Hobby and a Lobby of Glass Houses

By Sam Stone

The liberal angst over the recent Supreme Court decision in favor of Hobby Lobby and other Christian-owned family businesses is rapidly spinning out of control. Critics have accused Hobby Lobby and the Supreme Court of everything short of genocide. Comedian and MSNBC contributor John Fugelsang tweeted that the Hobby Lobby ruling “proves once again that Scalia Law is a lot like Sharia Law”, explicitly comparing the atrocities committed in the name of radical Islam to not requiring someone else to pay for the morning-after pill. That’s ridiculous.

It’s ridiculous in light of what Hobby Lobby really is: one of the best examples of corporate humanity and compassion in this country. It’s even more ridiculous when you compare Hobby Lobby to, for example, Staples – a similar retail business run by founder and CEO Tom Stemberg, who was a significant contributor to President Obama’s campaigns.

Hobby Lobby pays a starting wage of $9.50 per hour for part time employees. Full time employees start at $14 an hour. All employees are eligible to enroll in the company-sponsored health care plan (which covers 16 types of birth control). All employees have Sundays off.

Staples employees often start at whatever minimum wage their local jurisdiction has set. Their average wage for associates is $8.55 an hour. Most associates do not qualify for company-sponsored benefits. Staples is open 7 days a week.

And yet, the left is basically claiming that because Hobby Lobby will only pay for 16 of 20 FDA-approved birth control types, they are the Taliban and the Green family are members of ISIS. What on earth does that make Tom Stemberg and Staples? A Staples employee who doesn’t have company health insurance isn’t getting their morning-after pills paid for by the company, either. Or condoms. Or the pill. Or…you get the picture.

I have a ton of liberal friends and family members who pooh-pooh the idea of a War on Christianity. Frankly, I always have as well. The reaction of liberals and their media allies to the Hobby Lobby case is changing my mind. The mainstream media doesn’t so much as bat an eyelash at the Staples of the world, so long as the plutocrats in charge are willing to keep lining the pockets of liberal candidates (and their own networks). But Christian business owners who pay their employees a living wage and provide healthcare benefits are monsters because they won’t pay for a few specific abortifacients?

Nothing in the Supreme Court ruling or Hobby Lobby’s employee handbook prevents employees from going out and purchasing the morning-after pill for themselves. But, apparently, none of this matters so long as liberals can use the ruling to perpetuate a mythological conservative “war on women” that exists mostly in the minds of the Sandra Fluke’s of the world. Perhaps, instead, they should take a look at their own glass houses.

Maybe, Just Maybe . . . Obamacare is Unconstitutional

By Joanne Moudy

There is no doubt in any sane mind that Obamacare is a travesty on the U.S. Constitution and a terrible fraud perpetrated on America citizens. Yet it seems as though we’re all stuck with it . . . or are we?

On Friday Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ 8th Dist.), led the charge in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans, in the case of Steven Hotze, M.D. v. Kathleen Sebelius, ramping up efforts to prove, once and for all, that the entire basis for the ACA bill was bogus in the first place.

Mr. Franks, along with 42 of his colleagues, including Rep(s) Michele Bachmann R-MN D-6), Matt Salmon (R-AZ D-5), David Schweikert (R-AZ D-6), and Steve King (R-IA D-4), banded together in a show of support to overturn Obamacare for violating the Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

According to Mr. Franks’ office, the case began in a Texas federal court and raises the issue of whether or not Obamacare violated the Origination Clause because the entire language of the bill actually originated in the Senate, instead of the House as required for all bills raising revenue.

The question stems from October 2009, when the House passed H.R. 3590, titled at the time as “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009.” H.R. 3590 was supposed to make certain changes to the IRS code, specifically to extend or waive the recapture of a first-time homebuyer credit for certain members of the armed forces.

The obvious question any intelligent person should be asking themselves right now is, ‘What exactly does this bill have to do with health care?’ You’re right – absolutely nothing.

The fairly innocuous bill passed the House and was sent to the Senate. Upon receipt, the Senate promptly stripped everything from the bill – except the all important # 3590, then inserted the language of the Affordable Care Act and subsequently passed it on December 24, 2009. The entirely new H.R. 3590 then went back to the House for final approval.

Yet absolutely nothing remained of the original bill and Rep. Pelosi knew it. As the then Speaker of the House, she rammed H.R. 3590 through on March 21, 2010 as amended by the Senate. Concurrently, the House passed H.R. 4872, entitled the “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010,” which made certain amendments to the ACA. President Obama signed H.R. 3590 into law on March 23, 2010 and H.R. 4872 on March 30, 2010.

The Origination Clause in the U.S. Constitution provides that “….all Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representative; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

Since Obamacare contains 17 separate tax provisions raising approximately $500 billion in taxes, it is most assuredly a tax bill, which most assuredly did not originate in the House. Furthermore, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the individual mandate to purchase health insurance could only be constitutional, if at all, under Congress’s power to tax.

“If the Senate can introduce the largest tax increase in American history,” Mr. Franks said, “by simply peeling off the House number from a six-page unrelated bill, which does not even raise taxes, and pasting it on the ‘Senate Health Care Bill,’ and then claim with a straight face that the resulting bill originated in the House, then the American ‘rule of law’ has become no rule at all.”

In addition to pressing his case in the courts, Congressman Franks is the sponsor of House Resolution 153, with 56 co-sponsors, expressing the sense of the House of Representative that Obamacare violated the Origination Clause. Just last week, Mr. Franks also held a contentious hearing on the topic before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution.

The saddest thing is that none of the Arizona congressional leaders with a “D” behind their names supported this amicus brief, presumably because of their support of this illegal method of taxation. Offices of Rep(s) Ron Barber and Kyrsten Sinema were contacted, yet neither had a single comment. Maybe it’s time for a significant change.

