Sign The White House Petition To Overturn “Gun Free Zone” Directive On Military Bases

Let Our Military Personnel Be Able To Defend Themselves: Petition Underway To Overturn “Gun Free Zone” Rule On Military Bases – Weasel Zippers

.
petition

.
Obama gave a short speech after the Fort Hood shooting yesterday, speaking about the military at Fort Hood. ‘They serve with valor, they serve with distinction and when they’re at their home base, they need to feel safe,’ Obama said.

Yet, it is the very rules that he enforces that leave the military unsafe. Due to military directive, military bases are “gun free zones” where regular military are not allowed to carry firearms. This leaves them open to attack and unable to defend themselves. In recent years, we have seen attacks and attempted attacks on military bases: the first Fort Hood shooting on November 5, 2009, by terrorist Nidal Hassan, the shooting at the Navy Yard in September 2013, and this latest shooting at Fort Hood. In May of 2007 the FBI arrested six radicalized Islamist men who were plotting to attack Fort Dix. Because bases are gun free zones, terrorists or those meaning to do harm, know they have at least several minutes to kill people before police can arrive to stop them.

There are actually multiple petitions that people have started, but this is the one that seems to have the most signatures so far.

Our hearts are saddened to learn of yet another shooting on a military installation in the United States. Yet again, service members who train regularly to responsibly handle firearms were murdered on base and were unable to defend themselves.

Concealed carry policies provide not only an appropriate means for self defense against violence, but also a proven deterrent. Our military installations have become “soft” targets for those who would harm our military members. Lawful, concealed carry by responsible service members could have prevented or lessened the severity of these incidents.

The DoD should set forth CCW regulations permitting service members in good standing who have received firearms training to carry concealed firearms on DoD installations.

A petition last year asked the White House to make itself “gun free” since it seems to believe that is the best way to protect people. The White House rejected that petition, exposing their fundamental hypocrisy. Apparently, the White House believes its occupants are entitled to protection that children and our military are not.

.
………………….

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related articles/video:

.
End ‘Victimization Zones’ On Military Bases – Master Sgt. C.J. Grisham

When I started Open Carry Texas last year, my focus was on educating the public about the benefits of an armed society. I hear all the time from proponents of gun control that “in this day and age” it’s so important to restrict access to firearms to prevent people from using them to commit evil atrocities. The problem with this philosophy is that gun control laws only victimize law abiding citizens by making them defenseless.

By definition, criminals don’t obey laws, no matter how altruistic and holistic those laws may be.

For years on my personal blog, A Soldier’s Perspective, I spoke out against so-called gun-free zones. My first awareness about the pitfalls of these victimization zones, as I call them, came in 1991. Originally hailing from Temple, Texas, the Luby’s shooting hit home for me. I was only in high school at the time, but recognizing that a member of my family could have been in that restaurant on Oct. 16, 1991, I was acutely aware of the impact that shooting had on my stance on gun control.

Then, in 1993, Army Regulation 190-14 (Carrying of Firearms and Use of Force for Law Enforcement and Security Duties) was updated with new rules on what, when and how soldiers could carry firearms on military installations. The policy banned all manner of carry except for “DA personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties.”

It became the Army’s policy that “the authorization to carry firearms will be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or Department of the Army assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried.” Naturally, this policy was implemented prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

Since that Army policy went into effect and other services followed suit there have been nearly two dozen shootings at military installations. I vividly remember shortly after arriving to my new unit at Fort Stewart, Ga., when Private First Class Craig Jones walked into the orderly room of his unit and shot Sergeant Michael Santiago in the chest and arm, killing him. This was in March 2002.

In September 2008, a soldier at Fort Hood shot and killed his lieutenant before committing suicide. Specialist Armano Baca shot Sgt. Ryan Schlack in July 2009 on the same base. Since guns were banned on military installations, there have been shootings on Fort Drum, Fort Carson, Fort Bragg, Fort Knox and many other military installations!

In November 2009, I was out-processing Redstone Arsenal, Ala., en route to my new assignment on Fort Hood, Texas. At the same time, Army Maj. Nidal Hassan walked into a deployment center on Fort Hood and opened fire on his fellow soldiers, killing 13 and injuring 30 others.

And all of these shootings happened in gun-free zones. Every single one of these shootings happened at a place where the very people trained to deal with armed attackers were defenseless against an armed attacker.

No one can say for certain these incidents would disappear were soldiers allowed to carry personal firearms. However, it can be said with a certainty that any future tragedy will be executed unopposed as long as soldiers are not at least given the opportunity to defend themselves. There’s a saying that it’s better to have a gun and not need it, than not have a gun and need it.

After every one of these tragedies, we as a nation wring our collective hands trying to figure out what went wrong and how to prevent the next shooting. And each time, the simple idea of allowing troops to carry concealed firearms never seems to cross our minds. Why not?

I believe that one reason we are hesitant to allow troops to carry in uniform is because we think arming soldiers will lead to more such shootings. Many people said the same thing about Texas when we were debating the concealed handgun law. Critics said there would be blood in the streets. But, this isn’t backed up by logic, fact, or even experience.

Right this second, virtually every soldier in Afghanistan is carrying a loaded weapon, whether it be a pistol or a rifle. At the very least, they are carrying an unloaded weapon with ammunition readily available and at their disposal. No one can honestly say that being deployed is less stressful than being back home in a garrison environment. Yet, in spite of the prevalence of firearms in the hands of nearly every single troop in a stressful combat environment, the existence of fratricide is practically non-existent.

It would be the height of hypocrisy to suggest that soldiers are more or less capable of managing their emotions with a firearm in one environment over another. The fact remains that in spite of the 1993 regulation and policy, service members are carrying guns onto military installations and killing unarmed victims; victims that may have had a chance to live if they were permitted an opportunity to defend themselves. Even when not carrying guns on military installations, many service members are carrying them off base without feeling the urge to shoot the first person that looks at them cross-eyed.

