Search This Blog

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Should Governor Rick Perry Bypass The Federal Government And Call Out The National Guard?

Guarantee Clause:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."  Article IV, Section 4

Source: The Heritage Guide To The Constitution 

‘We Are Under Invasion’: Louie Gohmert Breaks Down Crisis at the Border After McAllen Visit

Congressman Louie Gohmert speaks on The Glenn Beck Program with guest host Dana Loesch June 26, 2014. (Photo: TheBlaze TV)

Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) described the situation at America’s southern border as an “invasion” after a recent visit to McAllen, Texas.

Speaking on The Glenn Beck Program with guest host Dana Loesch, Gohmert said the border patrol facility in McAllen has between 1,000 and 1,200 people, which far exceeds its capacity, and the conditions are absolutely “terrible.”

“As one border patrolman said, ‘I would be livid, I would be ballistic, if my child were in this situation,’” Gohmert remarked. “But the border patrol’s hands are tied because the law says Health and Human Services has to take them, and they’re not picking them up.”

Officials estimate roughly 60,000 unaccompanied children will illegally enter the United States this year, up from roughly 6,000 in 2011. The recent flood of illegals has created what President Obama has labeled an “urgent humanitarian situation.”

“We’re a passionate society, we care, but you have to enforce the law,” Gohmert pleaded. “You have this huge surge of people coming to the American border. You’ve got border patrol and ICE whose hands are tied up … and in the meantime, it makes easy for the drug cartels to get even more drugs across.”

Gohmert said “we are under invasion, and this president will not protect our country, and he will not step in and enforce the law as it is.”

“There should not be any new immigration bill until the president enforces the law,” Gohmert concluded, “and our Department of Injustice [sic] begins to be a Department of Justice.”

Source: The Blaze

Based on Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution, it is the Federal Governments duty to Guarantee protections to the states in the event of an invasion. 
If the Federal Government won't send troops with the power to arrest those invading our country, the states being 'invaded' are left with no other choice but to take it upon themselves to protect their states from this invasion.

What do you think?

Friday, July 4, 2014

The Signers Of The Declaration Of Independence Were Declared Traitors By The King Of England

The Declaration Of Independence    

This is a post of a friend of mine, Gary Taylor, regarding the signing of the Declaration Of Independence and how special the 4th of July is in our history:

"On July 2nd 1776, about a year after the American Revolutionary War had begun, the elected leaders of the thirteen American Colonies voted to declare independence from Great Britain. On July 4th the declaration was ratified and signed by 56 patriots."

I suppose historians and folks much smarter then me will debate forever as to where and when, each of the 56 patriots actually signed the document. To me it really doesn’t matter where, or when… only thing that matters to me is the fact they had the courage to sign it.

You can bet each and every one of these brave and special men knew the dangers of signing such a document. There is much debate among historians as to what actually became of some of these men, but here is something that is not up for debate at all.

These men signed a document that gave birth to the idea of freedom, to the idea that the people of the land are best suited to control their own fate, not some hierarchy thousands of miles away.

By signing the document these men gave birth to America, the greatest nation on God’s green earth.

I am so thankful to be an American. I am proud of America and her accomplishments throughout our great history.

And I’ll be damned if I’ll apologize for it."

AMEN to that dear friend.  And may God continue to bless the United States of America. 


More on the 4th of July: 

The true meaning of the 4th of July 

The Fourth of July was the day (it was actually a few days earlier) the people of the thirteen colonies through their representatives in the Congress, declared to the world that they were now independent and free States. Free from the King and Parliament and a centralized government. However, it would take a long and bloody war to actually permit these newly independent Sates to remain free.

The Declaration of Independence was signed by men who knew they were risking their “Lives, fortunes and sacred honor”. According to the King, they were all traitors who warranted death.

When the war finally came to a successful end the King and Parliament had no choice but to declare that the thirteen States were now free. The first Article of the Treaty of Paris that ended the war stated:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof.
It appears that we have forgotten who we are. The King had to sign a treaty that recognized all of the States independently. We are a union of States that remain free and independent. The Articles of Confederation, our first Constitution, and the current Constitution never gave up the Sovereignty of the States. In fact the States delegated only limited authority to the Federal government. The Tenth Amendment made it very clear.