Wendy Rogers, the retired U.S. Air Force Pilot who’s running against Sinema in AZ D-9 feels strongly the Obamacare has been an unmitigated disaster. “Most disingenuous of all, is Rep. Sinema,” Rogers said. “She actually helped to write the original tenets of Obamacare before she went to Congress and has consistently been President Obama’s cheerleader for it in Arizona.”

Rogers went on to explain, “In order for Sinema to save face in her district, she voted with Republicans to delay the individual mandate and extend the workweek to 39 hours. She purposely voted this way, knowing it would never pass the Senate or a presidential veto. Sinema isn’t about caring for sick people at affordable prices, she’s about hijacking the Constitution to control one-sixth of the nation’s GDP. Sinema is what’s wrong with Congress.”

Chuck Wooten, who’s running against Barber in AZ D-2 said, “I roundly applaud Congressman Franks and his co-sponsors for forcing the will of the people, through Constitutionality and precedent, to undo the ACA which has been aptly named, “the greatest fraud perpetrated on the American people.”

According to Wooten, it’s no secret the Obama administration and Democrat lawmakers intentionally deceived the citizenry – purely for ideological gain. “The American people, led by Congressman Franks and his co-sponsors have busted those responsible for the fraud and I’m confident justice will prevail and this train wreck will be once and for all vaporized into a bad memory,” Wooten said.

Too bad Rogers and Wooten aren’t already in Congress . . . just think how nice it’d be to have these two names on this amicus brief.

For those of us hoping against hope for a way out of the Obamacare nightmare, this seems like the all important light at the end of the tunnel. Hats off to the elected men and women taking a stand against fraudulent, tyrannical government and lets make sure the right folks make it to Washington in November.

Joanne Moudy is the author of “The Tenth,” a supernatural thriller exploring the very real trauma of abortion in a fictional realm. She proudly served as an officer in the military for nine years, before specializing in emergency nursing until retirement. She’s currently an Ambassador for Alliance Defending Freedom, a member of ASU’s Advisory Board for the Center for Political Thought and Leadership, and regularly speaks about the impact of abortion, liberalism, and secularism on all of humanity. You can follow her on Twitter @composedof1

The Establishment Trap

I was recently invited for coffee by a close friend and fellow Republican to discuss upcoming state legislative races. Well respected in both local grass roots circles as well as the so called “GOP Establishment,” he was chosen to reach out to me in hopes of convincing me to not get involved in several key legislative primaries. However, by the time we finished our second cup of coffee, he would not only fail to convince me to stay silent, but he would instead volunteer to help me in my efforts to inform GOP voters of the threat to our state. It took a simple history lesson to change his mind.

I take you back to the 46th Legislature. In 2004, a handful of so called “pragmatic” Republicans conspired with Democrats to give then Governor Janet Napolitano a budget that would increase state spending by more than $700 million, a 10% increase in spending in a year that saw little inflation (2%).

Worse yet, that budget created a $500 million budget deficit; in violation of Arizona’s Constitution which requires a balanced budget. Rightfully, fiscal conservatives were outraged at what was clearly an irresponsible budget. In response, conservatives recruited fiscally responsible primary opponents to challenge these fiscally irresponsible Republicans.

Then the “GOP Establishment” stepped in. They argued that we risked losing our legislative majorities by running more conservative candidates in the general. Even going as far as saying that even though these “pragmatic” Republicans may have strayed a bit and voted with Democrats for the big spending budget, at least they voted right on things like guns, faith and family issues. They used the old rationale of “even the worst Republican is better than the best Democrat any day.” Generally I would agree with that statement, however, it only holds true if those Republicans support the Republican platform and not the Democrat platform. In 2004, there were 39 Republicans in the House and 17 in the Senate. (In Arizona, you need only control 31 seats in the House and 16 in the Senate to maintain your majority.)

Many of the party faithful bought the establishment’s argument, held their noses and voted for the fiscally irresponsible Republicans “for the good of the Party.” Deep down they hoped these “pragmatic” Republicans would realize the error of their ways and act “more Republican” and fiscally responsible if they got re-elected. As a result, the fiscally conservative challengers were defeated and the “GOP Establishment” candidates got re-elected.

What did voting for the establishment candidate get us? Over the next few years, more and more spending occurred and the budget deficit got bigger, ballooning to over $2.2 billion. Well at least it helped us keep our majorities in the legislature right? Not exactly, in the House the GOP lost six seats and our majority declined to 33 seats; dangerously close to the 31 needed to maintain majority control.

Then in 2008, “Pragmatic Republicans” did it again. Cutting a backroom deal in the dark of night with legislative Democrats and Governor Napolitano, four House and four Senate Republicans essentially voted to put Arizona on the verge of Bankruptcy. They left the State with no money in the Rainy Day Fund and a $3 Billion budget deficit. This time conservatives had enough.

A grassroots groundswell of conservative candidates filed to run for the legislature and challenge the big spenders of both parties. Once again the “GOP Establishment” clamored about “party unity, we’re going to lose our majority if we elect conservatives in the primary, think of the big picture and don’t get hung up on a single budget vote, etc.” This time, despite the GOP establishment spending heavily on their “pragmatic” candidates, the GOP primary voters weren’t going to listen.

Fiscal conservatives won primary after primary, soundly defeating establishment candidates in several key races. Instead of lining up behind the party’s nominees, the GOP establishment instead sided with Democrats by undermining conservative candidates in the general election. Establishment lackey and so called “political consultant” Nathan Sproul even penned an open letter to voters stating “In my opinion, the Republican Nominees are not reflective of the overall electorate.” His statement was quickly picked up by Democrats and used in mailers against conservatives.