How many more of my brothers and sisters must die before we, as a nation, wake up and put an end to these ironically titled “gun-free zones”? How many more examples of innocent, unarmed citizens being slaughtered by men with evil intent must we endure? Why do we disarm the very people who are the most well-trained in the use of firearms in defensive and offensive situations?

I am not arguing that the military simply abolish its policy altogether and just allow everyone and their mother to carry a firearm onto a military installation – though I don’t see why not. After all, there is a constitutional amendment that recognizes that right. But, I’ve never been one to identify a problem without a solution.

The military should initiate a policy that, at a minimum, allows soldiers with concealed handgun licenses to carry their firearms on them. The Department of Defense could even institute its own concealed handgun licensing requirement so at the very least it knows which soldiers are armed and whether they are qualified. To combat the constant stream of motorcycle deaths, the Army instituted a program that requires soldiers to be trained and certified prior to riding a motorcycle onto a military installation.

Why not train and certify soldiers in order to permit them to carry a concealed handgun on post? Those who are trained and certified would be required to renew their certifications annually or whenever they move to another military installation. Guns brought onto military installations are already registered, so make that another aspect of the licensing requirement. If a soldier wants to carry a different handgun, he/she must be re-certified with the new handgun they wish to carry.

Whatever we do, it’s obvious that what we are currently doing doesn’t work. It’s not working in gun-free shopping centers; it’s not working in gun-free schools; it’s not working in gun-free cities; and it doesn’t work in gun-free military installations.

In December 2012, NRA Executive Director Wayne Lapierre, eloquently stated: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away or a minute away?”

The fact is that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens. Gun owners who jump through the hoops to become licensed gun owners are even less likely to commit crimes. In Texas, only .18 percent of gun owners have committed ANY crime at all. Hardly any of those crimes were committed with a gun. The time to end gun free zones is now, no matter where they exist.

C.J. Grisham is president and founder of Open Carry Texas, a Texas-based organization dedicated to the safe and legal carry of firearms and has over 19 years of active military service. He has been writing about gun rights on his blog, A Soldier’s Perspective, since 2005. The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army or any branch of the government.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
————————————————————————————————————————

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————

.
Petition To Allow Military Personnel To Carry Concealed Weapons – Liberty Federation

Petition To: All Members of Congress & President Obama

.
…………

.
Military service members must be allowed to carry concealed firearms on all Federal and State installations. Had concealed carry been permitted, service members could have potentially stopped the shooters at Fort Hood and the Washington Naval Yard. We must stop denying our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines the right and ability to defend themselves when targeted in mass shooting events.

We demand that you immediately pass legislation that allows for military service members the right to carry concealed weapons on all Federal and State facilities where they are either based or currently assigned.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Global Warming Nutbags Sign Petition To Lower The Temperature Of The Sun


.
H/T Defy The Narrative

.

Senator Ted Cruz’s Petition To Defund ObamaCare Tops 1 Million Signatures


Dont Fund Obamacare
………………………Click on image above to sign petition.

.

.

.

.

*VIDEO* Congressman Trey Gowdy Lays Out The Case For Defunding ObamaCare


.
Click HERE to sign Senator Ted Cruz’s petition to defund ObamaCare.

.

Your Daley Gator Wednesday Re-blog – Sign Senator Cruz’s Petition To Defund ObamaCare

HELP MAKE THIS A VIRAL POST BY SHARING IT WITH EVERY PATRIOT YOU KNOW!

.
Dont Fund Obamacare
………………………Click on image above to sign petition.

.

.

.

.
.
Dont Fund Obamacare

.
Republican Senators who have not yet committed to defunding ObamaCare.

AK – Murkowski, Lisa – 202-224-3004
AL – Sessions, Jeff – 202-224-4124
AL – Shelby, Richard – 202-224-5744
AR – Boozman, John – 202-224-4843
AZ – Flake, Jeff – 202-224-4521
AZ – McCain, John – 202-224-2235
GA – Chambliss, Saxby – 202-224-3521
GA – Isakson, Johnny – 202-224-3643
ID – Crapo, Mike – 202-224-6142
IL – Kirk, Mark – 202-224-2854
IN – Coats, Dan – 202-224-5623
KS – Moran, Jerry – 202-224-6521
KS – Roberts, Pat – 202-224-4774
KY – McConnell, Mitch – 202-224-2541
ME – Collins, Susan – 202-224-2523
MO – Blunt, Roy – 202-224-5721
MS – Cochran, Thad – 202-224-5054
MS – Wicker, Roger – 202-224-6253
NC – Burr, Richard – 202-224-3154
ND – Hoeven, John – 202-224-2551
NE – Johanns, Mike – 202-224-4224
NH – Ayotte, Kelly – 202-224-3324
NV – Heller, Dean – 202-224-6244
OH – Portman, Rob – 202-224-3353
PA – Toomey, Pat – 202-224-4254
SC – Graham, Lindsey – 202-224-5972
SC – Scott, Tim – 202-224-6121
TN – Alexander, Lamar – 202-224-4944
TN – Corker, Bob – 202-224-3344
TX – Cornyn, John – 202-224-2934
UT – Hatch, Orrin – 202-224-5251
WI – Johnson, Ron – 202-224-5323
WY – Barrasso, John – 202-224-6441

.

.
Send a message to the House as well.

.
Dont Fund Obamacare

.

.
H.R.2682: Defund Obamacare Act Of 2013 (Introduced In House – IH) – Library Of Congress

113th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2682

To prohibit the funding of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 11, 2013

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia (for himself, Mr. BRIDENSTINE, Mr. MASSIE, Mr. STOCKMAN, Mr. JONES, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. COTTON, Mr. PALAZZO, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. PITTENGER, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. MEADOWS, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. WENSTRUP, Mr. HUDSON, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. FARENTHOLD, Mr. MULVANEY, Mr. WITTMAN, Mr. BARTON, Mr. OLSON, Mr. HALL, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. DESANTIS, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. POSEY, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. SCALISE, and Mr. YOHO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Education and the Workforce, Natural Resources, the Judiciary, and House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

——————————————————————————————————————————–

A BILL

To prohibit the funding of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Defund Obamacare Act of 2013′.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING.