How does the Declaration of Independence sum up? Read it carefully:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
So this Fourth of July why not fly your State flag? It will show to the world that you are still a Sovereign and free people who choose to remain part of a union of States. How did John Adams say to celebrate: “…It ought to be commemorated as a day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bell, bonfires, and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other…”

Let’s not forget who we are.
Source: The Tenth Amendment Center

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Constitutional Attorney, Jonathan Turley on 'dangerous' expansion of Obama's powers..."The Framers Would Be Horrified"

Jonathan Turley on 'dangerous' expansion of Obama's powers

Feb. 12, 2014 - 4:48 - Constitutional attorney reacts to the shift of gravity in Washington

The Rise of the Fourth Branch of Government

Below is today’s column in the Washington Post’s Outlook Section on the dangers of America’s growing administrative state. Ask any elementary student and you will hear how the Framers carefully designed a tripartite, or three-branch, system to govern the United States. This separation of powers was meant to protect citizens from tyranny by making every branch dependent on each other to carry out the functions of government. These three branches held together through a type of outward pressure – each holding the other in place through their countervailing forces. Add a fourth branch and the structure begins to collapse. That is precisely what is happening as federal agencies grow beyond the traditional controls and oversight of the legislative and executive branches. The question is how a tripartite system can function as a quadripartite system. The answer, as demonstrated by the last two decades, is not well. The shift from a tripartite to a quadripartite system is not the result of simply the growth in the size of the government. Rather, it is a concern with the degree of independence and autonomy in the fourth branch that led me to write this column.

There were times this past week when it seemed like the 19th-century Know-Nothing Party had returned to Washington. President Obama insisted he knew nothing about major decisions in the State Department, or the Justice Department, or the Internal Revenue Service. The heads of those agencies, in turn, insisted they knew nothing about major decisions by their subordinates. It was as if the government functioned by some hidden hand.

Clearly, there was a degree of willful blindness in these claims. However, the suggestion that someone, even the president, is in control of today’s government may be an illusion.

The growing dominance of the federal government over the states has obscured more fundamental changes within the federal government itself: It is not just bigger, it is dangerously off kilter. Our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency.

When James Madison and the other Framers fashioned a new constitutional structure in the wake of the failure of the Articles of Confederation they envisioned a vastly different government. Under the federalism model, states would be the dominant system with most of the revenue and responsibilities of governance. The federal government was virtually microsoptic by today’s standards. In 1790, it had just 1,000 nonmilitary workers. In 1962, there were 2,515,000 federal employees. Today, we have 2,840,000 federal workers in 15 departments, 69 agencies and 383 nonmilitary sub-agencies.  [These numbers can be themselves misleading since much federal work is now done by contractors as part of "downsizing" but the work of the agencies has continued to expand.  Moreover, technological advances have increased the reach of this workforce].

This  growth since the founding has led to increasing power and independence for agencies. The shift of authority has been staggering. The fourth branch now has a larger practical impact on the lives of citizens than all the other branches combined.

The rise of the fourth branch has been at the expense of Congress’s lawmaking authority. In fact, the vast majority of “laws” governing the United States are not passed by Congress but are issued as regulations, crafted largely by thousands of unnamed, unreachable bureaucrats. One study found that in 2007, Congress enacted 138 public laws, while federal agencies finalized 2,926 rules, including 61 major regulations.

This rulemaking comes with little accountability. It’s often impossible to know, absent a major scandal, whom to blame for rules that are abusive or nonsensical. Of course, agencies owe their creation and underlying legal authority to Congress, and Congress holds the purse strings. But Capitol Hill’s relatively small staff is incapable of exerting oversight on more than a small percentage of agency actions. And the threat of cutting funds is a blunt instrument to control a massive administrative state — like running a locomotive with an on/off switch.

The autonomy was magnified when the Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that agencies are entitled to heavy deference in their interpretations of laws. The court went even further this past week, ruling that agencies should get the same heavy deference in determining their own jurisdictions — a power that was previously believed to rest with Congress. In his dissent in Arlington v. FCC, Chief Justice John Roberts warned: “It would be a bit much to describe the result as ‘the very definition of tyranny,’ but the danger posed by the growing power of the administrative state cannot be dismissed.”
The judiciary, too, has seen its authority diminished by the rise of the fourth branch. Under Article III of the Constitution, citizens facing charges and fines are entitled to due process in our court system. As the number of federal regulations increased, however, Congress decided to relieve the judiciary of most regulatory cases and create administrative courts tied to individual agencies. The result is that a citizen is 10 times more likely to be tried by an agency than by an actual court. In a given year, federal judges conduct roughly 95,000 adjudicatory proceedings, including trials, while federal agencies complete more than 939,000.

These agency proceedings are often mockeries of due process, with one-sided presumptions and procedural rules favoring the agency. And agencies increasingly seem to chafe at being denied their judicial authority. Just ask John E. Brennan. Brennan, a 50-year-old technology consultant, was charged with disorderly conduct and indecent exposure when he stripped at Portland International Airport last year in protest of invasive security measures by the Transportation Security Administration. He was cleared by a trial judge, who ruled that his stripping was a form of free speech. The TSA was undeterred. After the ruling, it pulled Brennan into its own agency courts under administrative charges.

