Supreme Court Smacks Down Obama’s Globalist Agenda! [from daily sanity]
Obama and Holder argued that international law trumps the Constitution. The Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY smacked them down.
Supreme Court Smacks Down Obama’s Globalist Agenda!
While the Supreme Court tends to lean Conservative, many of its most recent rulings have been split down party/ideological lines. Most contentious cases end up with a 5-4 split, with Justice Kennedy usually providing the swing vote. It isn’t very often that the Court has a unanimous ruling and it is even less likely for a Court to rule unanimously against a sitting-President’s administration.
Then again, the Department of Justice is run by Eric Holder, so I guess anything is possible.
Just this week, the Supreme Court ruled against Holder and Obama 9-0 in the case Bond v. United States. I have covered this case in the past, early on when it was still in the trial phase. The U.S. government charged Carol Anne Bond with violating the 1998 U.N. Chemical Weapons Treaty after she launched an amateurish plan to poison her husband’s mistress. Mrs. Bond covered door knobs with chemicals hoping to kill the woman, but when all was said and done, the attempt did nothing but create a mild burning and itching sensation on her target’s hands.
The Obama administration defended the lower court’s decision to have Mrs. Bond convicted under International Law. Holder and the DOJ argued that using chemicals against an individual violates the Convention on Chemical Weapons. Since Mrs. Bond was convicted in a lower court, this marked the first time that U.N. law was applied to U.S. civilian crimes.
This is exactly what the Obama administration wants. The President wants us to live under international law. Even just yesterday, when Obama faced a firestorm over his most recent illegal prisoner transfer, he justified the transfer using the Geneva Convention, not the Constitution!
For the Supreme Court to rule 9-0 against the Obama’s globalist agenda is excellent, but Congress must ensure that no U.S. citizen is EVER subject to international prosecution for petty domestic crimes!
This case is soap-opera worthy, so let me flesh it out for you… Carol Anne Bond is a Pennsylvania microbiologist who, unfortunately, is sterile and cannot have children. In 2006, Carol learned that her best friend, Myrlinda Haynes, was pregnant by her husband, Clifford.
So, Bond did what any brooding microbiologist would do: she ordered a bunch of chemicals online and tried to kill her husband’s mistress by leaving the chemicals on door knobs, mailboxes, anything she believed that the other woman would touch.
Myrlinda Haynes suffered nothing but a burn and some redness on her fingers. Local prosecutors refused to touch the case. They couldn’t find a charge that would stick. But the Feds charged Carol Ann Bond with violating the 1998 Chemical Weapons Convention.
Mrs. Bond pleaded guilty while simultaneously retaining her right to appeal. Now, all these years later, the Supreme Court has finally ruled in her favor, slapping down the ridiculous arguments made by the Obama administration!
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that if the Obama administration’s arguments were allowed to stand, their definition of “Chemical Weapons” would “sweep in everything from the detergent under the kitchen sink to the stain remover in the laundry room.” These aren’t chemical weapons… they are cleaning supplies!
If the Obama administration had succeeded, owning household cleaning supplies would have put you in the same class as war criminals like Saddam Hussein and Syrian Leader Bashar al-Assad! Not only is Obama trying to lump legal gun owners in with mass shooters, but now the DOJ was LITERALLY arguing that owning cleaning supplies was equivalent to stockpiling mustard gas…
But the Supreme Court, luckily, did not side with the administration. Unfortunately, it took so long for Carol Anne Bond’s case to reach the highest court that she has since served her sentence and has been reunited with her husband. While this ruling has broad implications moving forward, it does nothing to give back the years of her life lost because aggressive Federal prosecutors decided that U.N. laws should trump our own!
While the Supreme Court ruled that the government’s use of a Chemical Weapons Treaty to prosecute a jealous wife was completely ridiculous, it left open the question of whether international law can, philosophically and legally, trump the Constitution. While the Court agreed unanimously that Bond’s crimes didn’t warrant prosecution under the 1998 Chemical Weapons Treaty, six of the nine justices refused to comment on the Constitutionality of international law trumping the Constitution and being used to prosecute domestic crimes.
Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas wanted the Court to go further. They wanted the court to decide the constitutionality of Federal prosecutors charging individuals with international crimes. In their opinion, this is clearly ludicrous. But Chief Justice Roberts, known for skirting larger constitutional issues, refused to comment on that aspect of the case.
And with that, a common sense Supreme Court ruling has actually left the door open for U.S. citizens to still be charged with violating international law!
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… This loophole in the Court’s decision poses the most dangerous threat to our Republic that we have seen in years. The idea that a zealous prosecutor could charge a U.S. citizen with violating an international treaty is beyond ridiculous.
This isn’t a hypothetical… Eric Holder’s Justice Department actually argued before the Supreme Court that international law can trump the Constitution! Now you’re starting to get an idea why Obama signed the U.N. Arms Treaty, even though he knew it wouldn’t pass through Congress…
We have enough laws to adequately prosecute criminals. There is absolutely no need to bring international law into the equation. Mass shooters don’t need to be charged with genocide, gun owners shouldn’t be charged with violating the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, and jealous wives definitely shouldn’t be charged with Chemical Weapons Treaty violations!
This is such common sense, that it shouldn’t even be up for debate. But it is!
We live in a country that is bound by the Constitution, not some international treaty. For a President to have his administration defend such an action is unconscionable. But that just goes to show that as far as Obama is concerned, international law trumps the Constitution!
This must be stopped!
Way to go, Idaho! Nullification becomes law.
