Origin of Law by: John Ainsworth

What is the Origin of Law in our country?


A few quotes from our founders will help us, “We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” ~James Madison

READ MORE AND WATCH THE BRIEF VIDEO:  http://americasremedy.com/index.php

WallBuilders

Barton: No need for pastors to fear IRS

A Christian constitutional expert thinks the Internal Revenue Service's lack of response to a recent initiative shows there is no longer any reason for pastors to be silent on political issues when standing behind the pulpit. (See earlier story)


Current law prohibits pastors from speaking on politics or endorsing a political candidate, but David Barton of WallBuilders says the IRS's intimidation of removing a church's tax exemption status is unconstitutional. Even though some pastors have intentionally crossed the line, Barton does not think the IRS wants to take them to court because it may lose.

"The IRS doesn't have any interest in doing this because if they do, I believe they know they are going to lose. And if they lose, you have 370,000 pastors in America who suddenly find out that there's no restriction on them," Barton suggests.

The WallBuilders president explains that churches are guaranteed tax exemption status under the Constitution, but he believes many pastors are afraid to speak about politics because they fear they will lose their letter of tax exemption.

"You cannot lose your tax exemption as a church because as a church, you have a constitutional standing for tax exemption," he points out. "So with that basis, losing your letter means absolutely nothing -- and that's something pastors are now figuring out."

Barton argues that the pulpit was and should continue to be the news perspective for America, so he encourages all pastors to speak out and stand for truth.

Candidate Woolard to Rep> Butterfield "Give the money back"

Candidate Woolard to Rep> Butterfield "Give the money back"

States Fighting Back Against Obamacare: Virginia

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/07/states-fighting-back-against-obamacare-virginia/

CHECK OUT: NULLIFY NOW!

Did you know that states don’t have to obey unconstitutional federal legislation forced upon them?


Virginia, Utah, Idaho, and other states are fighting the federal healthcare law. Arizona is protecting its borders. Washington State, Oklahoma, and Tennessee are fighting cap-and-trade legislation. Eight states are standing up for gun rights. Twenty-five states have effectively blocked the 2005 Real ID Act…

How? Through nullification.

When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.

Nullify Now! is a multi-city event tour focused on education and activism on a state level to say NO to unconstitutional federal “laws” – which, in reality, are not laws at all.

http://www.nullifynow.com/

OBAMA’S IMMIGRATION HYPOCRISY By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/07/01/obamas-immigration-hypocrisy/#more-1139

Virginia Challenges Feds in First Health Care Lawsuit Hearing

FOX NEWS, July 1, 2010

The Obama administration is trying to have its cake and eat it too by arguing that the federal government is not taxing people to pay for health care, but then says state must comply with the new law because they can't avoid paying taxes, Virginia's attorney general's office argued in federal court Thursday.


In a hearing to determine whether Virginia has the standing to go forward with it lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Act, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Ian Gershengorn argued for the federal government that the Commonwealth of Virginia did not have the right to ignore the federal law because of the minimum coverage standard provision.

In brief, the provision says that if people don't buy health care insurance they must pay a fine. Gershengorn argued that the provision is a tax, which states can not ignore.

But Duncan Getchell, Virginia's solicitor general, argued that Congress was very careful not to classify any fees or penalties as taxes in the bill because President Obama opposed taxes on the middle class.

Getchell argued that the language in the law refers to the fine imposed for not obtaining health insurance as a penalty, which means it can not be classified as a tax.

The definition of a tax under the Commerce Clause is used to raise real revenue for the general purpose of the government. If the "penalty" works to get people to comply with the law, then it won't raise a dime, and therefore can not be considered a tax, the state argued.


"Congress called it a penalty in the bill, that is the word they used. Now mind you, this bill had taxes in it, when the judge asked the United States today is this a tax bill or is this a health care bill the answer was, it is both. That's very interesting given the insistence on part of the Legislature and the president prior to this bill that this is not a tax and not the position of the federal government is in face that this is a tax bill," Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli told reporters Thursday morning after arguments.

Making a separate argument, the federal government said the actual activity is uninsured citizens using the health care system without paying for it. Gershengorn said to keep health care from imploding the economy, they must regulate what could be classified as freeloading activity.

Getchell countered that the decision to not buy insurance is not "activity," and the federal government can't draft a regular citizen into commerce in order to regulate him or her.