(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds shall be made available to carry out any provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) or title I and subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), or of the amendments made by either such Act.

(b) Limitation- No entitlement to benefits under any provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) or title I and subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), or the amendments made by either such Act, shall remain in effect on and after the date of the enactment of this Act, nor shall any payment be awarded, owed, or made to any State, District, or territory under any such provision.

(c) Unobligated Balances- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all unobligated balances available under the provisions of law referred to in subsection (a) are hereby rescinded.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

COSPONSORS (98), ALPHABETICAL:

Rep Amodei, Mark E. [NV-2] – 7/22/2013
Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] – 7/11/2013
Rep Barr, Andy [KY-6] – 7/16/2013
Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] – 7/11/2013
Rep Benishek, Dan [MI-1] – 7/24/2013
Rep Bentivolio, Kerry L. [MI-11] – 7/17/2013
Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-12] – 7/11/2013
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] – 7/17/2013
Rep Boustany, Charles W., Jr. [LA-3] – 7/15/2013
Rep Bridenstine, Jim [OK-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Brooks, Mo [AL-5] – 7/17/2013
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] – 7/11/2013
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] – 7/22/2013
Rep Cassidy, Bill [LA-6] – 7/11/2013
Rep Chabot, Steve [OH-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Chaffetz, Jason [UT-3] – 7/23/2013
Rep Collins, Doug [GA-9] – 7/11/2013
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] – 7/17/2013
Rep Cotton, Tom [AR-4] – 7/11/2013
Rep Crawford, Eric A. “Rick” [AR-1] – 7/19/2013
Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] – 7/11/2013
Rep Daines, Steve [MT] – 7/17/2013
Rep DeSantis, Ron [FL-6] – 7/11/2013
Rep DesJarlais, Scott [TN-4] – 7/25/2013
Rep Duncan, Jeff [SC-3] – 7/11/2013
Rep Farenthold, Blake [TX-27] – 7/11/2013
Rep Fleischmann, Charles J. “Chuck” [TN-3] – 7/15/2013
Rep Fleming, John [LA-4] – 7/11/2013
Rep Flores, Bill [TX-17] – 7/17/2013
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-8] – 7/17/2013
Rep Gardner, Cory [CO-4] – 7/23/2013
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] – 7/11/2013
Rep Gosar, Paul A. [AZ-4] – 7/19/2013
Rep Griffin, Tim [AR-2] – 7/17/2013
Rep Guthrie, Brett [KY-2] – 7/16/2013
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] – 7/11/2013
Rep Harper, Gregg [MS-3] – 7/24/2013
Rep Harris, Andy [MD-1] – 7/26/2013
Rep Hartzler, Vicky [MO-4] – 7/24/2013
Rep Hastings, Doc [WA-4] – 7/22/2013
Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] – 7/11/2013
Rep Hudson, Richard [NC-8] – 7/11/2013
Rep Huelskamp, Tim [KS-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Huizenga, Bill [MI-2] – 7/17/2013
Rep Hultgren, Randy [IL-14] – 7/17/2013
Rep Johnson, Bill [OH-6] – 7/24/2013
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] – 7/23/2013
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] – 7/11/2013
Rep King, Steve [IA-4] – 7/11/2013
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] – 7/15/2013
Rep Labrador, Raul R. [ID-1] – 7/15/2013
Rep LaMalfa, Doug [CA-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] – 7/11/2013
Rep Lankford, James [OK-5] – 7/23/2013
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] – 7/24/2013
Rep Marino, Tom [PA-10] – 7/18/2013
Rep Massie, Thomas [KY-4] – 7/11/2013
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] – 7/26/2013
Rep McClintock, Tom [CA-4] – 7/22/2013
Rep Meadows, Mark [NC-11] – 7/11/2013
Rep Messer, Luke [IN-6] – 7/24/2013
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Mullin, Markwayne [OK-2] – 7/22/2013
Rep Mulvaney, Mick [SC-5] – 7/11/2013
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] – 7/17/2013
Rep Nunnelee, Alan [MS-1] – 7/22/2013
Rep Olson, Pete [TX-22] – 7/11/2013
Rep Palazzo, Steven M. [MS-4] – 7/11/2013
Rep Perry, Scott [PA-4] – 7/22/2013
Rep Pittenger, Robert [NC-9] – 7/11/2013
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] – 7/17/2013
Rep Posey, Bill [FL-8] – 7/11/2013
Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] – 7/24/2013
Rep Radel, Trey [FL-19] – 7/26/2013
Rep Roe, David P. [TN-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Rokita, Todd [IN-4] – 7/17/2013
Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-17] – 7/24/2013
Rep Salmon, Matt [AZ-5] – 7/17/2013
Rep Scalise, Steve [LA-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Scott, Austin [GA-8] – 7/17/2013
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] – 7/26/2013
Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] – 7/26/2013
Rep Smith, Jason T. [MO-8] – 7/19/2013
Rep Southerland, Steve II [FL-2] – 7/24/2013
Rep Stockman, Steve [TX-36] – 7/11/2013
Rep Stutzman, Marlin A. [IN-3] – 7/17/2013
Rep Thornberry, Mac [TX-13] – 7/26/2013
Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. [OH-12] – 7/23/2013
Rep Walberg, Tim [MI-7] – 7/19/2013
Rep Weber, Randy K. Sr. [TX-14] – 7/17/2013
Rep Wenstrup, Brad R. [OH-2] – 7/11/2013
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] – 7/11/2013
Rep Williams, Roger [TX-25] – 7/17/2013
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] – 7/17/2013
Rep Wittman, Robert J. [VA-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Womack, Steve [AR-3] – 7/26/2013
Rep Yoder, Kevin [KS-3] – 7/24/2013
Rep Yoho, Ted S. [FL-3] – 7/11/2013

Click HERE For More Information

.

.
Defunding Obamacare: Questions & Answers, Excuses & Responses – Heritage Action For America

Dont Fund Obamacare

POLICY AND TECHNICAL

“What do you mean by defunding Obamacare?”