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Sixty-second Legislature Second Regular Session - 2014
IN THE SENATE
SENATE BILL NO. 1332
BY STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
1 AN ACT
2 RELATING TO FIREARMS; PROVIDING A SHORT TITLE; PROVIDING LEGISLATIVE IN3
TENT; AMENDING CHAPTER 33, TITLE 18, IDAHO CODE, BY THE ADDITION OF A
4 NEW SECTION 18-3315B, IDAHO CODE, TO PROVIDE CERTAIN PROHIBITED ACTS
5 REGARDING FIREARMS BY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES AND OFFICERS OF GOVERNMENTAL
6 ENTITIES, TO PROVIDE PENALTIES, TO ESTABLISH THAT CERTAIN LAWS ARE UN7
ENFORCEABLE IN IDAHO BY STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, AGENTS OR
8 EMPLOYEES AND TO DEFINE A TERM; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY; AND DECLARING
9 AN EMERGENCY.
10 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho:
11 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This act shall be known and may be cited as the
12 "Idaho Federal Firearm, Magazine and Register Ban Enforcement Act."
13 SECTION 2. LEGISLATIVE INTENT. It is the intent of the Legislature in
14 enacting this act to protect Idaho law enforcement officers from being di15
rected, through federal executive orders, agency orders, statutes, laws,
16 rules, or regulations enacted or promulgated on or after the effective date
17 of this act, to violate their oath of office and Idaho citizens' rights un18
der Section 11, Article I, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho. This
19 Idaho constitutional provision disallows confiscation of firearms except
20 those actually used in the commission of a felony, and disallows other re21
strictions on a citizen's lawful right to own firearms and ammunition. This
22 act provides that no Idaho law enforcement official shall knowingly and
23 willingly order an action that is contrary to the provisions of Section 11,
24 Article I, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho. The Legislature does
25 not intend to affect an Idaho law enforcement officer who assists federal
26 agents on drug or gang enforcement activities. The Legislature intends to
27 create a penalty for an official, agent or employee of the State of Idaho or a
28 political subdivision thereof that orders an unlawful confiscation without
29 penalizing officers that follow orders. Idaho law enforcement officers are
30 partners with Idaho citizens in protecting the rights as outlined in both the
31 United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Idaho.
32 SECTION 3. That Chapter 33, Title 18, Idaho Code, be, and the same is
33 hereby amended by the addition thereto of a NEW SECTION, to be known and des34
ignated as Section 18-3315B, Idaho Code, and to read as follows:
35 18-3315B. PROHIBITION OF REGULATION OF CERTAIN FIREARMS. (1) Other
36 than compliance with an order of the court, any official, agent or employee
37 of the state of Idaho or a political subdivision thereof who knowingly and
38 willfully orders an official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a po39
litical subdivision of the state to enforce any executive order, agency or40
der, law, rule or regulation of the United States government as provided in
Read the Text of Idaho's brand new law nullifying federal gun restrictions.
FEDERAL FIREARM, MAGAZINE AND REGISTER BAN ENFORCEMENT ACT - Adds to existing law to provide legislative intent; to provide certain prohibited acts regarding firearms by public employees and officers of governmental entities, to provide penalties and to establish that certain laws are unenforceable in Idaho by state and local government officials, agents or employees.
Introduced; read first time; referred to JR for Printing
Reported Printed; referred to State Affairs
Reported out of Committee with Do Pass Recommendation; Filed for second reading
Read second time; filed for Third Reading
Read third time in full - PASSED - 34-0-1 AYES -- Bair, Bayer, Bock, Buckner-Webb, Cameron, Davis, Johnson(Fulcher), Goedde, Guthrie, Hagedorn, Heider, Hill, Johnson, Keough, Lacey, Lakey, Lodge, Martin, McKenzie, Mortimer, Nonini, Nuxoll, Patrick, Pearce, Rice, Schmidt, Siddoway, Stennett, Thayn, Tippets, Vick, Ward-Engelking, Werk, Winder NAYS -- None Absent and excused -- Brackett Floor Sponsor - Vick Title apvd - to House
Received from the Senate, Filed for First Reading
Read First Time, Referred to State Affairs
Reported out of Committee with Do Pass Recommendation, Filed for Second Reading
Reported enrolled; signed by President; to House for signature of Speaker
Received from Senate; Signed by Speaker; Returned to Senate
Reported signed by the Speaker & ordered delivered to Governor
Reported delivered to Governor on 03/14/14
Signed by Governor on 03/19/14 Session Law Chapter 148 Effective: 03/19/2014
Tom Woods - Nullification - resource
State Nullification: What Is It?
What is it?
State nullification is the idea that the states can and must refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.
Says Thomas Jefferson, among other distinguished Americans. His draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 first introduced the word “nullification” into American political life, and follow-up resolutions in 1799 employed Jefferson’s formulation that “nullification…is the rightful remedy” when the federal government reaches beyond its constitutional powers. In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison said the states were “duty bound to resist” when the federal government violated the Constitution.
But Jefferson didn’t invent the idea. Federalist supporters of the Constitution at the Virginia ratifying convention of 1788 assured Virginians that they would be “exonerated” should the federal government attempt to impose “any supplementary condition” upon them – in other words, if it tried to exercise a power over and above the ones the states had delegated to it. Patrick Henry and later Jefferson himself elaborated on these safeguards that Virginians had been assured of at their ratifying convention.
What’s the Argument for It?
Here’s an extremely basic summary:
1) The states preceded the Union. The Declaration of Independence speaks of “free and independent states” that “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.” The British acknowledged the independence not of a single blob, but of individual states, which they proceeded to list one by one. Article II of the Articles of Confederation says the states “retain their sovereignty, freedom, and independence”; they must have enjoyed that sovereignty in the past in order for them to “retain” it in 1781 when the Articles were officially adopted. The ratification of the Constitution was accomplished not by a single, national vote, but by the individual ratifications of the various states, each assembled in convention.