Despite the “GOP Establishment’s” efforts to torpedo our candidates, we not only kept our majorities in the State House and Senate, but increased them! Keep in mind this was 2008, the year Barack Obama was elected President. Conventional political wisdom predicted a Democrat landslide nationally and the Tea Party was still more than a year from even coming into existence. Arizona was one of only two states in the whole country that saw Republicans add seats to their legislatures. The GOP Establishment was not only WRONG, they were DEAD WRONG.

Then came 2010; “the year of the Tea Party.” Both Establishment GOP candidates as well as Democrats were steam rolled by conservatives. Republicans obtained “Super majorities” in both houses of the legislature and it immediately led to a balanced budget in Arizona, the first in over five years.

Now we’re back to 2014 and here we go again. A new bunch of so-called “Pragmatic Republicans” have again voted with state Democrats to bring Obamacare to Arizona and once again bust the state’s bank by voting for fiscally irresponsible budgets. Where there was once $1Billion in the Rainy Day fund, now there’s essentially nothing. The budget is once again structurally unbalanced and we’re looking at huge deficits again in 2016 and 2017.

So guess what the “Establishment” is saying. Yep, you guessed it: “Don’t primary them, they only voted ‘wrong’ on Obamacare and the budget, but otherwise, they’re still better than Democrats. Don’t primary them for the ‘good of the party’ and so we don’t lose our majorities.“

Well I for one am not buying it. I’m not going to let history repeat itself. These turncoat Republicans, also known as “Legistraitors,” are causing irreparable damage to our states’ fiscal and economic future and they must go. We can’t let the financial disaster of 2004-2008 happen again. Reelecting these “pragmatic” traitors to the platform will spell fiscal disaster for Arizona. Ask yourself, do you want to go through what we had to go through back in 2009-2011? Huge budget cuts, a sales tax increase, selling our Capitol? Heck no!

For a list of these Legistraitors and their relationship to the Coalition of Corruption that is bankrupting Arizona and bringing failed Washington D.C., big government, policies to our state go to The Alliance of Principled Conservatives website at

http://www.apcarizona.com/Primary_AZ_Legislator.php

By Frank Antenori

 

Obrewercare Loses in Court!  Do the Vocabulary Governor Brewer.

The State Court of Appeals ruled on April 22nd that the Arizona Principled Republican Legislators can sue to stop OBrewercare, Governor Brewer’s plan to bring the Obamacare Medicaid Expansion to Arizona.  The 36 Legislators say the process to pass Obrewercare is illegal.

Stop OBrewercare in Arizona!

Stop OBrewercare in Arizona!

Last year Governor Brewer called a Special Session and nine House republicans joined the Democrats to shove the Obamacare Medicaid Expansion down our throats.

The 36 Principled Republican Legislators sued because the people of Arizona have said that if you want to raise our taxes then we require a two-thirds majority not a simple majority.  (The AZ Constitution requires a two-third majority vote to raise taxes due to Proposition 108 passed in 2008.)  The Governor’s team tried to argue that the legislature itself decides if and when they want to follow which parts of the Constitution.  Brewer says that they decided they only needed nine republicans to cross over, or in her words, a majority, because they could not get a super-majority vote.

The courts have ruled that when the people pass a proposition requiring a two-thirds majority then you have to have a two-thirds majority.

Now the case can go to court.  The case itself is about if a tax is a tax because according to Brewer if she calls it a “fee” or an “assessment” then it is not a “tax”.  Because she says so.

Brewer also says that Medicaid Expansion is not Obamacare.

Brewer also says that Common Core is not Common Core anymore because she says.

To be clear, all that has been decided is that the case can go to court.

The Governor’s response to the ruling is interesting:  “Legislators can vote on a bill, lose on the bill, then take it to court and win.  That to me doesn’t make any sense.”

There you have it.  The Governor of Arizona does not understand that the courts exist as a check and balance to the legislative and executive branches of government.  The Governor who has sued her own legislative body is shocked that her tyrannical actions are questionable in court.

OBrewercare is alive in court.  Governor Brewer is being forced to follow the Arizona Constitution and the will of the people.  The will as the people intended it not the will of her advisors not the will of the greedy lobbyists and not the will of the crony capitalists.  Arizona needs to elect Principled Republicans in the Primary this August.

Fight for an Arizona Conservative majority in 2014

Join the Alliance.

Alliance of Principled Conservatives   –  www.fightforarizona.com

Mark Levin, Kelli Ward, Article V, and the Mt. Vernon Conference

LevinWardOn Mark Levin’s January 13 radio show, Levin spoke briefly to Dr. Kelli Ward, Arizona State Senator from LD5. Along with Arizona State Rep. Kelly Townsend (LD16), Ward was part of the Dec 7, 2013 Mt. Vernon Conference where the stage was set for a Convention of States (COS) to propose amendments to the US Constitution.

Convention of States and the Compact for America (CFA) project seek to use Article V of the US Constitution, as intended by the Framers, to rein in our runaway federal government. While they are separately run projects, COS and CFA are complementary and implicitly allied, as discussed here.

It is still a surprise to most Americans to learn that our own state legislatures can amend the Constitution without the permission or approval of Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court. Details may be found in the links at the bottom of this article.

COS, CFA, and other Article V initiatives got a big boost with the August 13 publication of Mark Levin’s book, The Liberty AmendmentsIt is one of the few books I read cover-to-cover last year, and I recommend it highly.

Godspeed to Arizona’s two “Kellies”, Ward and Townsend, and all other state legislators across our country who are awakening to the power of Article V to restore our republic.

See/hear Levin and Ward, and read the rest of the article at this link.