Defunding Obamacare means attaching a legislative rider to a “must pass” bill (debt limit, annual spending bill, etc.) that 1) prohibits any funds from being spent on any activities to implement or enforce Obamacare; 2) rescinds any unspent balances that have already been appropriated for implementation; and 3) turns off the exchange subsidy and new Medicaid spending that are on auto-pilot.

“There is no such thing as defunding Obamacare.”

That is a false statement. Congressmen who assert this are either asserting that funding is not being spent to implement Obamacare (false) or that a defund amendment cannot technically be executed (again, false). Defunding Obamacare can be done, and it has been attempted by the House of Representatives recently. For instance, in 2011, after gaining the majority, the Republican House included such a defunding provision on the continuing spending resolution (HR 1) when the bill first passed the House. The provision was later discarded in negotiations with the President and the Senate, but the effort began with promise.

“What is the urgency to defund Obamacare now?”

On January 1, 2014, Obamacare’s new main entitlements – the Medicaid expansion and the exchange subsidies – are scheduled to take effect. Open enrollment for both programs begins on October 1, 2013, at the start of the new fiscal year. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the federal government will spend $48 billion in 2014 – and nearly $1.8 trillion through 2023 – on these new entitlement programs. Also on January 1, Americans will be forced by their government to buy a product – health insurance – for the first time ever. Individuals and families who don’t comply will be penalized by tax penalties administered through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The Obama Administration has requested over $400 million in funding and nearly 2,000 bureaucrats for the IRS to implement the individual mandate and 46 other statutory provisions in the law. Within the Administration, the blizzard of Obamacare rules and regulations continues apace. Regulators have now written over 20,000 pages of Obamacare-related rules and notices in the Federal Register. Many of these regulations will increase the cost of insurance; CBO concluded Obamacare would raise individual health insurance premiums by $2,100 per year.

“Isn’t defunding Obamacare impossible because most of the funding is ‘mandatory’ (or on ‘auto-pilot’) and cannot be amended via the annual appropriations process?”

No. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the IRS, “will incur substantial administrative costs to implement the law’s private insurance reforms and its changes to the federal health care programs.” And while Obamacare provided $1 billion in mandatory implementation funding when it was enacted, HHS projects that this is largely spent. According to CRS, Obamacare “administrative costs will have to be funded through the annual discretionary appropriations.” Furthermore, annual appropriations bills routinely carry funding limitations to block all sorts of activities (for example, the Hyde Amendment), as well make changes to mandatory spending. These latter provisions are called “changes in mandatory program spending” (CHIMPS). Even if these riders were not so common-place, the stakes of so many provisions of Obamacare scheduled to take effect would present grounds for an exception.

“Isn’t defunding impossible because there is not a specific funding stream for Obamacare? Funding is embedded throughout the federal government and not specifically designated.”

No. Congress is aware of all of the programs that fund Obamacare because CRS has provided such a list and the Appropriations Committees are well-versed in the funding intricacies of the law. However, a blanket prohibition against funding all activities associated with implementing the law is all that is needed to halt implementation. Each program does not have to be specifically defunded.

POLITICAL AND STRATEGIC

“My Congressman supports repealing Obamacare but not defund….”

It is wonderful that Congressmen support repealing Obamacare, but it’s not enough. The House has had numerous votes to repeal Obamacare, but the chances of statutorily repealing the law decreased once President Obama won a second term. Conservatives cannot wait another three-and-a-half years to begin dismantling Obamacare; they need to leverage current opportunities to defund Obamacare on “must-pass” spending bills.

“Since Obamacare is the President’s ‘signature achievement’ won’t he veto any effort to defund the program? Why should conservatives make this the focus of their anti-Obamacare efforts?”

There is a critical window of opportunity to stop the flow of funding for Obamacare from now until October 1, 2013, when the new fiscal year begins. It is during the same window that the President and Congress must pass bills to fund the government for the coming year. It is entirely appropriate for conservative members of Congress to use this opportunity to say, “No more funding for Obamacare!” and wage a serious and determined fight. If the Republican House girds for this fight – and wins the national argument with the urgency coming from a number of scheduled implementation dates and the law’s rising unpopularity – President Obama will be forced to compromise.

“If you don’t have the votes for a statutory repeal, why would you think you can get the votes to defund Obamacare?”

The Constitution grants the House of Representatives the ultimate “power of the purse.” If Congress chooses not to fund Obamacare activities for the upcoming fiscal year, the Obama Administration cannot act to implement the law. The President’s party does not control the House of Representatives, which must originate debt limit and spending bills to fund the government. And the House Republican Majority was elected in 2010, on the basis of its platform against Obamacare.

“Won’t adding a provision to defund Obamacare to a ‘must-pass’ appropriations bill lead to a government shutdown?”

Obviously, this will set up a major political confrontation with President Obama, but it is the sort of conflict that will allow conservatives in the House of Representatives to remind the American people that the worst aspects of Obamacare are about to take hold and a defunding rider is the only thing standing in the way.

If House Republicans insist on defunding Obamacare, it is possible that the Obama Administration will shut the government down. This would not be the end of the world, and it needs to be an option. President Clinton shut the government down in 1995, by refusing to sign legislation to fund the government. While most pundits in Washington DC believe that this was a catastrophic political failure for Republicans, it is a fact that the House Republicans maintained their majority in 1996, even with a popular president of another party on the ticket. And their willingness to not accept all of Clinton’s demands was crucial towards eventually balancing the budget and reforming welfare. The nation can no longer afford for conservatives to leave political leverage on the table.

“Shouldn’t Obamacare opponents focus instead on repealing pieces of the law where there is bipartisan support – for example, the medical device tax or the IPAB – in order to reinforce the fact that Obamacare is not set in stone and make its supporters take hard votes?”