The rise of the fourth branch has occurred alongside an unprecedented increase in presidential powers — from the power to determine when to go to war to the power to decide when it’s reasonable to vaporize a U.S. citizen in a drone strike. In this new order, information is jealously guarded and transparency has declined sharply. That trend, in turn, has given the fourth branch even greater insularity and independence. When Congress tries to respond to cases of agency abuse, it often finds officials walled off by claims of expanding executive privilege.

Of course, federal agencies officially report to the White House under the umbrella of the executive branch. But in practice, the agencies have evolved into largely independent entities over which the president has very limited control. Only 1 percent of federal positions are filled by political appointees, as opposed to career officials, and on average appointees serve only two years. At an individual level, career officials are insulated from political pressure by civil service rules. There are also entire agencies — including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission — that are protected from White House interference.

Some agencies have gone so far as to refuse to comply with presidential orders. For example, in 1992 President George H.W. Bush ordered the U.S. Postal Service to withdraw a lawsuit against the Postal Rate Commission, and he threatened to sack members of the Postal Service’s Board of Governors who denied him. The courts ruled in favor of the independence of the agency.
It’s a small percentage of agency matters that rise to the level of presidential notice. The rest remain the sole concern of agency discretion.

As the power of the fourth branch has grown, conflicts between the other branches have become more acute. There is no better example than the fights over presidential appointments.
Wielding its power to confirm, block or deny nominees is one of the few remaining ways Congress can influence agency policy and get a window into agency activity. Nominations now commonly trigger congressional demands for explanations of agencies’ decisions and disclosures of their documents. And that commonly leads to standoffs with the White House.

Take the fight over Richard Cordray, nominated to serve as the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray is highly qualified, but Republican senators oppose the independence of the new bureau and have questions about its jurisdiction and funding. After those senators repeatedly blocked the nomination, Obama used a congressional break in January to make a recess appointment. Since then, two federal appeals courts have ruled that Obama’s recess appointments violated the Constitution and usurped congressional authority. While the fight continues in the Senate, the Obama administration has appealed to the Supreme Court.
It would be a mistake to dismiss such conflicts as products of our dysfunctional, partisan times. Today’s political divisions are mild compared with those in the early republic, as when President Thomas Jefferson described his predecessor’s tenure as “the reign of the witches.” Rather, today’s confrontations reflect the serious imbalance in the system.

The marginalization Congress feels is magnified for citizens, who are routinely pulled into the vortex of an administrative state that allows little challenge or appeal. The IRS scandal is the rare case in which internal agency priorities are forced into the public eye. Most of the time, such internal policies are hidden from public view and congressional oversight. While public participation in the promulgation of new regulations is allowed, and often required, the process is generally perfunctory and dismissive.

In the new regulatory age, presidents and Congress can still change the government’s priorities, but the agencies effectively run the show based on their interpretations and discretion. The rise of this fourth branch represents perhaps the single greatest change in our system of government since the founding.

We cannot long protect liberty if our leaders continue to act like mere bystanders to the work of government.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.
Washington Post (Sunday) May 26, 2013

[The statistics on the rule-making and agency case figures in the piece came from Anne Joseph O'Connell, Vacant Offices: Delays In Staffing Top Agency Positions, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 913, 923 (2009) ]

Source: Jonathan Turley

Friday, June 6, 2014

D-Day Veteran: "Love your freedom, Because that's what we fought for. We fought for your freedom."

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Video: The veteran NBC anchor reports on the day known as the greatest invasion in the history of mankind, and the story of one man who landed on Normandy’s Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944.

That same year, he landed on the Normandy beach code-named Omaha in a Higgins boat launched from the U.S.S. Samuel Chase to begin the assault. Seventy years later, he brought his entire family back to France to revisit that day, which began with the sounds of his fellow troops retching over the side of the boat followed by a hail of bullets from the Germans. 

"We had overfed the troops that morning,'' DeVita told Brokaw. "They were all seasick. When we got near the beach, one particular machine gun took a liking to us and was hitting my boat. The Germans had the high ground. They were shooting down at us. It was like hitting fish in a barrel."

An emotional DeVita recalled the fear of being ordered to drop the ramp to the boat. 

"I knew in my head, even though I was a young kid, when I drop that ramp, instead of the bullets hitting the ramp, they would come into the boat,'' he said. "So the coxswain says, 'Drop the ramp,' and I made believe I didn't hear him. So he said it a second time, and I made believe I didn't hear him. 

And the third time, he says, 'Goddamn, DeVita, drop the effin' ramp. 