Arnold Schwarzenegger for President?

by Bob Quasius – The web site Mediaite is reporting that Arnold Schwarzenegger is considering a run for president, and may challenge the constitutional requirement that presidents be natural born citizens. Quoting an unnamed source:

“Schwarzenegger has been talking openly about working on getting the constitutional rules changed so he can run for president in 2016. He is ready to file legal paperwork to challenge the rules.”

Arnold Schwarzenegger U.S. Citizen President

Arnold Schwarzenegger 1983 Publicity Photo Following His Naturalization

Is Arnold Schwarzenegger Even Eligible?

In a word, no!

When our constitution was adopted, the framers included a requirement that our president be a “natural born citizen.” No definition was provided, strong evidence the term “natural born” was widely understood at the time and the framers believed an explicit definition wasn’t needed. U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 states:

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The term “natural born citizen” derives from “natural born subject” from English common law. When we won our independence from Britain, all 13 states embraced English common law, except where it conflicted with their new state constitutions.

Obviously any aspect of the monarchy was not included in the new American common law, but other prevailing law, such as tort law and birthright citizenship remained. Not a single state adopted any other definition of  “natural born.” Some states continued to use the term “subject” and “citizen” interchangeably for a years.

Under the articles of confederation, the new United States of America had a weak central government, and strong state government. Immigration, citizenship, etc. were state matters.

Blackstones Commentaries

Blackstones Commentaries

So just what did English Common law say about natural born citizenship when the constitution was adopted? The most authoritative text “An Analysis of the Laws of England” by William Blackstone, first published in 1765, and reprinted in 1770, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1778 and 1783. An updated version of Blackstone’s authoritative text was published by Henry John Stephen in 1841, and reprinted often until after World War II.

Sir William Blackstone common law birthright citizenship

Sir William Blackstone

Blackstone defined “natural born subjects” as those born within the dominions of England. In a monarchy, citizens are called “subjects” while in a Republic, “subjects” are called “citizens.” Americans stopped calling themselves “subjects” and began calling themselves “citizens”, consistent with the change in form of government from monarchy to republic, though for some years both terms were used. From William Blackstone (1765), Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.  

Additionally, a 2011 report prepared by the Congressional Research Office concludes:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

Arnold Schwarzenegger was not born a U.S. Citizen, and so under our present constitution he clearly is not eligible to become president.

Can the Courts or Congress Authorize Arnold Schwarzenegger to Run?

Courts don’t have the authority to rewrite the U.S. constitution, though sometimes they may stretch it (i.e. Roe v. Wade), so any legal challenge in the courts has slim chance of success.

There have been two legislative attempts to expand eligibility to run for president. In 2004, Sen. Don Nickles introduced the Natural Born Citizen Act  to define the term, natural-born citizen, to include people who derived citizenship at birth from a U.S. citizen parent and to children under 18 who were adopted by U.S. citizens.

Derivative citizens are born outside the U.S. to citizen parent(s). They are U.S. citizens at birth and thus natural born citizens, though they are not birthright citizens. Derivative citizenship existed in the U.S. prior to independence, and the Naturalization Act of 1790 continued the practice:

” And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:  Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

However, it’s quite clear that children born as foreign citizens who later acquire U.S. citizenship by adoption were not born as U.S. citizens, and are not natural born citizens. Has the Natural Born Citizen Act become law this section of the law likely would have been struck down by the courts.

Should Arnold Schwartzenegger Be Allowed to Run?

Arnold Schwarzenegger California Governor

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

Arnold Schwarzenegger should be allowed to run, but only if our constitution is amended. No end runs around our constitution. We have enough of that already with Obama!

Our constitution’s framers were concerned that a European noble could be granted U.S. citizenship and then made president, effectively returning America to rule by monarchy. This concern was well founded at the time, as most nations were governed by monarchies, and democracy was very uncommon, though not a new concept since the ancient Greeks had invented democracy. Requiring that a president be a natural born citizen precluded that possibility, since a president would have been born in America, or overseas to two U.S. Citizen parents who had resided in the U.S.

However, the days of monarchy have long been gone. Most of the few remaining monarchies are constitutional monarchies. The possibility of an American monarch are nil in the present era, and so eliminating the natural born citizen requirement and permitting long-term naturalized citizens to serve as president is not without merit.

Our constitution provides a mechanism for amending itself. U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch in 2003 proposed the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment:

`Article–

`SECTION 1. A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.

`SECTION 2. This article shall not take effect unless it has been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States not later than 7 years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.’.

Should Arnold Schwarzenegger Run for President?

I”m not a huge fan of Arnold Schwarzenegger, though I admire his immigrant success story. He is unquestionably patriotic and loyal to America, and does have considerable support. In my opinion he has too much personal baggage, and didn’t leave California’s government with a solid financial foundation, though it’s fair to say Arnold didn’t inherit a good situation, and California’s Democrats have long held a stranglehold on the legislature!

Still, I don’t think as a nation we should limit ourselves to natural born citizens for president. Arnold Schwarzenegger became a U.S. citizen in 1983, 30 years ago. Someone who has been a naturalized citizen for 20 years or more should have a shot at the presidency.

However, if Arnold Schwarzenegger is seriously planning a legal challenge rather than constitutional amendment, then we cannot help but wonder if he respects our constitution! There’s a proscribed method for changing our constitution, and a court challenge isn’t one of them! Our current president doesn’t respect our constitution, and we certainly want our next president to respect our constitution!

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans

Representative Brenda Barton issues statement on recent Facebook post

As many are aware, some recent comments of mine on Facebook have touched a sensitive nerve with many people.  Additionally, many have simply taken my posting out of its contextual environment.  Had I chosen my words differently, or had the President offered to use the power of his office to lessen or mute the public impacts of this impasse in Washington, we might not be having this discussion.