Washington is filled with special interest groups lobbying everyday to secure a “fix” for the part of Obamacare that affects their industry. There is no “fix” for this law and every time Congress caves to a special interest and makes the law “better” for that group, a little less momentum exists for full and final defunding or repeal. “Fix” votes also give Obamacare supporters every opportunity to appear reasonable and willing to fix the worst excesses of the law. The grim reality is that if the opponents of Obamacare are not willing to use every bit of political leverage at their disposal – a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, mostly made up of Congressmen from safe seats with constituents who strongly object to Obamacare – to halt implementation of the law, then it will be set in stone. There is simply no more time, particularly as the massive exchange subsidies are made available and the Medicaid expansion takes effect.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
Add this image to your facebook page.

.

URGENT! Sign The Petition To Defund ObamaCare – Join Ted Cruz, Mike Lee And Rand Paul Today

HELP MAKE THIS A VIRAL POST BY SHARING IT WITH EVERY PATRIOT YOU KNOW!

.
Dont Fund Obamacare
………………………Click on image above to sign petition.

.

.

.

.
.
Dont Fund Obamacare

.
Republican Senators who have not yet committed to defunding ObamaCare.

AK – Murkowski, Lisa – 202-224-3004
AL – Sessions, Jeff – 202-224-4124
AL – Shelby, Richard – 202-224-5744
AR – Boozman, John – 202-224-4843
AZ – Flake, Jeff – 202-224-4521
AZ – McCain, John – 202-224-2235
GA – Chambliss, Saxby – 202-224-3521
GA – Isakson, Johnny – 202-224-3643
ID – Crapo, Mike – 202-224-6142
IL – Kirk, Mark – 202-224-2854
IN – Coats, Dan – 202-224-5623
KS – Moran, Jerry – 202-224-6521
KS – Roberts, Pat – 202-224-4774
KY – McConnell, Mitch – 202-224-2541
ME – Collins, Susan – 202-224-2523
MO – Blunt, Roy – 202-224-5721
MS – Cochran, Thad – 202-224-5054
MS – Wicker, Roger – 202-224-6253
NC – Burr, Richard – 202-224-3154
ND – Hoeven, John – 202-224-2551
NE – Johanns, Mike – 202-224-4224
NH – Ayotte, Kelly – 202-224-3324
NV – Heller, Dean – 202-224-6244
OH – Portman, Rob – 202-224-3353
PA – Toomey, Pat – 202-224-4254
SC – Graham, Lindsey – 202-224-5972
SC – Scott, Tim – 202-224-6121
TN – Alexander, Lamar – 202-224-4944
TN – Corker, Bob – 202-224-3344
TX – Cornyn, John – 202-224-2934
UT – Hatch, Orrin – 202-224-5251
WI – Johnson, Ron – 202-224-5323
WY – Barrasso, John – 202-224-6441

.

.
Send a message to the House as well.

.
Dont Fund Obamacare

.

.
H.R.2682: Defund Obamacare Act Of 2013 (Introduced In House – IH) – Library Of Congress

113th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2682

To prohibit the funding of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 11, 2013

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia (for himself, Mr. BRIDENSTINE, Mr. MASSIE, Mr. STOCKMAN, Mr. JONES, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. COTTON, Mr. PALAZZO, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. PITTENGER, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. MEADOWS, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. WENSTRUP, Mr. HUDSON, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. FARENTHOLD, Mr. MULVANEY, Mr. WITTMAN, Mr. BARTON, Mr. OLSON, Mr. HALL, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. DESANTIS, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. POSEY, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. SCALISE, and Mr. YOHO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Education and the Workforce, Natural Resources, the Judiciary, and House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

——————————————————————————————————————————–

A BILL

To prohibit the funding of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Defund Obamacare Act of 2013′.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING.

(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds shall be made available to carry out any provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) or title I and subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), or of the amendments made by either such Act.

(b) Limitation- No entitlement to benefits under any provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) or title I and subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), or the amendments made by either such Act, shall remain in effect on and after the date of the enactment of this Act, nor shall any payment be awarded, owed, or made to any State, District, or territory under any such provision.

(c) Unobligated Balances- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all unobligated balances available under the provisions of law referred to in subsection (a) are hereby rescinded.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

COSPONSORS (98), ALPHABETICAL:

Rep Amodei, Mark E. [NV-2] – 7/22/2013
Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] – 7/11/2013
Rep Barr, Andy [KY-6] – 7/16/2013
Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] – 7/11/2013
Rep Benishek, Dan [MI-1] – 7/24/2013
Rep Bentivolio, Kerry L. [MI-11] – 7/17/2013
Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-12] – 7/11/2013
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] – 7/17/2013
Rep Boustany, Charles W., Jr. [LA-3] – 7/15/2013
Rep Bridenstine, Jim [OK-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Brooks, Mo [AL-5] – 7/17/2013
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] – 7/11/2013
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] – 7/22/2013
Rep Cassidy, Bill [LA-6] – 7/11/2013
Rep Chabot, Steve [OH-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Chaffetz, Jason [UT-3] – 7/23/2013
Rep Collins, Doug [GA-9] – 7/11/2013
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] – 7/17/2013
Rep Cotton, Tom [AR-4] – 7/11/2013
Rep Crawford, Eric A. “Rick” [AR-1] – 7/19/2013
Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] – 7/11/2013
Rep Daines, Steve [MT] – 7/17/2013
Rep DeSantis, Ron [FL-6] – 7/11/2013
Rep DesJarlais, Scott [TN-4] – 7/25/2013
Rep Duncan, Jeff [SC-3] – 7/11/2013
Rep Farenthold, Blake [TX-27] – 7/11/2013
Rep Fleischmann, Charles J. “Chuck” [TN-3] – 7/15/2013
Rep Fleming, John [LA-4] – 7/11/2013
Rep Flores, Bill [TX-17] – 7/17/2013
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-8] – 7/17/2013
Rep Gardner, Cory [CO-4] – 7/23/2013
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] – 7/11/2013
Rep Gosar, Paul A. [AZ-4] – 7/19/2013
Rep Griffin, Tim [AR-2] – 7/17/2013
Rep Guthrie, Brett [KY-2] – 7/16/2013
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] – 7/11/2013
Rep Harper, Gregg [MS-3] – 7/24/2013
Rep Harris, Andy [MD-1] – 7/26/2013
Rep Hartzler, Vicky [MO-4] – 7/24/2013
Rep Hastings, Doc [WA-4] – 7/22/2013
Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] – 7/11/2013
Rep Hudson, Richard [NC-8] – 7/11/2013
Rep Huelskamp, Tim [KS-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Huizenga, Bill [MI-2] – 7/17/2013
Rep Hultgren, Randy [IL-14] – 7/17/2013
Rep Johnson, Bill [OH-6] – 7/24/2013
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] – 7/23/2013
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] – 7/11/2013
Rep King, Steve [IA-4] – 7/11/2013
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] – 7/15/2013
Rep Labrador, Raul R. [ID-1] – 7/15/2013
Rep LaMalfa, Doug [CA-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] – 7/11/2013
Rep Lankford, James [OK-5] – 7/23/2013
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] – 7/24/2013
Rep Marino, Tom [PA-10] – 7/18/2013
Rep Massie, Thomas [KY-4] – 7/11/2013
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] – 7/26/2013
Rep McClintock, Tom [CA-4] – 7/22/2013
Rep Meadows, Mark [NC-11] – 7/11/2013
Rep Messer, Luke [IN-6] – 7/24/2013
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Mullin, Markwayne [OK-2] – 7/22/2013
Rep Mulvaney, Mick [SC-5] – 7/11/2013
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] – 7/17/2013
Rep Nunnelee, Alan [MS-1] – 7/22/2013
Rep Olson, Pete [TX-22] – 7/11/2013
Rep Palazzo, Steven M. [MS-4] – 7/11/2013
Rep Perry, Scott [PA-4] – 7/22/2013
Rep Pittenger, Robert [NC-9] – 7/11/2013
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] – 7/17/2013
Rep Posey, Bill [FL-8] – 7/11/2013
Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] – 7/24/2013
Rep Radel, Trey [FL-19] – 7/26/2013
Rep Roe, David P. [TN-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Rokita, Todd [IN-4] – 7/17/2013
Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-17] – 7/24/2013
Rep Salmon, Matt [AZ-5] – 7/17/2013
Rep Scalise, Steve [LA-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Scott, Austin [GA-8] – 7/17/2013
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] – 7/26/2013
Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] – 7/26/2013
Rep Smith, Jason T. [MO-8] – 7/19/2013
Rep Southerland, Steve II [FL-2] – 7/24/2013
Rep Stockman, Steve [TX-36] – 7/11/2013
Rep Stutzman, Marlin A. [IN-3] – 7/17/2013
Rep Thornberry, Mac [TX-13] – 7/26/2013
Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. [OH-12] – 7/23/2013
Rep Walberg, Tim [MI-7] – 7/19/2013
Rep Weber, Randy K. Sr. [TX-14] – 7/17/2013
Rep Wenstrup, Brad R. [OH-2] – 7/11/2013
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] – 7/11/2013
Rep Williams, Roger [TX-25] – 7/17/2013
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] – 7/17/2013
Rep Wittman, Robert J. [VA-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Womack, Steve [AR-3] – 7/26/2013
Rep Yoder, Kevin [KS-3] – 7/24/2013
Rep Yoho, Ted S. [FL-3] – 7/11/2013

Click HERE For More Information

.

.
Defunding Obamacare: Questions & Answers, Excuses & Responses – Heritage Action For America

Dont Fund Obamacare

POLICY AND TECHNICAL

“What do you mean by defunding Obamacare?”

Defunding Obamacare means attaching a legislative rider to a “must pass” bill (debt limit, annual spending bill, etc.) that 1) prohibits any funds from being spent on any activities to implement or enforce Obamacare; 2) rescinds any unspent balances that have already been appropriated for implementation; and 3) turns off the exchange subsidy and new Medicaid spending that are on auto-pilot.

“There is no such thing as defunding Obamacare.”

That is a false statement. Congressmen who assert this are either asserting that funding is not being spent to implement Obamacare (false) or that a defund amendment cannot technically be executed (again, false). Defunding Obamacare can be done, and it has been attempted by the House of Representatives recently. For instance, in 2011, after gaining the majority, the Republican House included such a defunding provision on the continuing spending resolution (HR 1) when the bill first passed the House. The provision was later discarded in negotiations with the President and the Senate, but the effort began with promise.

“What is the urgency to defund Obamacare now?”

On January 1, 2014, Obamacare’s new main entitlements – the Medicaid expansion and the exchange subsidies – are scheduled to take effect. Open enrollment for both programs begins on October 1, 2013, at the start of the new fiscal year. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the federal government will spend $48 billion in 2014 – and nearly $1.8 trillion through 2023 – on these new entitlement programs. Also on January 1, Americans will be forced by their government to buy a product – health insurance – for the first time ever. Individuals and families who don’t comply will be penalized by tax penalties administered through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The Obama Administration has requested over $400 million in funding and nearly 2,000 bureaucrats for the IRS to implement the individual mandate and 46 other statutory provisions in the law. Within the Administration, the blizzard of Obamacare rules and regulations continues apace. Regulators have now written over 20,000 pages of Obamacare-related rules and notices in the Federal Register. Many of these regulations will increase the cost of insurance; CBO concluded Obamacare would raise individual health insurance premiums by $2,100 per year.

“Isn’t defunding Obamacare impossible because most of the funding is ‘mandatory’ (or on ‘auto-pilot’) and cannot be amended via the annual appropriations process?”

No. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the IRS, “will incur substantial administrative costs to implement the law’s private insurance reforms and its changes to the federal health care programs.” And while Obamacare provided $1 billion in mandatory implementation funding when it was enacted, HHS projects that this is largely spent. According to CRS, Obamacare “administrative costs will have to be funded through the annual discretionary appropriations.” Furthermore, annual appropriations bills routinely carry funding limitations to block all sorts of activities (for example, the Hyde Amendment), as well make changes to mandatory spending. These latter provisions are called “changes in mandatory program spending” (CHIMPS). Even if these riders were not so common-place, the stakes of so many provisions of Obamacare scheduled to take effect would present grounds for an exception.