"We had 30 men on the boat. Three men made it to the beach. They were all wounded and some were dead." 

DeVita can still remember the sounds of soldiers in their final moments.

"You know, there's a fallacy when a man is dying — they don't ask for God,'' he said. "The last word that that they say is, 'Mama, Mama." 

Those painful memories have been with DeVita for 70 years, and he is just sharing them now with his children. Four generations of his family joined him at the beach in Omaha to honor his service. 

DeVita returned because he feels a duty to speak for the men who died that day. 

"These kids were 18, 19 years old,'' he said. "They're never gonna see their son play Little League baseball. They're never gonna walk their daughter down the aisle, and they're never gonna hold their grandchild in their arms. They had their whole life ahead of them. 

"My family thinks I'm a hero. I'm not a hero. When you go up to the cemetery above Omaha, those are the heroes. Those are my heroes." 

DeVita is hoping his family and others take a lesson from the anniversary.

"Love your freedom,'' he said. "Because that's what we fought for. We fought for your freedom."

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

"I am not here as a serf or vassal. I am not begging my lords for mercy." "I’m a born free American woman, wife, mother and citizen. And I’m telling my government that you’ve forgotten your place

 "I am not here as a serf or vassal. I am not begging my lords for mercy." "I’m a born free American woman, wife, mother and citizen. And I’m telling my government that you’ve forgotten your place. It’s not your responsibility to look out for my well-being, and to monitor my speech. It’s not your right to assert an agenda. Your post, the post that you occupy, exists to preserve American liberty. You’ve sworn to perform that duty. And you have faltered." 
~Becky Gerritson of the Wetumpka Tea Party, testifying today before the House Ways and Means Committee about abuse by the IRS.~ 

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Leftists Pushing To Make States Recognize International And Shariah Law

The radical leftists are at it again.  Pushing to force foreign laws  on us.  We must stop this effort to bring Shariah Law to the United States!  It's going to be up to you to make your voice heard on this issue.  Make sure you State Representative does not support this effort to destroy our Constitution and legal system! 
The Brennan Center for Justice and the Shoulder to Shoulder Campaign present:

Webinar: Are Foreign Law Bans
a Threat to All Faiths?

Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m 
Amos Toh, Katz Fellow, Brennan Center for Justice
David L. Barkey, National Religious Freedom Counsel, Anti-Defemation League
Karen Georgia Thompson, Reverend, United Church of Christ  
 moderated by: 
 Christina Warner, Campaign Director, Shoulder to Shoulder Campaign
Please join us for a discussion about how your community can challenge anti-foreign law legislation in your state. Across the U.S., lawmakers are introducing bills that outlaw the use of religious, foreign, or international law in state courts, creating a host of problems for religious communities. Marriages, wills, divorces influenced by religious laws (like Jewish Halakha, Catholic Canon law, or Islamic Shariah law) could be negatively affected.

Although courts have found legislation explicitly targeting Shariah law to be unconstitutional, lawmakers in 35 states have tweaked and introduced bills banning foreign and international law over the last four years. In fact, seven states have passed anti-foreign law bills since 2010. While anti-Muslim sentiment is still motivating these laws, Americans of every faith should be concerned about their impact on their religious freedom.

Click here to RSVP. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Christina Warner at
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law | 161 Avenue of the Americas, 12th Floor | New York, NY 10013 | 646.292.8310 phone | 212.463.7308 fax |

Brennan Center For Justice is also behind the new move to make it easier to facilitate voter fraud:



 More on what Shariah Law looks like:

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Rep. Tony Cardenas (D) Wants Taxpayers To Pay Moving Expenses Of The Unemployed So They Can Move To Allegedly Look For Work

Get ready for it....Now a Dem from Cal. wants the tax payers to be on the hook for 'moving expenses' to help 'mobilize' people and allow them to move where they want to in order to look for a job. This is from the hearing today before Congress. 

Rep Tony Cardenas (D) wants to remove barriers for people to work. His suggestion: "Give the long term unemployed workers a 'lump sum' unemployment payment to help cover the moving costs so workers can move from one area of high unemployment and, perhaps, to an area with low unemployment rates in order to accept employment that would require them to move."

He goes on to say, If we were able to figure out a way to help people 'mobilize' and move to an area that has companies that are hiring, wouldn't that help the economy? To which the head of the CBO, Douglas Elmendorf, replied yes it would.  Elmendorf went on to say that the thing that he (Rep Cardenas) needs to understand is that there are a lot more people looking for work than job openings and just moving people wouldn't fix the problem. 

So now he wants the tax payers to pay moving expenses for people to move to another area of their choosing with no guarantee they will be employed. What about the people living in that area? Are they convinced that someone living in that area isn't also needing a job?