2) In the American system no government is sovereign. The peoples of the states are the sovereigns. It is they who apportion powers between themselves, their state governments, and the federal government. In doing so they are not impairing their sovereignty in any way. To the contrary, they are exercising it.
3) Since the peoples of the states are the sovereigns, then when the federal government exercises a power of dubious constitutionality on a matter of great importance, it is they themselves who are the proper disputants, as they review whether their agent was intended to hold such a power. No other arrangement makes sense. No one asks his agent whether the agent has or should have such-and-such power. In other words, the very nature of sovereignty, and of the American system itself, is such that the sovereigns must retain the power to restrain the agent they themselves created. James Madison explains this clearly in the famous Virginia Report of 1800.
Why Do We Need It?
As Jefferson warned, if the federal government is allowed to hold a monopoly on determining the extent of its own powers, we have no right to be surprised when it keeps discovering new ones. If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power. In his Report of 1800, Madison reminded Virginians and Americans at large that the judicial branch was not infallible, and that some remedy must be found for those cases in which all three branches of the federal government exceed their constitutional limits.
Isn’t This Ancient History?
Two dozen American states nullified the REAL ID Act of 2005. More than a dozen states have successfully defied the federal government over medical marijuana. Nullification initiatives of all kinds, involving the recent health care legislation, cap and trade, and the Second Amendment are popping up everywhere.
What’s more, we’ve tried everything else. Nothing seems able to stop Leviathan’s relentless march. We need to have recourse to every mechanism of defense Thomas Jefferson bequeathed to us, not just the ones that won’t offend Katie Couric or MSNBC.
Won’t This Make the New York Times Unhappy?
More proof it’s a good idea.
Doesn’t Nullification Violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause?
Thomas Jefferson knew about the Supremacy Clause, it’s safe to assume. The Supremacy Clause applies to constitutional laws, not unconstitutional ones. For a full reply to this objection, see Professor Brion McClanahan.
Isn’t This Just a Smokescreen for Slavery?
Nullification was never used on behalf of slavery. As I show in Nullification, it was used against slavery, which is why South Carolina’s secession document cites it as a grievance justifying southern secession, and Jefferson Davis denounced it in his farewell address to the Senate. Thus Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, backed up by the state legislature, declared the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 unconstitutional (the mere existence of the fugitive-slave clause in the Constitution did not, in its view, suffice to make all the odious provisions of that act constitutionally legitimate). In Ableman v. Booth (1859), the Supreme Court scolded it for doing so. In other words, modern anti-nullification jurisprudence has its roots in the Supreme Court’s declarations in support of the Fugitive Slave Act. Who’s defending slavery here?
How Can I Learn More?
The indispensable source for developments connected to nullification and the Tenth Amendment is TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Its Legislative Tracking page covers a variety of nullification initiatives and tracks their progress in state legislatures across the country.
And check out what happens when a Princeton professor shoots off his mouth on nullification without knowing anything about the subject.
Nullification is an important defense mechanism for a free people, with deep roots in American history – albeit American history no one is taught in school. Learn more about it, and join the cause.
– Want to unlearn the propaganda we got in school, and at last be taught real history and economics? Liberty Classroom, founded by bestselling author Tom Woods, offers on-demand, downloadable courses in sound economics as well as U.S. and European history, taught by professors who share your commitment to liberty. Learn in your car, a little each day, and make yourself a formidable debater for the cause of freedom. Find out more! New members can save 30% on a year’s subscription with coupon code NEW (all caps).
UN gun control
HOORAY - 53-46 vote
The U.N. Resolution 2117 lists 21 points dealing with firearms control, but perhaps of most interest is point number 11: “CALLS FOR MEMBER STATES TO SUPPORT WEAPONS COLLECTION, DISARMAMENT ---”
HOORAY - 53-46 vote - The U.S. Senate voted against the U.N. resolution.
This is that brief, glorious moment in history when everyone stands around...reloading.
Now, Which 46 Senators Voted to Destroy Us? Well, let their names become known !! See below . If you vote in one of the states listed with these 46 “legis..traitors”… vote against them.
In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the Bill reads: "To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty." The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented aninternational gun registry, now get this, on all private guns and ammo.
Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.
Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N.
Folks: This needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take OUR guns. They need to lose their next election. We have been betrayed.
46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.
The United States ranks third in murders, but ...
The United States ranks third in the world in murder rates. But if you take out Chicago, Detroit, Washington D.C., and New Orleans, the United States is fourth from the bottom.
Also, these four cities have some of the toughest gun control laws in the United States.
And all four cities are controlled by Democrats.
Coincidence or can we draw a reasonable conclusion from this data?
President Obama's inauguration in January kicked off a year of broken promises about his signature health care law, threatening to turn a presidency based on vows of hope and change to one doling out disappointment and failures.
The Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, but it was in 2013 that the health care reform law implode into a nightmare of broken promises. Assertions made by the president and Health Secretary weeks ago, months ago and even years ago have over and over again proved to been misleading at best and complete untrue at worst.
No, you may not be able to keep your doctor or your plan. And, no, the website is not user-friendly.
Here are the Top-10 Obamacare promises that were broken in 2013:
1. The website is simple and user-friendly
Hardly. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius's claim in an op-ed piece in USA Today turned out to be a glib — and false — boast.
Even Democrat-friendly Jon Stewart's The Daily Show hammered Sebelius on the widespread and well-reported problems with the HealthCare.gov sign-ups. Stewart ended the interview with the official in a merciless monologue in which he wondered: “And then I think to myself, ‘well, maybe she’s just lying to me.’”
Just days into its disastrous rollout, the Obamacare website was out of order until mid-morning Oct. 8, a public relations headache given the administration had pledged to sign up 7 million people for Obamacare insurance by the start of 2014.
The early outage wasn't the last; on Dec. 20, a mere three days before the deadline to sign up for coverage starting Jan. 1, yet another outage lasted for several hours.