“Isn’t defunding impossible because there is not a specific funding stream for Obamacare? Funding is embedded throughout the federal government and not specifically designated.”

No. Congress is aware of all of the programs that fund Obamacare because CRS has provided such a list and the Appropriations Committees are well-versed in the funding intricacies of the law. However, a blanket prohibition against funding all activities associated with implementing the law is all that is needed to halt implementation. Each program does not have to be specifically defunded.

POLITICAL AND STRATEGIC

“My Congressman supports repealing Obamacare but not defund….”

It is wonderful that Congressmen support repealing Obamacare, but it’s not enough. The House has had numerous votes to repeal Obamacare, but the chances of statutorily repealing the law decreased once President Obama won a second term. Conservatives cannot wait another three-and-a-half years to begin dismantling Obamacare; they need to leverage current opportunities to defund Obamacare on “must-pass” spending bills.

“Since Obamacare is the President’s ‘signature achievement’ won’t he veto any effort to defund the program? Why should conservatives make this the focus of their anti-Obamacare efforts?”

There is a critical window of opportunity to stop the flow of funding for Obamacare from now until October 1, 2013, when the new fiscal year begins. It is during the same window that the President and Congress must pass bills to fund the government for the coming year. It is entirely appropriate for conservative members of Congress to use this opportunity to say, “No more funding for Obamacare!” and wage a serious and determined fight. If the Republican House girds for this fight – and wins the national argument with the urgency coming from a number of scheduled implementation dates and the law’s rising unpopularity – President Obama will be forced to compromise.

“If you don’t have the votes for a statutory repeal, why would you think you can get the votes to defund Obamacare?”

The Constitution grants the House of Representatives the ultimate “power of the purse.” If Congress chooses not to fund Obamacare activities for the upcoming fiscal year, the Obama Administration cannot act to implement the law. The President’s party does not control the House of Representatives, which must originate debt limit and spending bills to fund the government. And the House Republican Majority was elected in 2010, on the basis of its platform against Obamacare.

“Won’t adding a provision to defund Obamacare to a ‘must-pass’ appropriations bill lead to a government shutdown?”

Obviously, this will set up a major political confrontation with President Obama, but it is the sort of conflict that will allow conservatives in the House of Representatives to remind the American people that the worst aspects of Obamacare are about to take hold and a defunding rider is the only thing standing in the way.

If House Republicans insist on defunding Obamacare, it is possible that the Obama Administration will shut the government down. This would not be the end of the world, and it needs to be an option. President Clinton shut the government down in 1995, by refusing to sign legislation to fund the government. While most pundits in Washington DC believe that this was a catastrophic political failure for Republicans, it is a fact that the House Republicans maintained their majority in 1996, even with a popular president of another party on the ticket. And their willingness to not accept all of Clinton’s demands was crucial towards eventually balancing the budget and reforming welfare. The nation can no longer afford for conservatives to leave political leverage on the table.

“Shouldn’t Obamacare opponents focus instead on repealing pieces of the law where there is bipartisan support – for example, the medical device tax or the IPAB – in order to reinforce the fact that Obamacare is not set in stone and make its supporters take hard votes?”

Washington is filled with special interest groups lobbying everyday to secure a “fix” for the part of Obamacare that affects their industry. There is no “fix” for this law and every time Congress caves to a special interest and makes the law “better” for that group, a little less momentum exists for full and final defunding or repeal. “Fix” votes also give Obamacare supporters every opportunity to appear reasonable and willing to fix the worst excesses of the law. The grim reality is that if the opponents of Obamacare are not willing to use every bit of political leverage at their disposal – a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, mostly made up of Congressmen from safe seats with constituents who strongly object to Obamacare – to halt implementation of the law, then it will be set in stone. There is simply no more time, particularly as the massive exchange subsidies are made available and the Medicaid expansion takes effect.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
Add this image to your facebook page.

.

Special Operations Group Unrolls 60-Foot Benghazi Petition In Front Of U.S. Capitol (Video)

Special Ops Group Unrolls 60-Foot Benghazi Petition In Front Of Capitol – BizPac Review

What’s said to be largest petition ever presented to Congress – one demanding a special investigation into the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi – was literally unrolled near the Capitol building Tuesday afternoon.

.

The 60-foot long scroll contained the signatures of over 1,000 Special Operations veterans calling for an end to what the petition calls a “Benghazi cover-up” and demanding Congress hold members of the administration accountable if they determine “high crimes and misdemeanors” were committed.

.

Special Operations Speaks” organized Tuesday’s press conference saying the presentation of the petition “will be the opening volley in a nationwide campaign urging House members to sign the Discharge Petition forcing House consideration of HR 36 – the bill to establish a Select Committee to fully investigate the Benghazi Massacre,” the group’s website said.

.

Led by Republican Rep. Frank Wolf, 120 lawmakers have co-sponsored the House resolution, H. Res. 36, which calls “for the establishment of a special Congressional committee to investigate the Benghazi attack and the Obama administration’s handling of it in the weeks that followed.”

.

According to the Special Operations Speaks website, guest speakers on the Capitol Stairway included Republican Reps. Steve Stockman, Louie Gohmert, Paul Broun, former U.S. Rep. Allen West, and a host of retired special forces commanders and other conservative community leaders, like Niger Innis from TheTeaParty.net.

.

Read more: “Special Ops vets demand Benghazi probe into ‘high crimes’ by administration

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Petition Website Set Up To Recall Marco Rubio

Enough Is Enough… Petition Website Set Up To Recall Marco Rubio – Gateway Pundit

A petition webpage was set up to recall Marco Rubio today.

.

Via Free Republic:

Target: Marco Rubio
Sponsored by: William May
Recall Senator Marco Rubio

Marco Rubio in his own words previously while serving in the state legislature; during his campaign for office and his recent rhetoric on TV, Talk Radio, commercials, emails and surveys sent to his constituents stating that the border must be secured first then path to citizenship. The senator now has changed his promise to suit what he decides is in his best interest and not honor his own commitment to his campaign, voters and supporters thereby disenfranchising them.