Gee does anyone else see the massive fraud that will come with this?  

Watch the full hearing here:
February 5, 2014 
U.S. Economic Outlook
Douglas Elmendorf testified on the 2014 federal budget and economic outlook.


GOP senator questions if CBO 'cooked the books' on ObamaCare

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) demanded that leaders from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) testify before the Senate Finance Committee on why early cost estimates of ObamaCare were so far off.

“Now the American people have to pick up the tab on the CBO errors,” Roberts said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “I’m calling for CBO to come before the [Finance] Committee. … Let the hearings begin.”

Roberts’ comments came as CBO released a report Tuesday that the Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare, would cost the country 2.5 million jobs over the next 10 years.
The nonpartisan agency found the reform law’s negative effects on the economy would be “substantially larger” than what it had previously anticipated.

It said the equivalent of 2.3 million workers would be lost by 2021, compared to its previous estimate of 800,000, and that 2.5 million workers would be lost by 2024. It also projected that labor force compensation would be reduced by 1 percent from 2017 to 2024 — twice its previous estimate — and that declining economic growth would add $1 trillion more to deficits.

Roberts questioned if CBO’s error was because of political pressure in order to get enough Democratic support to pass the law in 2010.

“This is about accountability of past actions and we must ask the difficult question,” Roberts, who serves on the Finance Committee, said. “Was this political? Were the books cooked?”

The White House swiftly pushed back against the findings, seeking to dismiss suggestions from Republicans that ObamaCare has economic growth.

Budget office chief: ObamaCare creates ‘disincentive’ to work

The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office delivered a damning assessment Wednesday of the Affordable Care Act, telling lawmakers that ObamaCare creates a "disincentive for people to work," adding fuel to Republican arguments that the law will hurt the economy.

The testimony from CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf comes after his office released a highly controversial report that detailed how millions of workers could cut back their hours or opt out of the job market entirely because of benefits under the health law.

The White House and its Democratic allies accused Republicans, and the media, of mischaracterizing the findings. But Elmendorf backed Republicans' central argument -- fewer people will work because of the law's subsidies.

"The act creates a disincentive for people to work," Elmendorf said, under questioning from House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis.
Source: Fox News



Thursday, January 16, 2014






Latest Developments
Congress Introduces Voting Rights Act Bill
Today, Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), with Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and others, introduced a bill to strengthen the Voting Rights Act after the Supreme Court eliminated its key protections last year.

“From its first days, the Voting Rights Act united members of both parties. Critically, this proposal continues that bipartisan approach,” said Brennan Center President Michael Waldman. “America was founded on the principle that we all are ‘created equal.’ To fulfill that promise, we need an election system that works well for everyone, and doesn’t tolerate discrimination against anyone. This bill is a crucial first step. We hope it gets stronger as it moves through the legislative process.”

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, jurisdictions with a history of discrimination must seek pre-approval of changes in voting rules that could affect minorities. This process, known as “preclearance,” blocks discrimination before it occurs. Last June, the Supreme Court invalidated Section 4 — which determines the states and localities covered by Section 5 — arguing that current conditions require a new coverage formula.

Today’s bill would, among other changes:
  • Require jurisdictions with a recent record of repeated Voting Rights Act violations to pre-clear election law changes.
  • Expand the current “bail-in” procedures, which allow courts to subject jurisdictions to preclearance. 
  • Create a uniform requirement to inform voters of certain pending voting changes.
  • Enhance the ability of lawyers to halt discriminatory election measures before they can harm citizens.   (Allow voter fraud by not requiring ID)
  • Allow federal observers to monitor elections to ensure compliance with laws protecting the rights of Americans who speak limited English.
State Updates
Arizona – The Associated Press spoke to several voters caught up in Arizona’s fight over its documentary proof of citizenship law, which the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated last year for federal elections.
Kansas – Kansas has a similar problem. More than 19,000 registrations are on hold due to the state’s proof of citizenship requirement. A group of Democratic legislators introduced a bill to fix the problem. Jean Schodorf, a former Republican state senator who had voted for the law, is now demanding an audit of Secretary of State Kris Kobach’s supervision of the measure. “He promised that this law would be simple, easy and seamless to implement,” said Schodorf, who switched parties and is expected to challenge Kobach as a Democrat. “We’re in this horrible mess.”
Alabama – State officials last week agreed to provide voter registration opportunities at public assistance agencies. Read more here. Meanwhile, a federal judge used a mechanism in the Voting Rights Act to reinstate federal oversight of voting laws in Evergreen, Alabama.
California – “Conservatives and Tea Partiers” are trying to put voter ID on the ballot this November, according to MSNBC.
Florida – State election officials will soon start efforts to remove non-citizens from the voter rolls, but this time election supervisors will have a chance to opine on the plan. Voting advocates and the Justice Department sued to halt a purge in 2012 after the supervisors found the lists were riddled with errors.
Iowa – State Senator Tom Courtney (D) wants to investigate whether Secretary of State Matt Schultz (R) properly used federal money to investigate voter fraud charges. But the agency that can conduct an investigation, the Election Assistance Commission, currently has no commissioners. Courtney sent a letter last week asking the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee to confirm the nominees.
Kentucky – A state House committee approved a constitutional amendment to restore voting rights to those with past criminal convictions. The bill, which is backed by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R), needs 60 percent of the vote in the House and the Senate to be placed on the ballot this fall.
Mississippi – State Sen. David Blount (D) believes there will be bipartisan support for his bill to offer online voter registration.
North Carolina – The NAACP broadened its lawsuit challenging North Carolina’s package of restrictive voting laws, arguing the measures discriminate against Hispanics as well as African Americans. The group is also asking for access to Republican lawmakers’ emails to show the bill’s “sponsors knowingly discriminated against racial minorities.” The state says the emails should be private because of legislative privilege.
Ohio – The legislature will consider a series of bills to restrict voting, including a measure to eliminate Ohio’s “Golden Week,” the one week where a voter can register and cast a ballot on the same day. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Jon Husted (R) reached a settlement in which he agreed to use an interstate database to identify ineligible voters on election lists. Advocates worry the program “makes it too easy to wrongly remove voters from the rolls.”