Let me clarify that I never used the word or said that President Obama was “Hitler.”   That was a creative assumption of the Capitol Times reporter, who also reported that I referred to our government as a “Constitutional Democracy.”  I would never use that description because, we are in fact – through law and history – a Constitutional Republic.

What I did suggest, rather directly, was that the National Park Service enforcement personnel (referring to them as “thugs” for their reported behavior) were simply following orders of “their leader” – and I used the German phrase for emphasis, Der Fuhrer.  I am referencing the Presidents behavior as indicated by his actions. The Merriam-Webster New Collegiate Dictionary defines “Fuhrer” as “(2) a leader exercising tyrannical authority.”

Consider that the Affordable Care Act  (ACA) originated in the U.S. Senate.  The U.S. Constitution directly states that laws establishing new revenues must originate in the House of Representatives, so the House closest to the people can decide if they want to pay for the new spending.  The way the ACA was established was in direct contradiction to the Constitution.

President Obama has unilaterally changed the ACA several times, through waivers and exemptions, without returning it to Congress.  A president changing established law unilaterally?  Is that Constitutional or “exercising tyrannical authority”?

Consider the reports of the U.S. Park Service Supervisor in Washington, who spoke to the media and said that the Park Service was told to “make things as uncomfortable as possible.”  I ask you, who has the authority to give such a directive?

Please remember, that someone in the Administration directed the IRS to seek out and harass conservative groups and groups identifying themselves with the Tea Party.  Is that not “tyrannical authority” and did it not seem that IRS office personnel obeyed enthusiastically? What President of the people orders the NSA to spy on his citizens and sends the IRS against his enemies?  Is this not behavior in accord with tyrannical authority?

Arresting veterans for visiting their war memorials? Prohibiting Catholic priests from volunteering to perform the Mass for our Catholic men and women in uniform?  Closing businesses on federally leased land?  When did volunteering to minister to our armed forces become a bad thing in America?  How would you classify that; Constitutional authority or Tyrannical authority?

And tell me, how many times in eight years did the Progressive Left and the media depict President Bush with a funny little black mustache, or worse? Yet there was no indignant outrage shown by those who are today outraged at my choice of words. Actions speak louder than words; President Obama’s actions are what I have to base my observation of “tyrannical authority” on.

Nancy Pelosi has called conservatives “terrorists” and “legislative arsonists.” If I had simply said “the leader” in my Facebook post, would we be having this community discussion today?  My purpose was to bring to the public’s attention the actions and behaviors of our president and his administration since this government shut-down began.
For the record, I was suggesting that President Obama was behaving as a tyrant.  Didn’t the Founders of our country call their king a tyrant and worse?

The Declaration of Independence asserts that a government derives its powers and authority from the consent of the governed, and that governments are instituted among peoples to protect the people’s inherent rights endowed by their Creator. President Obama’s actions contradict these fundamental and foundational cornerstones of our Constitutional Republic.

Dave Morse: An Open Letter on Public Lands and the Enabling Act of 1912

Arizona celebrated 100 years of statehood last year. Admittance into the Republic of the united States of America is executed by Congress passing and the (Arizona) Territory agreeing to an “Enabling Act”—describing how the Territory will be reborn as a full-fledged State. With few exception, all states since the original thirteen have achieved statehood through enabling acts.

One significant matter remains to be completed in the century following Arizona being admitted as the forty-eight state. The Federal Government still holds title to forty-three (43) percent of the State’s land area.

This matter is not unique to Arizona. If an imaginary line were drawn straight southward along the western borders of North and South Dakota south to Texas (with an eastward jog for Colorado) an interesting and perplexing contrast is seen between Eastern and Western States. In all states east of this line, each state has no more than five (5) percent of its land area controlled by the Federal Government. Ninety-five (95) percent of the lands are under state control. In all states west of this line an average fifty (50) percent of the State’s lands are under Federal control, and in Nevada eighty-six (86) percent in under federal control. Many have asked “Why this stark contrast?” No one has truly been able to provide an answer to this question.

“So what?” the reader might ask.

Two answers.

Answer 1) From a legal and historical perspective, all States are supposed to be admitted to the Union “on equal footing”. As part of the enabling process the Federal government takes title to all lands in the territory, and then is supposed to “dispose” of title to the newly formed state. Thus giving birth to a new state having same the rights, powers and privileges of existing states. The Federal government is not supposed to hold back large portions of the land within the State’s borders which are the State’s birthright.

Answer 2) The timber, minerals, oil, coal, waters and simply the land itself rightfully belong to the individual State to be managed to best advantage to the State. North Dakota, who has less than four (4) percent Federal intrusion, is experiencing an economic boom unimaginable to most other states. Why? North Dakota has large natural resources available to be used because they are on State land. Utah, Colorado and Wyoming have more proven oil reserves than the entire rest of the world. Yet this wealth cannot be touched because it lies beneath “Federal” lands. It is estimated that on and below Federally controlled lands in the Western States there is over $150 trillion (yes TRILLION) dollars in recoverable natural resources.

Tired of being unemployed or finding only low-paying employment? In North Dakota so much money is coming in from oil, gas and coal royalties, the State Legislature is considering doing away with income taxes. And workers up there are raking in the dough. Tired of high gasoline costs? How much would a gallon cost if we bought oil from our own friendly Rocky Mountain States instead of a hostile Middle East? Who needs involvement in foreign Civil Wars when we have a steady flow of oil from our own wells?

The Federal government, in this writers opinion, has held those lands for three reasons:

1) They want to keep title and control over the lands;

2) They do not want to let the various States take control of the lands and resources thereto; and;

3) No one has forced the Federal Government to dispose of lands to the States since Statehood. There is precedent. In 1832 seven States (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri, Indiana and Florida) after years of unrelenting battle, forced the Federal Government to “dispose” of title back to lands of the States—fulfilling promises made at Statehood. One State, Florida, had approximately ninety (90) percent of the State’s land area under Federal Control. After the 1832 “disposal”, Florida has less than four (4) percent land area under Federal Control.