2. "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan."
Obama's June 6, 2009 assertion was wrong. As insurers sent cancellations to millions of individual policy holders because their plans were sub-par for Obamacare standards, the president's oft-repeated pledge blew apart, and PolitiFact declared the vow the "lie of the year."
But respected Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer railed Obamacare itself was a fraud from the beginning, writing the law "was designed to throw people off their private plans and into government-run exchanges where they would be made to overpay — forced to purchase government-mandated services they don’t need — as a way to subsidize others."
3. "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
Obama's 2009 promise was wrong again, we learned in 2013. For insured Americans dumped by their employer-sponsored plans because they don't cut it with the new health care law, or pushed by their insurers to re-enroll at higher rates, it's likely they won't be able to keep their doctors, conservative blogger Cam Harris writes.
Offering the example of the 15,000 spouses of UPS employees forced to seek out new plans on the individual market, Harris writes they'll find their Obamacare network won't include their usual MD.
4. Premiums will fall by as much as $2,500 per family
That won't happen. Forbes magazine, comparing Affordable Care Act premiums versus pre-Obamacare premiums, finds this presidential assertion a dud.
According to Forbes, and based on a Manhattan Institute analysis of the HHS numbers, Obamacare will actually jack up underlying insurance rates for young men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for young women by an average of 55 to 62 percent. As for states, the worst off is North Carolina, which is expected to see individual-market rates triple for women, and quadruple for men, the analysis showed.
6. The ACA will cost around $900 billion over 10 years
Not even close. A Congressional Budget Office’s report from May 2013 puts the real price tag more around the area of $1.8 trillion. And the cost projections rise with every new estimated, conservative blogger Cam Harris noted.
7. Families making less than $250,000 won't see 'any form' of tax increase
Citing a Joint Committee on Taxation 2012 report and Congressional Budget Office information, as well as a Heritage Foundation report, Obamacare’s taxes and penalties will accumulate over $770 billion in new revenue over a 10-year period, and among taxes that'll pound the middle class are the individual mandate tax, the medical device tax, and new penalties and limits on health savings accounts and flexible spending accounts.
But it's just not so, according to senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and American Enterprise Institute visiting fellow James Captretta writes in the Weekly Standard.
Here's why: National Health Expenditure projections show a slowdown in health spending that began long before Obamacare was passed, and was due to factors entirely unrelated, he argues.
In 2002, NHE spending per capita rose 8.5 percent and then began to slow over the ensuring years, he notes. And HHS actuaries even concede the reasons their estimates of health costs over the coming decade are lower than they were a few years ago is due to economic conditions, fiscal policy changes, including a sequester cut of Medicare payments, and a slowdown in growth in Medicaid, Medicare, and other government programs — all unrelated to Obamacare.
9. You have a deadline and a mandate.
Maybe. Squishy deadlines, and "fixes" have been a hallmark of Obamacare almost from the start.
In the most major fix of a problem aimed at people who lost their coverage because it didn't measure up to Obamacare standards, the administration abruptly shifted gears Dec. 19, changing policy to help people make a deadline to replace dropped insurance plans.
Those with inadequate insurance that got canceled were now allowed to claim a “hardship exemption," giving them the option to buy cheaper, minimal coverage plans normally available only to people under 30.
Another "fix" came Nov. 14, a week after the president apologized for the cancellations sent to people whose insurance didn't meet new standards. The president asked insurers to keep offering those plans for a year even if they don't meet minimum Obamacare requirements.
For small businesses, Obama last July bumped back the deadline requiring companies with 50 or more employees to offer insurance from Jan. 1 2014 to Jan. 1, 2015.
As for sign-up deadlines, it's been confusing at best. In October, people had until Dec. 15 to pick a plan if they wanted coverage beginning Jan. 1. Then, in November, it was extended to Dec. 23.
But citing high traffic to the HealthCare.gov website and at call centers before that deadline, the goal posts moved again, this time to Christmas Eve, Dec. 24.
Officials said nearly 2 million visits had been logged by that time in the last-minute rush, Yet in a blog post on the website Dec. 24, the administration suggested additional flexibility.
"Sometimes despite your best efforts, you might have run into delays caused by heavy traffic to HealthCare.gov, maintenance periods, or other issues with our systems that prevented you from finishing the process on time," the post said. "If this happened to you, don't worry -- we still may be able to help you get covered as soon as January 1."
10. Sure, the national exchange is glitchy, but the state sites are working great.
Not so fast.
Obamacare’s state-run enrollment operations have had technological delays and low sign-up levels. Several states even replaced top executives.
“Some of these states have been committed, but it’s just been hurdle after hurdle after hurdle,” said Heather Howard, program director at the State Health Reform Assistance Network, a Princeton, New Jersey-based group advising state exchanges told Bloomberg News. “I do think those states will get there, but this is an ambitious undertaking in the best of cases.”
Meanwhile, Massachusetts and Vermont are weighing legal options against the contractor that designed their healthcare insurance exchange websites. both states used Montreal-based CGI Group, which built HealthCare.gov, and say they are withholding future payments and taking steps now to recoup millions in taxpayer dollars already spent on their websites that still have serious problems, reports The Boston Globe.
“CGI has consistently underperformed, which is frustrating and a serious concern,” said Jason Lefferts, a spokesman for the Massachusetts' insurance marketplace, Commonwealth Home Connector. “We are holding the vendor accountable for its underperformance and will continue to apply nonstop pressure to work to fix defects and improve performance.”
From NewsMax: Sen. Lee, Churches Should Not Be Forced to Perform Gay Marriages
Sen. Lee: Churches Should Not Be Forced to Perform Gay Marriages
Friday, 27 Dec 2013 12:38 PM
By Audrey Hudson
More ways to share...