Media Round-Up
  • The courts will consider a number of voting rights issues in 2014. “If judges have to rule whether new restrictions are inspired by party politics or racial motives, it will be difficult to predict what they will say,” wrote UC-Irvine Law Professor Rick Hasen at TPM. “But the impeding rulings will make a huge difference for minorities and younger Americans, whose voting rights are very much on the line.”

  • “If I need ID to buy cough syrup, why shouldn’t I need ID to vote?” Brennan Center Fellow Andrew Cohen breaks down his answer to that flawed question at The Atlantic.

  • Single-party control of state governments is leading to radically different approaches on a wide range of issues, from voting rights to labor contracts to health care, reported Dan Balz of The Washington Post.

  • The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony last week from Debo Adegbile, former head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, who was nominated to lead the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Stanford Law Professor Pam Karlan will oversee the Division’s voting section, which handles the federal government’s voting rights policy.

  • The Nation’s  (COMMUNIST PUBLICATION) John Nichols highlighted the Brennan Center’s recent report, How to Fix the Voting System, as one of his “five reforms to make our politics matter.”

  • “Online registration is cost-effective for states, convenient for voters, and secure, because it reduces the potential for fraud while improving the accuracy of voter rolls,” according to new report from The Pew Charitable Trusts. 
The following is from the Brennan Center For Justice's website:

Voting Rights Act Bill: Critical First Step to Improve Elections

January 16, 2014
Today, members of Congress introduced a bill to strengthen the Voting Rights Act after the Supreme Court eliminated key protections last year.

The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law released the following statement from President Michael Waldman:

“The Supreme Court gutted the core of the Voting Rights Act, removing a critical protection against discrimination in voting. We applaud these members of Congress for introducing this bill to help strengthen the law. Reps. Conyers and Sensenbrenner, as well as Sen. Leahy, have shown tremendous leadership. From its first days, the Voting Rights Act united members of both parties. Critically, this proposal continues that bipartisan approach. Voting rights should not be a partisan issue.

“America was founded on the principle that we all are ‘created equal.’ To fulfill that promise, we need an election system that works well for everyone, and doesn’t tolerate discrimination against anyone. This bill is a crucial first step. We hope it gets stronger as it moves through the legislative process.

“We also expect the president’s bipartisan voting commission to issue recommendations soon, which states can adopt quickly to improve elections. We look forward to working with members of Congress and election officials across the country to modernize voting and bring our system into the 21st century. We should assure that only eligible citizens can vote — but every single eligible citizen can vote.”

Read the Brennan Center’s report, If Section 5 Falls: New Voting Implications. Also see our resources on Voter Registration Modernization, including our recent report, How to Fix the Voting System.
For more information, or to set up an interview, please contact Erik Opsal at or 646-292-8356.
To better understand why this bill needs to be killed, take a look at what the Brennan Center For Justice thinks about our Constitution: 
The Brennan Center plays a central, critical role in the drive for a renewed democracy and justice system. Our goal: To advance a robust vision of the Constitution as a charter for a thriving democracy. Bold policy reform must be supported by a long-term effort to shift legal doctrine. That is why we lead an ambitious new initiative to develop and articulate a compelling progressive jurisprudence for the 21st century.