What is to be done? Ask questions. Start a ‘buzz’ about the issue of State’s Lands, State Sovereignty and making the Federal Government keep its promise and give the proud and Sovereign State of Arizona ALL her lands. Ask elected officials and candidates for elected office to make State Land an issue after elected. Keep the talk going.

We have waited a hundred years. Obviously patience alone will not get the job done.

David Morse is resident of Pima, Arizona.

Maricopa GOP Chair Rallies LD Censures

To all Arizona County and LD Republican Committee Chairmen -
Below is the front page article of the July 15 Arizona Capitol Times. I want to express my appreciation to those courageous and principled County and LD Republican Committees who have already conducted votes of “censure” and/or “no confidence.”
Jan Brewer, the legislators and their crony capitalist friends that support ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion have betrayed Americans, Arizona Republicans and the Republican Party Platform.  Their lack of ethics, integrity and egregious acts are motivated by only two things – greed and the lust for power – at the expense of hard working tax paying Americans.
The law was expected to cost $898 billion over the first decade when the bill was first passed, but this year the Congressional Budget Office revised that estimate to $1.85 trillion.  Money that will have to be borrowed from the Chinese or printed in the backroom of the Federal Reserve.  Latest polls indicate a majority of Americans are opposed to ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion with an overwhelming majority of Republicans in opposition.
During the past six months, we did everything we could to make a solid argument against ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion, we tried to reason with these people and even tried to make them see the light.  Unfortunately, our lobbying efforts fell on deaf ears and without success.
During one of Ronald Reagan’s difficult political battles he said,
               “When you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat.”
I’m asking all the County and LD Republican Committees to make these people feel the heat by passing public censures for their actions.  They are elitists who think what they have done should be forgiven. They are mistaken.  We are not going to be able to defeat all of them, but we can defeat a majority of them in the 2014 Primary Election.
You can go to “MCRC Briefs” and get examples of public censures that have already been passed.  http://briefs.maricopagop.org/  Just type “censure” in the search field on the left.
Warmest regards,
 A. J. LaFaro
Chairman, Maricopa County Republican Committee
P.S.  Please encourage all of your PCs to keep up their daily efforts in getting petition signatures for www.urapc.org  Getting ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion on the November 2014 ballot will be historic for Arizona’s grassroots conservatives.

Mark Levin, Constitution Article V, and the “Liberty Amendments”

Mark LevinOn his July 10 radio show, Mark Levin previewed contents of his new book called The Liberty Amendments.  Levin points to Article V of the Constitution, which prescribes the methods by which the Constitution may be amended to reverse the federal power grab and runaway spending.

In the past, most conservatives have pushed off any notion of a Constitutional Convention or “Con-Con” because its agenda might be uncontrollable.  For example the 2nd amendment could even be repealed.  For years, Levin himself consistently said “no way” to a Con-Con.

But after his careful study of Article V and especially the record of the Founding Fathers’ debate on it (George Mason, James Madison et al), he argues we’ve all been missing something critical.

Namely –

Article V was specifically designed to cover the situation we face today — an over-reaching federal government.  The Founders knew that such a government, once entrenched, would never vote for amendments that would reduce its own hold on power.  So they deliberately included a separate amendment process in Article V that keeps Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court out of the loop.

The time for that Article V process has clearly come, says Levin.  It’s been there all along, clearly explained in the historical record, yet we’ve somehow disregarded it.

How would it work?  Consider the following simple, hypothetical amendment to the Constitution:

The debt of the United States shall not be increased except by three-fourths majority vote of both the House and Senate, nor may federal expenditures exceed 20 percent of gross domestic product except by three-fourths consent of the several state legislatures.

The merits of this particular amendment and wording aside, if 38 state legislatures were to ratify this amendment, it would be fully effective immediately as a formal amendment to the Constitution.  No permission from Congress, the president, or the Supreme Court need be sought, none is required, and there is no appeal.  The state legislatures are the ultimate authority — by designThis may come as a shock those who’ve always presumed Washington rules us all.

—————————————–

Read the rest of the article and hear an audio excerpt from Mark Levin’s July 10 show – Click Here.

The Alliance of Principled Conservatives Stands for Founding Principles


In 1776 the British monarchy hired the Hessian mercenaries to terrorize the colonists in the New World. Ideas like “freedom” and “representation” were considered extreme and radical.

Today in Arizona we face a Governor willing to bypass the checks and balances put in place by our Founding Fathers. A Governor who purposely uses special privileges as a weapon against elected legislators. A Governor who is willing to subvert the spirit of the constitution, call a special session and suspend the rules just to force the largest socialistic takeover in U.S. history – the Obamacare/Medicaid Expansion – upon the people she was elected to serve.

She trampled on our rights. She took away our right to fair representation.  The end result of her actions will eventually lead to the full implementation of Obamacare which will force Arizonans to buy taxed tea ..oops.. I mean Federal health insurance.

Our Government is trampling on our freedoms at the National and State level.

The United Republican Alliance of Principled Conservatives is also labeled “extreme” and “fringe.” URAPC has risen up with pens and clipboards in hand to stop Obamacare using volunteer grassroots Arizonans. So the Governor’s Team forms an opposing committee that throws around outrageous accusations that if URAPC is   “successful, there are a lot of people who are going to get harmed” and then threatening “we’re going to be as aggressive as possible to get out to the public.” 