Sen. Mike Lee says a bill he introduced would prevent the Internal Revenue Service from denying tax-exempt status to any person or group that refuses to perform gay marriages.
"What we're talking about here is the freedom of religious belief, the freedom of a church, for example, to adhere to its own religious doctrine so that it cannot be discriminated against by the government," the Utah Republican said in an interview with Newsmax.
Lee said the federal government's failure to protect religious liberty — citing Obamacare mandates for contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs — was a key motivation for him to introduce the "Marriage and Religious Freedom Act," which protects clergy from being punished if they refuse to perform gay marriages.
"This is something that the overwhelming majority of Americans would support and the overwhelming majority of Americans would be disappointed if they discovered Congress would be unwilling to pass something like this," Lee said.
Lee's bill was introduced before Congress recessed for the holidays. It has the support of Republican Sens. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Marco Rubio of Florida, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. A bipartisan companion measure in the House is sponsored by Republican Reps. Raul Labrador of Idaho and Chris Smith of New Jersey, as well as Democrats Dan Lipinski of Illinois and Mike McIntyre of North Carolina.
"It is rare that a month or few weeks go by without me hearing from some religious person or institution that has great concern about the status of religious liberty," Lee told Newsmax.
"And that's all the more reason why those of us who believe in religious liberty, whether we are Democrats or Republicans, need to stand up and make clear that there is a good reason why religious liberty receives protection in the Constitution, and there are good reasons why we need to draw protective lines in legislation that we pass that will bolster those protections."
The Utah Republican said President Barack Obama has shown a significant lack of respect for religious freedoms through his administration's effort to expand the size and control of the federal government.
He noted, however, that Obama has specifically stated he has no intention of revoking the tax-exempt status of any church that does not recognize gay marriage.
"In light of the fact he said that, I think it's important that we memorialize that in legislation," Lee added. "If he in fact feels that way, then he should be just fine with this legislation."
Lee also said the revelation earlier this year that the IRS had targeted conservative and tea party groups for extra scrutiny over their tax-exempt status was a factor as well in his moving to write the bill.
"That's why we need to be concerned, but it's also why we should be in a good position to put those assurances to rest in legislation," Lee said.
Despite the fact that there is a bipartisan companion bill in the House, Lee said it is difficult to gauge whether the measure will pass both chambers. Endorsements from numerous religious and conservative organizations could help, though. Among those supporting the measure: the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Family Research Council, National Organization For Marriage, Heritage Action, and Concerned Women For America.
Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, says the protections under Lee's bill are necessary, Catholic World News reports.
"Increasingly, state laws are being used to target individuals and organizations for discrimination simply because they act on their belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman," Cordileone said.
"Such prejudice must not be allowed to spread to the federal government."
During an appearance on the December 21st airing of 60 Minutes, National Security Adviser Susan Rice defended her infamous September 16, 2012 Benghazi comments, saying she does not "have time to think about a false controversy."
As U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. in 2012, Rice did a tour of Sunday morning shows just four days after the Benghazi terrorist attack and told the world it had been "spontaneous." She intimated it was the result of unrest over an anti-Muslim video and that "it was not an expression of hostility in the broadest sense toward the United States."
During her 60 Minutes appearance Sunday, Rice made it clear that she has not spent time second-guessing herself. She said that while others have been focused on the Benghazi talking points, the "administration has been working very, very hard across the globe to review our security of our embassies and our facilities."
According to Politico, Rice is also avoiding any talk about how she appeared to be next in line for Secretary of State until she blamed Benghazi on a "spontaneous" attack.
When 60 Minutes host Lesley Stahl said, "If you hadn't...[done] those [Sunday morning shows], I'd be calling you 'Madam Secretary,'" Rice retorted, "You can call me Susan."
Portland, Oregon: OnMonday, December 16, 2013 the school board for the Portland Public School District voted to terminate the teaching contract of Bill Diss, a teacher who has been an outspoken opponent of Planned Parenthood. Mr. Diss experienced censure in his teaching career beginning in 2007 when he publically opposed the building of a new Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in downtown Portland. The current action follows Mr. Diss’ opposition to being forced to facilitate presenters from the Teen Outreach Program (TOP), a program administered by Planned Parenthood, coming into his tutorial session to recruit students.
“Bill Diss is a well qualified teacher with a track record of success,” states Dana Cody, President and Executive Director of Life Legal Defense Foundation. “As the circumstances surrounding this termination demonstrate, Mr. Diss has done nothing that would merit being fired from his job. LLDF will pursue every possible avenue in defending Mr. Diss’ rights in this matter, and hopes to see his rights ultimately protected despite PPS’ actions.”
Background: Bill Diss has taught Technology, Math, Computers and Electronics at Benson High School since 2002. He has also taught several classes at the community college level. He is highly regarded in his abilities and his success both by students themselves, by their parents, and fellow teachers. Mr. Diss is the only teacher in the state of Oregon who has been certified as qualified to teach college level computer science to high school students for dual credit. His initiative and hard work have attracted outside grants to Benson opening up even greater opportunities for Benson students. For the first five years at Benson High, Mr. Diss was rated as proficient or better, with numerous positive compliments in his reviews. Mr. Diss’ methodology and teaching style has remained substantially the same in all his years of teaching.
The positive reviews took a dramatic change for the worse, however, when Mr. Diss began to speak out in opposition to the building of a new Planned Parenthood facility in downtown Portland. Mr. Diss was involved in opposition activities on his own time, and did not bring his political or religious convictions into his instruction in the classroom. Nonetheless, he began to experience complaints about his political activities from school administrators, and his teaching came under sudden, rigorous scrutiny. Complaints, negative evaluations, letters of reprimand and formal meetings became a regular part of Mr. Diss’ life at school for as long as he engaged in outspoken, public opposition to Planned Parenthood.