This starts with our multi-year drive to roll back Citizens United. We convened what The New York Times called an “A list” of First Amendment scholars to begin to chip away at the ruling’s foundations, which led to our publication “Money, Politics, and the Constitution: Beyond Citizens United,” the first major book to assess the constitutional way forward. The Center previously published, “The Genius of America: How the Constitution Saved Our Country and Why It Can Again.”

The Center also holds numerous public events centered on the Constitution. Created in 1996, our annual Brennan Center Jorde Symposium sponsors top scholarly discourse and writing from a variety of perspectives on issues that were central to the legacy of Justice Brennan. Our Living Constitution Lecture series brings together thinkers and policymakers to further understanding of the Constitution and its role in a changing world.

The Brennan Center forges new doctrines not only in the halls of academia, but in the active fight for justice. We play the lead legal role in defending the integrity of our elections, coordinating the legal strategy to defend voting rights, working with civil rights and voting rights allies. Through lawsuits, advocacy, and research, we have protected voting rights for hundreds of thousands of Americans. We also insist on a fair and impartial judiciary, working hard to protect the courts from the influx of special interest spending that threatens to overwhelm judicial selection in the states.

By developing this kind of progressive legal scholarship, the Brennan Center has real impact in the academy, in legal practice and jurisprudence, and in the public debate on policy issues.

US General: Muslim Brotherhood Inside White House And Now See What Eric Holder Wants To Do To Further Hamper Law Enforcement

(Tea Party) – A Washington political insider, retired US Air Force General Tom McInerney has confirmed that the Muslim Brotherhood has a major presence in the White House inner circle. In an interview with a Washington radio station, the for assistant vice chief of staff and commander in chief of U.S. Forces Europe has identified as least two Muslim Brotherhood players with direct Oval Office access.

The Muslim Brotherhood influence has been detailed in the book “Impeachable Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office” by New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.

In the book the authors document that Obama has aided the return to power of Islamic extremist groups in the Middle East and confirms that the administration may have exposed national security information through Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff. Abedin’s family has very close personal ties with the Muslim Brotherhood that run deep.

The second White House figure with disturbing ties to the extremist group is Mohamed Elibiary who is a member of the Department of Homeland Security’s Advisory Council.

In an interview with a Washington radio station concerning a tell-all book by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates that strongly criticizes President Obama and Vice-President Biden for making decisions about national security that were politically motivated, McInerney applauded Gates for doing the nation a service for exposing the practice.

He noted that Gates should have made his concerns known earlier indicating, “We’ve got Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. government today.”

When asked for their names by the radio talk-show host, McInerney stated, “I haven’t got their names exactly but there’s a list of them, at least 10 to 15 in the U.S. government.”

McInerney expressed strong concern  due to the extremist organization’s influence on our Homeland Security and the secretary of state’s office, where Abedin holds a key post.

“Her parents are Muslim Brotherhood.  And her intuitions are in that direction,” said McInerney. “There are a whole host of people in this government.”  He also cited Islam experts Frank Gaffney and Claire Lopez as those who would have details.

As president of the Center for Security Policy, Gaffney has created a publication called “The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration.” The publication was created to address the issue that was presented to Congress in July 2012 by Republican Reps. Michele Bachmann, Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Tom Rooney and Lynn Westmoreland.

It was those five lawmakers that requested the inspector generals at the Department of Homeland Security, Justice and State to investigate.

While both Democrats and Republicans rushed to defend Abedin, is was reported by news media WND that Abedin worked for an organization that was founded by her family and that planned to mobilize U.S. Muslim minorities in order to transform America into a Wahhabi-style Islamic state. This was according to a manifesto issued by the Saudi monarchy.

Further, Abedin was also a member of the Muslim Student Association where she was a member of the executive board. The association was identified in a 1991 document as a Muslim Brotherhood front group. That document was introduced into evidence during a trial for the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation during the terror-financing trial.

An internal memo is quoted as saying that the Muslim Brotherhood members “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and by the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Claire Lopez, a CSP senior fellow with The Gatestone Institute further wrote: “The careful insinuation of Muslim Brothers into positions from which they can exercise influence on U.S. policy began long before the attacks of 9/11, although their success has accelerated dramatically under the administration of President Barack Obama.”

She went on to say that the “massive Muslim Brotherhood organization network in the U.S., so patiently built up over the decades since that first Oval Office meeting in 1953 [with President Dwight D. Eisenhower], eventually gave it a prominence and (false) reputation of credibility that was unmatched by any other Islamic groups, moderate or otherwise.”

This “information dominance” only intensified during the George W. Bush administration and in the following years, reported Lopez.