  • They cannot win on the issues.
  • They cannot get a bill passed without suspending the rules, and threatening to remove the President and Speaker.
  • Now they are “aggressively” misleading a.k.a. lying to people to stop us from gathering signatures.

In spite of a well funded $150,000 campaign to stop the gathering of signatures the Alliance of volunteer Republican Principled Conservatives grows. 

Swelling the ranks are activists who have been discouraged by the lack of conviction, the lack of pride in the basic Republican tenets of limited government and individual responsibility, and the courage to stand and say “that is wrong get out of the tent.”

URAPC is committed to maintaining the deep individualist spirit of Arizona and restoring freedom from an obtrusive government by leading the way to Veto Governor Brewer’s Medicaid Expansion.

Join us today and fill out a petition today!

www.urapc.org

Statement from CAP President Cathi Herrod on the SCOTUS Decisions regarding DOMA and Prop 8

Statement from Center for Arizona Policy President Cathi Herrod on the U.S. Supreme Court Decisions regarding DOMA and Prop 8

“The key message for Arizonans from the U.S. Supreme Court today is this: Your right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman is preserved. It’s important to note that the Court did not find a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Neither did the Court declare same-sex marriage a civil right on the order of ethnicity or nationality.” 

Though Center for Arizona Policy disagrees with aspects of the Court’s decision, we are grateful that the Court did not undermine the will of Arizona voters who strongly supported our state’s 2008 marriage amendment. In DOMA, CAP believes that the court erred in claiming that a state that has redefined marriage can force that definition on the federal government for purposes of federal marriage laws. 

In Prop 8, the court has ensured that the state-by-state debate about marriage is allowed to continue. Truly the debate over marriage has just begun.           

Marriage is more than just a personal promise, it serves a public purpose. It is society’s best guarantee of a limited government that stays out of family life. Social science data has proved this time and time again. 

Center for Arizona Policy is committed to continuing to stand for marriage and to defeat any efforts to redefine this essential union.”

Center for Arizona Policy promotes and defends the foundational values of life, marriage and family and religious liberty. CAP led the 2008 effort to constitutionally define marriage as the union of one man and one woman in Arizona. 

State Representative Steve Montenegro on the Supreme Court’s decision re: Voting Rights Act

Montenegro-Logo---SOS2PHOENIX – “Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory, not just for Arizona, but for our nation.  It is proper recognition that we, as a country and as a people, have made tremendous progress over the last fifty years.  It also works towards ending the discriminatory treatment of states like Arizona that have been forced to beg the permission of a more often than not hyper-partisan Justice Department to make even the simplest of revisions or improvements to the elections process.

Elections should be blind to matters of race, color, ethnicity, and sex.  Today’s decision is a small but important step towards that day when racial gerrymandering ends, and all Americans are treated as independent thinkers, each entitled to their own unique opinion and viewpoint of the world, without being forced together with others simply because they share a skin color or ethnicity.”

# # #

State Representative Steve Montenegro’s statement on today’s Supreme Court decision re: Arizona’s Prop 200 and Voter Registration

Montenegro-Logo---SOS2

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - June 17th, 2013

PHOENIX – “It is common sense that since you must be a citizen to vote, you should be required to show proof of citizenship before you register.  Prop 200 was a common-sense solution to this problem and I commend Attorney General Tom Horne for defending the law.

I am troubled by Justice Scalia’s assertion that Arizona still has ways of getting the job done by asking permission from the Elections Assistance Commission.  He pointed out that in recent years Louisiana requested and was granted such permission.  Yet today, that commission has no members, making it impossible for Arizona to seek such relief.
 Should the commission ever regain voting members, Arizona’s Secretary of State should move to immediately secure such permission.

In the meantime I will continue to advocate for protecting the integrity of our election system, from voter registration to ballot handling to vote tabulating.  Arizona’s voters, like voters everywhere, deserve fair, honest, and transparent elections.”

# # #

RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SO-CALLED COMMON CORE STANDARDS

Whereas, the so-called Common Core standards are sets of (currently Mathematics and English) imposed by the Obama administration as a top-down one size fits all curriculum;

Whereas, the so-called Common Core standards violate the United States Constitution, to wit, education is not listed in the enumerated powers of Congress found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution;

Whereas, the so-called Common Core standards violate the General Education Act provisions, to wit, “No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, or to require the assignment or transportation of students or teachers in order to overcome racial imbalance;

Whereas, the so-called Common Core standards violate the General Education Act provisions, to wit, “ . . . no funds provided to the Department of Education or to an applicable program, may be used to pilot test, field test, implement, administer or distribute in any way any federally sponsored national test in reading, mathematics, or any other subject that is not specifically and explicitly provided for in authorizing legislation enacted into law;”

Whereas, the so-called Common Core standards violate the provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, to wit,  “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act.

Whereas, the only two standards experts on the Common Core Standards Commission, Dr. Jim Milgram (Mathematics) and Dr. Sandra Stotsky (English), refused to endorse any Common Core standard due to built-in low expectations, lowering of existing school standards and elimination of classic literature in favor of informational texts;

Whereas,  Dr. Jim Milgram stated that, “Realistically, the most likely outcome of the Core Mathematics geometry standards is the complete suppression of the key topics in Euclidean geometry including proofs and deductive reasoning  . . ;”

Whereas, Dr. Sandra Stotsky testified, “The standards which I have analyzed in detail many times over, do not signify readiness or authentic college level work, at best they point to readiness for a high school diploma . . . Professor Milgram says the same thing about the mathematics standards. We’re talking about the Common Core’s standards. Neither of them makes us competitive with other countries that have high expectations for their high school students . . ;

Whereas, The Pioneer Institute wrote, in Controlling Education from the Top, Why Common Core is Bad for America, “The Standards, which are intended to prepare students for nonselective community colleges rather than four-year universities are inferior to those in some states and no better than those of many others . . . their de-emphasis of the study of literature in favor of ‘informational texts’ would abandon the goal of truly educating students, focusing instead on training them for static jobs.”