Shortly after the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, presenters with the Teen Outreach Program (TOP) came to Mr. Diss’ tutorial classes to give a presentation recruiting students for the TOP program. When presenters entered the tutorial, Mr. Diss, consistent with District policy, asked for identification. He was handed a card that identified the presenters as employees of Planned Parenthood. This knowledge surprised Mr. Diss, and caused him serious emotional distress due to his well-known personal religious convictions and his years of work to oppose that organization. He expressed his dilemma to Benson Principal, Carol Campbell at the time and asked to be excused from being present for the presentation due to his religious convictions. His request was denied. He was told that he would be required to be present for the TOP presentation. Through the remainder of the school year during which he taught, Mr. Diss continued to have to deal with Planned Parenthood staff as they administered the TOP program.
Simultaneous to his request not to be involved with TOP, Mr. Diss’ teaching came under renewed censorial review. Mr. Diss accepted the input from school administration, but the year proved to be extremely stressful, including numerous classroom observations and meetings with school administration. On March 19, 2013 school administrators summarily demanded that Mr. Diss leave the school premises and not return—placing him on paid administrative leave. Mr. Diss was told to leave the school and was escorted off the premises by a police officer. This unnecessary show of force is symbolic of the animus faced by Mr. Diss throughout the year.
Obama Admin Doesn’t Know Casualties or Costs of War in
Afghanistan - Freedom Outpost freedomoutpost.com
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) asked Obama administration’s top Afghanistan specialists: (1) How much
is the U.S. spending in Afghanistan? (2) How many American troops have been killed in Afghanistan this
year? None of the specialists could answer which shocked Rohrabacher.
“We’re supposed to believe that you fellas have a plan that’s going to end up in a positive way in
Afghanistan?” Mr. Rohrabacher asked. “Holy cow!”
While military waste overseas is running rampant, military retirees face as much as $124,000 in lost
retirement income if the bipartisan budget agreement is enacted, according to the Military Officers
Association of America (MOAA).
The American government has already spent about $107 million — double the initial estimate — on the
five-story Defense Ministry headquarters, which will include state-of-the-art bunkers and the
second-largest auditorium in Kabul.
According to the Washington Post, “For years, audits and inspector general’s reports have documented
waste and mismanagement in American aid projects in Afghanistan. But the Defense Ministry building is a
dramatic example of how poor oversight continues to plague the massive U.S. investment here.”
Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC) responded to the video above on Facebook.com, “At a time when we
are spending billions of dollars and risking the lives of our service members overseas, it is absolutely
unacceptable that Obama administration officials could not answer the simplest of questions about our
operations in Afghanistan.”
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Google Plus.
More Obama lies from his underlings - Meetings with Sebellius: yes or no?
Late Friday afternoon, Politico Magazinepublished an update dismantling White House claims that President Barack Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius held“dozens” of unrecorded one-on-one working meetings over the last three-and-a-half years leading up to Obamacare's unveiling.
The update, written by Government Accountability Institute (GAI) President and Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer, refuted Friday comments by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.
In a telling exchange between Carney and NBC News reporter Peter Alexander and ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl, Carney claimed the GAI report showing one meeting between Obama and Sebelius since Obamacare’s signing was incorrect because it was based on spotty White House visitor logs. The problem, wrote Schweizer in the Politico Magazine update, is that the GAI report was not based on visitor logs; it was based on the White House’s own official calendar and was further verified by Politico’s comprehensive presidential calendar.
“Press Secretary Jay Carney said Friday, ‘Cabinet secretaries don’t regularly get entered into the visitor logs.’ The GAI report was not based on visitor logs; it was based on the White House’s own calendar and the Politico presidential calendar,” wrote Schweizer.
Carney also claimed to reporters that Secretary Sebelius “is here a lot and meets with the President with regularity,” but he admitted he did not know how many one-on-one meetings Obama had with Sebelius.
If so, said Schweizer, “Why aren’t they listed? How many meetings took place and when did they occur?”
As Schweizer pointed out, “Obama’s calendar lists 277 one-on-one meetings between the President and his Cabinet Secretaries, including 73 with former Secretary Clinton and 57 with former Secretary Geithner.” Why not Sebelius? asked Schweizer.
The Politico Magazine update then posed the question at the heart of the controversy: “If Obama and Sebelius worked together closely and regularly, why did the President publicly state he did not know about the problems with Healthcare.gov?”
Schweizer says Obama must make good on his promises of transparency. "This is the most transparent Administration in history," Obama said previously.
Obama must level with Americans about "how much time President Obama personally spent over three-and-a-half years leading, managing, and working alongside Secretary Sebelius on his signature achievement,” wrote Schweizer.
The growing controversy places an already beleaguered Obama White House in an untenable political position. If, as HHS spokesperson Joanne Peters claimed late Friday, Obama had “dozens” of one-on-one working meetings with Sebelius, why did he promise in his roundly criticized November 14 press conference he was unaware of the serious problems with healthcare.gov that contractors had warned Sebelius of for months?
“I was not informed directly that the website would not be working as—the way it was supposed to,” said Obama. “Clearly, we and I did not have enough awareness about the problems in the website.”
And if, as the White House and Politico presidential calendars reveal, Obama held but one meeting with Sebelius in the three-and-a-half years of the Obamacare implementation, why was the President not “leading, managing, and working alongside Secretary Sebelius on his signature achievement,” asks Schweizer.
The Obama Administration has yet to produce a list of the "dozens" of dates and times it claims Obama and Sebelius spent working on Obamacare.
NSA Reform Bill Introduced As Agency Remains On The Defensive - Huffington Post
Matt Sledge - firstname.lastname@example.org
WASHINGTON -- A major bill to reform the National Security Agency was introduced on Tuesday as the spy service's director defended its activities before the House Intelligence Committee.
