“To implement equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person, and pursuant to the duty and authority of the Congress, including Congress’ power under article I, section 8, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress hereby declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.”
It also goes on to define the terms “human person” and “human being” as “each member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.” Yes, it sounds silly that we actually have to go about defining what is meant by these terms, but it is a result of the corruption of our society and devolving into not thinking that the child that grows within the womb is not a human, but merely a blob of tissue.
CONTINUED: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/life-at-conception-act-introduced-by-senator-rand-paul/#ixzz2OCG0UfTS
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Craven County Republican Women’s Club Luncheon Meeting--March 27th
March 27, 2013, 10:45 am
Craven County Republican Women’s Club Luncheon Meeting
New Bern Country Club, New Bern Golf and Country Club
4301 Country Club Rd, Trent Woods, NC.
Alderman Dennis Bucher, New Bern Board of Aldermen, will be our speaker. The choices for lunch are Tuna Melt (Tuna salad served a top an English muffin with a tomato and topped with Swiss cheese, served with a fruit cup) or Fall Salad (a blend of crisp greens with crisp pear, gorgonzola, apple-wood smoked bacon bits, candied walnuts, shaved red onions & a cranberry dressing). Please email Sherry Bradbury at sbradbury@suddenlink.net or call 252-637-2827 or 252-675-8041 to reserve your choice.
Note: CCTA is a non partisan organization. We do not endorse any particular candidate or political party. News items are presented for you the reader to help you become informed and reach your own conclusions.
NC FIRE ALERT! March 20, 2013
North Carolinans for Immigration Reform and Enforcement
THIS IS IMPORTANT…...WE ARE CONCERNED THE NC HOUSE IS CRAFTING A WEAK BILL ON IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT. COPY AND SEND THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS DOWN BELOW.
Why has the NC House not done anything to prevent illegal aliens, with deferred action from Obama, from getting driving privileges?
NO illegal aliens should have driving privileges or access to other public benefits, including enrolling at our colleges and universities or related taxpayer subsidies. All applicants for public benefits, including driver’s licenses, should be checked for eligibility through the federal SAVE system
Our earlier E-Verify law (H.36 to protect jobs for citizens) misses the vast majority of employers from the requirement to use it. We need to expand the E-Verify requirement to all employers. We have 9% unemployment in our state and our unemployed citizens are hurting and need jobs.
Please get this done immediately. And remember, no benefits and no driving privileges for any illegal aliens.
EMAIL THE ABOVE MESSAGE TO THESE FOLLOWING LEADERS:
Thom.tillis@ncleg.net
harry.warren@ncleg.net
paul.stam@ncleg.net
Email Governor McCrory: http://www.governor.state.nc.us/contact/email-pat
Go to this link and locate your NC House member:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/representation/WhoRepresentsMe.aspx (type in your street address with city and state and zip code, then follow directions to find your NC House member)
THANKS AND SEND THIS MESSAGE TO YOUR FRIENDS AND ASSOCIATES.
James Johnson
President-NCFIRE
North Carolinians For Immigration Reform and Enforcement
www.NCFIRE.info
www.Facebook.com/NCFIRE
NCFIRE@ncfire.info
1-888-885-0879
Secure our Borders--enforce Our Laws!
THIS IS IMPORTANT…...WE ARE CONCERNED THE NC HOUSE IS CRAFTING A WEAK BILL ON IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT. COPY AND SEND THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS DOWN BELOW.
Why has the NC House not done anything to prevent illegal aliens, with deferred action from Obama, from getting driving privileges?
NO illegal aliens should have driving privileges or access to other public benefits, including enrolling at our colleges and universities or related taxpayer subsidies. All applicants for public benefits, including driver’s licenses, should be checked for eligibility through the federal SAVE system
Our earlier E-Verify law (H.36 to protect jobs for citizens) misses the vast majority of employers from the requirement to use it. We need to expand the E-Verify requirement to all employers. We have 9% unemployment in our state and our unemployed citizens are hurting and need jobs.
Please get this done immediately. And remember, no benefits and no driving privileges for any illegal aliens.
EMAIL THE ABOVE MESSAGE TO THESE FOLLOWING LEADERS:
Thom.tillis@ncleg.net
harry.warren@ncleg.net
paul.stam@ncleg.net
Email Governor McCrory: http://www.governor.state.nc.us/contact/email-pat
Go to this link and locate your NC House member:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/representation/WhoRepresentsMe.aspx (type in your street address with city and state and zip code, then follow directions to find your NC House member)
THANKS AND SEND THIS MESSAGE TO YOUR FRIENDS AND ASSOCIATES.
James Johnson
President-NCFIRE
North Carolinians For Immigration Reform and Enforcement
www.NCFIRE.info
www.Facebook.com/NCFIRE
NCFIRE@ncfire.info
1-888-885-0879
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