Whereas, The Pioneer Institute wrote, in Controlling Education from the Top, Why Common Core is Bad for America, “Partnering with the Department of Labor, the Department [of Education] seeks to build a data system that allows tracking of individual students from preschool through the workforce.”  Why the need for population tracking and control?  Already, opponents to data collection, tracking and storage, to include the New York Civil Liberties Union have joined forces to fight this Common Core standard.

And Whereas, The Pioneer Institute wrote, in Controlling Education from the Top, Why Common Core is Bad for America, “The Common Core State Standards . . . and the initiative for their nationwide adoption raise profound questions of federalism, education, content, governance, fiscal responsibility, and student and family privacy.”

Therefore, Be It Resolved, That We, the Precinct Committeemen and Precinct Committeewomen of Legislative District 11, Pima County GOP, unanimously affirm and declare our opposition to the so-called Common Core Standards. 

Resolved, that the State Superintendent of Education and all State Legislators reject and repeal Arizona’s commitment to submit to an unconstitutional and illegal overreach by the federal government.

Resolved, that the proposed tracking of students from preschool through the workforce is another unprecedented intrusion of and violation of personal liberty and confidentiality.

Resolved, that the Common Core standards call into question the very nature of federalism, education, control of curriculum, governance, fiscal responsibility, and student and family privacy.

Richard D. Brinkley

Chair, Legislative District 11

 

VOTER ALERT — Beware SB1263, SB1264, and SCR1019!

Three bills that have made their way through the State Senate and are now making their way through the State House attack the rights of Arizonans to access the petition process and make their voices heard.  It is imperative that your Representatives hear from you to Vote NO on these three bills.

SB1263 would require “background checks” of ALL petition circulators, without specifying the nature or depth of the background check.  It would give the Secretary of State unprecedented power to hinder the circulation of petitions, assigns the Secretary of State unlimited powers to adopt a procedures manual that circulators would have to abide by, and would consume large amounts of time that is precious to any group that is engaged in exercising their constitutional rights.

Imagine that a candidate realizes that their volunteers have been slow to collect signatures, so they decide to hire their neighbor’s college-aged kids to help.  Would you really have to hire a private investigator to do a full background check on your neighbor’s kid?  Yes.  Even your own.  Worse, they could not circulate petitions until the Secretary of State approved them and entered them into a database.  Imagine the stonewalling possible if the Secretary of State was opposing that candidate!  In addition to this being a poorly conceived bill, it is likely unconstitutional.

SB1264 is a poorly disguised effort to give the judiciary the power to kill outright any initiative it does not like.  It makes any error, no matter how slight or immaterial, fatal, meaning that it would kill the entire petition.  The penalty is set in stone so that any judge finding such error would kill the petition, but it provides wide latitude and discretion to the judge as to what is an error or not.

The legal standard should always be the intent of the voter signing the petition – and any legislative action that modifies the petition process must protect the rights of the voters to join together on a petition to make their voices heard.  If their intent is clear, then a judge should allow them to exercise their constitutional rights.

SCR1019 is the most blatantly unconstitutional bill of the three.  It would require that in order for any initiative to qualify for the ballot, at least 25% of its signatures must come outside of Maricopa and Pima County.  Whatever the intent of the bill’s author is, disenfranchising the voters of Maricopa and Pima County by determining that any signatures gathered over a certain amount do not count is an affront to Arizona’s century-old respect for the initiative process.  It is also a clear violation of the Constitution in that it seeks to essentially declare “one man, one vote, unless you live in Maricopa or Pima County.”

In total, these bills represent a real power grab away from the citizens of Arizona, and they should each be defeated.  Unfortunately, we are late in drawing attention to them and they have all passed out of the Senate.  Fortunately, we can stop them in the House.

Please contact your State Representative by calling the main House Switchboard at (800) 352-8404 and let them know that your rights are sacred and are not to be violated.

There have been ballot initiatives that we opposed over the years that would have been stopped by these rules, but that is no reason to support these bills.  The right to petition your government should be sacred in Arizona.  Good ballot initiatives have also been passed over the years to protect private property rights, the right to a secret ballot, requiring voter ID at the polls, protecting our health care freedoms, and more.  Please make your voices heard immediately as these bills could move any day now.

Thank you,

Rep. Steve Montenegro

Rep. David Livingston

Rep. Kelly Townsend

Rep. Darin Mitchell

The Cost of Expanding Medicaid Dependency in Arizona

Unlink Governor Brewer’s media campaign funded by huge corporations and special interest groups, the opposition to expanding Medicaid dependency in Arizona is almost entirely grassroots driven – and there’s good reason for the disparity. The Arizona Medical Industrial Complex stands to gain hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars. This begs the question, “just how much will Medicaid expansion cost Arizona taxpayers?”

Here are two graphics provided by the prestigious conservative organization The Heritage Foundation. Please feel free, to download these and email them to your legislators.

Before the legislature attempts to pass a huge tax on Arizonans, they need to remember Arizona’s Constitution requires a 2/3 majority vote to pass any tax hike. Currently, the Governor would like to redefine the hundreds of millions of dollars as needed as a fee in order to avoid the 2/3′s  requirement. Any legislator needs to know they will be violating the Arizona Constitution if they pass this huge tax hike without the 2/3′s requirement.

CP-medicaid-expansion-by-state-AZ Medicaid Expansion US

 

If you would like to have Americans for Prosperity speak to your organization about why expanding Medicaid dependency is bad for Arizona please contact Americans for Prosperity through www.ArizonaTaxpayers.org.