The bipartisan legislation introduced jointly by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is one of the most ambitious efforts to rein in the NSA's spying powers in the wake of revelations made by former agency contractor Edward Snowden.
"It is time for serious and meaningful reforms so we can restore confidence in our intelligence community,” Leahy said in a statement. "Modest transparency and oversight provisions are not enough. We need real reform."
Leahy's partner in the House, Sensenbrenner, crafted the USA Patriot Act in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and seems to rue the expanded powers that law has since granted the NSA. His new legislation's title: the USA Freedom Act.
The bill comes at a time when the agency seems increasingly on its heels. The measure has garnered the support of allies as far-ranging as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association. And its introduction comes after a near-miss vote in the House this summer for an amendment that would have ended the NSA's bulk collection of Americans' phone records, and a harshly-worded statement on Monday from Senate Intelligence Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), condemning spying on the United States' foreign allies.
Among other aims, the bill would end bulk phone record collection, create a civil liberties advocate for the special court that oversees intelligence gathering, and increase transparency around the scope of the NSA's activities.
Although House members once skeptical of NSA reform are increasingly supportive, Leahy and Sensenbrenner's bill faces a number of obstacles. As much was readily apparent on Tuesday, when NSA director Gen. Keith Alexander defended the agency at a House Intelligence Committee meeting.
Acknowledging that "this is a tough time for the NSA," Alexander said it was more important to "defend this country and take the beating" than to give up on programs that he claimed were critical for preventing terrorism, such as the bulk phone records collection.
Officials at the NSA have apparently been stung by a perceived lack of support from President Barack Obama's White House for their surveillance programs.
U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Cole told the House hearing that the administration was open to some reform proposals, such as creating an advocate before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and possibly transferring the possession of collected phone records from the NSA to telecom companies.
But Alexander and his deputy, John Inglis, are opposed to any measures that would outright end the bulk collection of phone records.
House Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) signaled his strong support for the NSA's actions -- which means he could be headed for a showdown with the Judiciary Committee, where Sensenbrenner sits.
"This is the time for leadership in a very dangerous and chaotic world, it is not a time to apologize," Rogers said. "We know that the 9/11 road was paved with a lot of very good intentions."
A similar fight could be set up in the Senate, where despite the misgivings she expressed Monday, Feinstein went ahead Tuesday with marking up her own version of surveillance reform, which is far more modest than the Sensenbrenner-Leahy measure.
DHS Secretary Nominee plagerized 23 times - Phillip Hodges posting
Obama’s DHS Secretary Nominee Plagiarized 23 Different Times
They say if you steal from one author, it’s plagiarism. If you steal from a bunch of authors, it’s “research.”
I guess that’s why Rachel Maddow called Rand Paul a plagiarist. Apparently, he quoted Wikipedia when he talked about the movie Gattaca in one of his speeches, and he didn’t give credit where credit was due.
It’s not like Wikipedia has one author behind all its content. It’s subject to millions of people’s edits. It certainly wouldn’t have hurt if whoever wrote his speech referenced Wikipedia, but I don’t think it was Earth-shattering news.
Senator Coburn’s office found that in his answers to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee’s questionnaire, Johnson blatantly plagiarized a total of 23 times from other Obama administration officials. I’ll give you one of the examples.
When responding to a question about the Efficiency Review program under DHS, Johnson wrote the following (emphases courtesy of Coburn’s office): The Department’s Efficiency Review program, which began in 2009, as well as other cost-saving initiatives, have allowed for the identification of more than $4 billion in cost avoidance and reductions. This funding has been redeployed to mission-critical initiatives across the Department…
Through the Department-wide, employee driven Efficiency Review (ER), which began in 2009, as well as other cost-saving initiatives, DHS has identified more than $4 billion in cost avoidances and reductions, and has redeployed those funds to mission-critical initiatives across the Department…
There are 22 other examples just like this one, some of them even more blatant and extensive. You can read the rest here.
So, what’s going to be their excuse? That he didn’t have time? Or that it was a staffer’s fault? Actually, Johnson is black. So, what they’ll likely say is something like, “You’re just accusing him of plagiarism, because you’re a racist.” I hope they don’t read this and find out that I’m plagiarizing every liberal commentator
It seems virtually every federal government agency, at least under this president, is a rogue agency.
That’s not quite accurate. You see, when one hears the word rogue, it conjures up thoughts of abandoning one’s directive. “Oh him – he went rogue. We can no longer control him”. That type of thing.
So that’s not really accurate, for it appears that this administration’s prime directive is to allow these agencies to go rogue, from our point of view. Just look at the evidence of department after departments’ involvement in one scandal after another.
Yet there is one agency that is head and shoulders above all in the “rogue” department. The EPA. This is the agency that, if left unchecked, can literally mean the end of our country.
Not that the IRS, or Homeland Security, or other federal departments aren’t also dangerous; they are. But none more than the EPA. It’s not even close.
What other single entity is capable of shutting down entire industries. They are in charge of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land on which we walk. That’s pretty much everything.
The latest industry to be quite literally driven into extinction by the EPA is the lead refining industry. The last lead refiner in America will close its doors forever on December 31, 2013. All do to stricter and stricter “regulation”. And gee, what is lead used in… why bullets of course. And is this the administrations way around legislation to disarm the people? Yeah it is! And without bullets, are guns pretty much useless? Yeah they are! Get it!
See, that’s what the EPA does. It tells industries that they are welcome to stay in business if they just adhere to these new standards. These standards are for our own good, you know.
“What do you mean adherence will bankrupt your company? What do you mean the new standards are ridiculous, unnecessary and can’t be met? Oh well, I guess you’ll just have to close down.” And that’s how it works, every time. And the consequences to this country will continue to mount as more and more industries are driven into extinction or at least out of the country.