"If not engaging in commerce is commerce there are no limits on federal power," Cuccinelli said.

The federal government argued that Virginia does not have standing to make its claims.

"Virginia cannot bring this suit against the federal government on the theory that the minimum coverage provision will burden or otherwise injure Virginia's citizens," the feds said in its brief to the court.

"Virginia claims standing on behalf of its citizens to challenge federal legislation, but citizens of Virginia are also citizens of the United States. The Commonwealth does not have standing to sue the federal government to exempt Virginians from the operation of federal law," the brief reads.

Judge Henry Hudson heard the arguments and has 30 days to release his written decision.

If he allows the suit to go forward in the next 30 days, than the case will be heard in October, and after those arguments, he will have another 30 days to make his ruling.

It's entirely likely that whichever side loses the case will appeal the case to the 4th Circuit Court, and then whoever loses there will appeal to the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, most pieces of legislation brought before Congress have a severability clause, which means if a portion of it is deemed unconstitutional than the rest of the bill can still stand. The health care law does not have this, which means if Virginia's lawsuit prevails at the highest levels, the entire law will go down.

Fox News' Gretchen Gailey contributed to this report.






http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/01/virginia-challenges-feds-health-care-lawsuit-hearing/

How Obama Bungled the Oil Spill: An Inside Story -- UNBELIEVABLE!

by Dick Morris, 06/30/2010
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37796

It's one thing to say that President Obama's administration showed its ineptitude and mismanagement in its handling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. It is quite another to grasp the situation up close, as I did during a recent visit to Alabama.

According to state disaster relief officials, Alabama conceived a plan -- early on -- to erect huge booms offshore to shield the approximately 200 miles of its coastline from oil. Rather than install the relatively light and shallow booms in use elsewhere, the state (with assistance from the Coast Guard) canvassed the world and located enough huge, heavy booms -- some weighing tons and seven meters high -- to guard its coast.

But ... no sooner were the booms in place than the Coast Guard, perhaps under pressure from the public comments of James Carville, uprooted them and moved them to guard the Louisiana coastline, instead.

So, Alabama decided on a backup plan. It would buy snare booms to catch the oil as it began to wash up on the beaches.

But ... the Fish and Wildlife Administration vetoed the plan saying it would endanger sea turtles that nest on the beaches.

So, Alabama -- ever resourceful -- decided to hire 400 workers to patrol the beaches in person scooping up oil that had washed ashore.

But ... OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Health Agency) refused to allow them to work more than 20 minutes out of every hour and required an hour-long break after 40 minutes of work, so the cleanup proceeded at a very slow pace.

The short answer is that every agency -- each with its own particular bureaucratic agenda -- was able to veto each aspect of any plan to fight the spill with the unintended consequence that nothing stopped the oil from destroying hundreds of miles of wetlands, habitats, beaches, fisheries and recreational facilities.

Where was the president? Why did he not intervene in these and countless other bureaucratic controversies to force a focus on the oil, not on the turtles and other incidental concerns.

According to Alabama Gov. Bob Reilly, the administration's "lack of ability has become transparent" in its handling of the oil spill. He notes that one stellar exception has been Obama aide Valerie Jarrett, without whom, he says, nothing whatever would have gotten done.

Eventually, the state stopped listening to federal agencies and just has gone ahead and given funds directly to the local folks fighting the spill rather than paying attention to the directives of the Unified Command. Apparently, there is a world of difference between the competence of the Coast Guard and the superb and efficient regular Navy and military.

Now, the greatest crisis of all looms on the horizon, as hurricanes sweep into the gulf. Should one hit offshore, it will destroy all the booms that have been placed to stop the oil from reaching shore. And there are no more booms anywhere in the world, according to Alabama disaster relief officials.

The political impact of this incompetence has only just begun to be felt. While administration operatives are flying high after a week in which the president's ratings rebounded to 49 percent in Rasmussen after his firing of Gen. McChrystal, the oil is still gushing and the situation is about to worsen.

The obvious fact is that Obama has no executive experience, and neither do any of his top advisors. Without a clear mandate from the top, needed efforts to salvage the situation are repeatedly stymied by well meaning bureaucrats strictly following the letter of their agency policy and federal law. The result, ironically, of their determined efforts to protect the environment has been the greatest environmental disaster in history. But some turtles are OK!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Morris was an adviser to Bill Clinton for 20 years. He is the author of a new book "Condi vs. Hillary."