“Not only did figures associated and identified with the Muslim Brotherhood achieve broad penetration at senior levels of U.S. policy making, but voices that warned of their true agenda (such as Stephen Coughlin’s) were actively excluded,” she said.

Lopez also identifies this information dominance as the key driver in the U.S policy toward the al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood led revolution or “Arab Spring” which she terms more accurately as “Islamic Awakening.”

“Under the Muslim Brotherhood-influenced Obama administration, U.S. policy has undergone such a drastic shift in the direction of outright support for these jihadist movements – from al-Qaida militias in Libya, to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and both al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood-linked rebels in Syria — that it is scarcely recognizable as American anymore.”

She continues: “The Middle East is coming apart with this administration’s policies. Look at Libya. We should never have gone into Libya. … We’ve got Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. government.”
It was not by chance that the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, “reading from prepared notes, absurdly describing the Muslim Brotherhood to the House Intelligence Committee last year as a ‘largely secular’ organization,” wrote WND columnist Diana West.

West adds: “Is it an accident that in June the State Department issued a visa to Hani Nour Eldin of Egypt to meet with senior White House officials? Eldin is a member of Gama’a al-Islamiyya, a terrorist organization once led by Omar Abdel Rahman, ‘the blind sheikh’ convicted of the first attack on the World Trade Center. In the person of Rahman’s successor, Refai Ahmed Taha, the group is one of the five signatories of Osama bin Laden’s February 1998 ‘World Islamic Front Statement Urging Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders.’ Isn’t it imperative to review the policy mechanism that permitted a member of bin Laden’s jihad front into the White House?”

It was also reported in the book “Impeachable Offenses” that the then-CIA director John Brennan, in a speech arranged by a Muslim Brotherhood-tied group, indicated that the Obama administration was calibrating policies in the fight against terrorism to ensure Americans are never “profiled.”  The group has extensive ties with other Brotherhood fronts as well as to the White House and national security agencies.

The session Brennan participated in was organized by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) whose members blasted Brennan with questions stating that the purpose of the meeting was to launch a “dialogue between government officials and Muslim American leaders to explore issues of national security.”

The group was founded in 1981 by the Saudi-funded Muslim Students Association, a group created by the Muslim Brotherhood. Both groups continue to work as partners. ISNA is recognized for promoting strict Saudi-style Islam in mosques throughout the U.S.

And the indictments of ISNA continue with terrorism expert Steven Emerson calling ISNA “a radical group hiding under a false veneer of moderation” and  Islam scholar Stephen Schwartz describing the group as “one of the chief conduits through which the radical Saudi form of Islam passes into the United States.”

Source: Tea
This administration has aligned themselves with our enemies.  They have done everything they could to destabilize the Middle East while putting the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qeada in charge. They have done everything they could to put Anti-Christian and Anti-Israel terrorists in charge in Libya, Egypt and are trying to do the same in Syria. 

Thank God the Egyptians realized what was happening and overthrew the government Obama helped to put in charge!  American's need to do the same!

When are the majority of American's going to wake up to the fact that this administration's ultimate goal is to destroy our country?  Obama, along with all of the far left, hate this country, and are on a mission to take it down.  These acts are acts of treason and should be treated as such.  

Take a look at what Eric Hold had to say today:

U.S to Ban Profiling Based on National Origin, Religion, Gender, Sexual Orientation


Expanding a limited 2003 ban, the Justice Department will soon prohibit federal agents from profiling suspects based on national origin, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. The Bush administration's ban applied only to race, allowing federal agents to specifically target Muslims in terrorism cases and Latinos for immigration investigations.
From the New York Times:
President George W. Bush said in 2001 that racial profiling was wrong and promised "to end it in America." But that was before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. After those attacks, federal agents arrested and detained dozens of Muslim men who had no ties to terrorism. The government also began a program known as special registration, which required tens of thousands of Arab and Muslim men to register with the authorities because of their nationalities.
"Putting an end to this practice not only comports with the Constitution, it would put real teeth to the F.BI.'s claims that it wants better relationships with religious minorities," Hina Shamsi, a national security lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Times.

But a critical part of the ban's expansion is still unknown. As it stands now, the prohibitions on racial profiling do not apply to cases involving national security, which has been an obvious cause for concern for Arab and Muslim rights groups. The rule also applies only to traffic stops and arrests, not surveillance.

"Adding religion and national origin is huge," Linda Sarsour, advocacy director for the National Network for Arab American Communities, told Times. "But if they don't close the national security loophole, then it's really irrelevant."

And local law enforcement groups, like the NYPD, will not be subject to the new regulations. 

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder revealed the changes to New York Mayor Bill de Blasio Wednesday night, according to government official who spoke with the Times.

Photo courtesy of