Now, if the EPA were really concerned with curbing pollution in the air and water, shouldn’t it take a more worldly view? After all, we do share the air and water with the rest of the earth. It’s not just ours. And isn’t that the left’s mantra, to “save the planet”, not just save our country?
And knowing this, why wouldn’t EPA prefer to keep industries in this country where they can be reasonably regulated, rather than driving them to China or some third world hole with little to no air or water quality standards?
Well silly, that’s not the EPA’s job. The EPA is an agency full of looney environmentalist wackos and Communists whose mission is to rid us of the evil capitalist free market system. It’s that simple.
America’s industries are cleaner than they’ve ever been and certainly cleaner than the rest of the world, yet still, that’s not good enough. And why? Because they still exist in this country.
The leftists at the EPA won’t be satisfied until all the “dirty” industries have been driven out and replaced with windmills and unicorns.
Only then can they rest.
Who will police Obamacare?
Obama's Own Police Force?
Do you ever have those moments when you feel validated? I had one of those moments this morning. Finally someone is talking about the secret security force that is mandated by Obamacare. Representative Louie Gohmert (Republican – Texas – 1st District) dropped his bombshell last week on The Janet Mefferd Show.
Referring to a section of the gargantuan Obamacare law which discusses "the president's own commissioned and non-commissioned officer corps," Gohmert drew attention to the notion that under the pretext of a "national emergency," such individuals could be used to impose some form of medical martial law.
Under the Affordable Care Act, the Ready Reserve Corps is directed to "assist full-time Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions."
"It says it is for international health crises, but then it doesn't include the word 'health' when it talks about national emergencies," said Gohmert.
"I've asked, what kind of training are they getting….I want to know are they using weapons to train, or are they being taught to use syringes and health care items?" asked the Congressman, adding that "no clear answers" had been forthcoming on the issue."
I first reported on this in August after reading a sobering article in The Daily Mail. Why does Obamacare need its own police force? The IRS already has agents trained with a multitude of weapons including AR-15s.
In the wake of Jeff Duncan's reporting of IRS agents being trained with AR-15s I think we should be at least somewhat concerned with a breaking news story about the new "ObamaCare" Police. It would seem that the IRS implementation will not be the only strong arm of ObamaCare but that Health and Human Services will have a substantial number of investigative storm troopers as well.
More than 1,600 new employees hired by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources in the aftermath of Obamacare's passage include just two described as 'consumer safety' officers, but 86 tasked with 'criminal investigating' – indicating that the agency is building an army of detectives to sleuth out violations of a law that many in Congress who supported it still find confusing.
On the day President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010, HHS received authority from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to make as many as 1,814 new hires under an emergency 'Direct Hiring Authority' order.
Folks I made the comment at the beginning of this article about being validated because sometimes I feel really beat up by the "tin foil hat haters."
Do you think I wake up each day and want to write about things that will leave me labeled as a lunatic? No I do not. I really don't like people calling me crazy. That's not my goal in life. I try to report these things to you because they are the truth and very few others seem to want to report such stories.
FactCheck.org states that Obamacare, "creates the ready reserve of individuals who can be called up for service by the U.S. surgeon general in times of need." These are not things that I pull from thin air.
I have been screaming at the top of my lungs for almost a year that this stuff was happening and reaching dangerous levels. There is a police state being formed and your rights as an American citizen may soon be in dire jeopardy. I don't know the time frame, but I do know it's coming.
You can keep laughing at me if you want. That is your prerogative. This stuff is in black and white for everyone to see yet some just don't want to take it seriously.
What I would kindly suggest is that you take a serious look at your self-defense capabilities. I am not really a prepper. My family is really in no financial position to stockpile anything. I would think that I am not the only one. The economy is horrible.
So here is my take. Guns and ammo are the most important thing by far. If you have firepower then you can hunt for food.
But good luck fighting off the bad guys with that freeze dried lasagna
At least five CIA personnel, including government contractors, were asked to sign a second non-disclosure agreement after the Benghazi terrorist attack, Fox News has learned.
While the three-page NDA, obtained by Fox News, does not contain specific references to the 2012 attack which killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, it does contain standard language that unauthorized disclosures could lead to "temporary loss of pay or termination" and "in some circumstances, constitute a criminal offense."
Sources not authorized to speak on the record, given the sensitivity of this week's closed-door testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, said the five CIA personnel did not feel pressure to sign the document. But they felt the request for a second non-disclosure agreement after the terrorist attack was odd and not standard practice because their original NDA's were still in effect, and only some in the group were undergoing contract modifications that might require a new NDA.
The House Intelligence Committee is trying to determine who at the agency -- or within the administration -- thought a second NDA was necessary, whether the motivation was to send a message that the agency operation and response to the attack should not be discussed and why CIA personnel in Benghazi were apparently the only agency personnel who were asked to sign a second NDA.
The timing is also of interest to the committee as the request was made when the CIA team from Benghazi was together as a group for the first time at a memorial service for the two former Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, who were killed in a mortar attack defending the CIA annex. Fox News is told the CIA personnel were taken to a room where folders were laid out on a tabletop with paperwork including the NDAs
While not addressing specific allegations, CIA spokesman Todd D. Ebitz gave Fox the following statement: “CIA contractors routinely sign secrecy agreements, which are standard forms.No CIA officer has ever signed a secrecy agreement that referenced Benghazi or that prohibited them from talking to Congress. In fact, CIA secrecy agreements specifically note an officer’s right to bring issues to the attention of Congress.Furthermore, Director Brennan extended to all Benghazi survivors an invitation to speak to Congress and indicated the Agency would support their interaction.Severalhave spoken to CIA’s oversight committees.”
The lawyer representing three contractors who testified this week on the Hill has declined to discuss the men's case, referring to them only as members of an "elite security team."