Had the Senator expressed his true beliefs on illegal immigration over his term in the state legislature and during his campaign it is doubtful that he would have acquired the nomination to run as the republican candidate for Senator from Florida and most assuredly the election results would be in doubt for his favor.

Due to his own words and actions Senator Marco Rubio has nullified the votes cast for him by disenfranchising voters with glib and false rhetoric corrupting the good faith and will of the voters whose recourse now is to recall the Senator and force him to reveal the factual representation of himself and allow the voters to now judge him based on his true beliefs, values not on false and misleading campaign rhetroic statements.

Rubio, the most visible advocate of the Senate’s comprehensive immigration reform plan, is now viewed favorably by only 58% of Republican voters nationwide – down 15 points since February.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Senator Cruz Launches National Petition To Defeat Gang Of Eight’s Amnesty Bill

Ted Cruz Launches National Petition Against Gang Of Eight’s Bill – Big Government

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) launched a national petition on Thursday to stop the Senate Gang of Eight’s amnesty bill and send Washington a “strong signal” of the grassroots opposition to the bill.

.

“This is urgent,” Cruz wrote in an e-mail to supporters. “We must stop this Gang of 8 immigration bill, which would give amnesty to an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants with no guarantee of a secure border.”

“The Senate debate is in the final stages and we need to send Washington a strong signal of the overwhelming grassroots opposition to this amnesty bill from Americans across the country,” Cruz explained.

Cruz urged supporters to share the petition with friends and to “act now – without delay – to help us defeat amnesty and stand for legal immigration!”

.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

16,000 Colorado Citizens Sign Petition To Recall Leftist, Anti-Gun State Senator

Recall Of Colorado Anti-Gun Pol Gets 16,000 Signatures – Daily Caller

Opponents of Colorado Senate President John Morse on Monday turned in more than 16,000 signatures demanding the Democratic leader’s recall. That’s more than twice the number required to trigger a special election that’s expected to be fought behind the scenes by national interests on both sides of the gun control debate.

.

Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler has 15 days to certify that at least 7,178 of the signatures are valid for the recall election to proceed.

One of the main organizers of the effort told Denver’s 9News that she feels “very comfortable” meeting the threshold.

“With that much of a cushion, having half of them get tossed out, I’ve never seen that many be invalid,” Laura Carno, a political strategist, told the station.

Meanwhile, Morse and his supporters have charged that many of the signatures were gathered under false pretenses. The Denver Post reports that some of its readers said petitioners told them that Morse wanted to repeal Colorado’s “Make My Day” law, which immunizes homeowners from prosecution if they’re defending themselves against intruders.

In fact, Morse had proposed holding the owners, sellers and manufacturers of sporting rifles liable for any damage they cause, but he dropped the legislation before it could be voted on. Even a fellow Democrat called the proposal “absolutely nuts.”

Morse was the highest-profile Democrat in the state legislature supporting a wide range of gun control bills. Of seven bills that were introduced, five passed and will become law next month.

Morse can challenge the signatures in court, which he told 9News he was considering.

“Thousands of those signatures were obtained inappropriately,” Morse said. “Now, will we be able to prove that? We’ll have 15 days to figure that out. That’s going to be tricky.”

If petitioners have met the threshold, Morse can either go through with an election or he can resign and have the Democrats choose a replacement to serve out his term, an option he has said in the past he wouldn’t take.

An election will cost taxpayers about $150,000, El Paso County Clerk Wayne Williams told the Denver Post, but many expect the race to attract national attention and campaigning.

“It does look increasingly like Morse is going to be fighting for his political life, and Morse is almost a bit player in all this,” Denver political analyst Floyd Ciruli said in the Colorado Observer.

“It’s going to be national behemoths squaring off against each other in the form of [New York City Mayor Michael] Bloomberg and the NRA,” he said.

Just the news that Morse’s opponents are submitting signatures has garnered national comment.

In a statement released Monday, Michael Sargeant, the director of the Washington, D.C.-based Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee blasted Morse’s opponents as “extremists in Colorado [who] want to waste hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to recall Senator Morse, for the supposed ‘malfeasance’ of working to make his community safer.”

Morse is term- limited and ineligible to run again after 2014. Democrat Mike Merrifield, a former state representative and former state coordinator for Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, has already filed paperwork to run for the seat. Speculation has been that if Morse chooses to resign rather than run in a special election, Merrifield would be the obvious replacement.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Trial Begins For Officials Accused In Obama, Clinton Ballot Petition Fraud

Trial Begins For Officials Accused In Obama, Clinton Ballot Petition Fraud – Fox News

The trial is underway for a former Democratic official and a Board of Elections worker who are accused of being part of a plot that has raised questions over whether President Obama’s campaign – when he was a candidate in 2008 – submitted enough legitimate signatures to have legally qualified for the presidential primary ballot.

.

The two face charges of orchestrating an illegal scheme to fake the petitions that enabled then-candidates Obama, and Hillary Clinton, to qualify for the race in Indiana.

Former longtime St. Joseph County Democratic Party Chairman Butch Morgan Jr. faces multiple felony conspiracy counts to commit petition fraud, and former county Board of Elections worker Dustin Blythe is charged with nine felony forgery counts and one felony count of falsely making a petition of nomination. The proceedings began Monday in South Bend.

Morgan is accused of being the mastermind behind the plot, by allegedly ordering Democratic officials and workers to fake the names and signatures that Obama and Clinton needed to qualify for the presidential race. Blythe, then a Board of Elections employee and Democratic Party volunteer, has been accused of carrying out those orders by forging signatures on Obama’s petitions.

Two former Board of Elections officials have already pleaded guilty to charges related to the scheme and could testify against Morgan and Blythe.

Former board worker Beverly Shelton, who allegedly was assigned the task of forging the petitions for Hillary Clinton, pleaded guilty in March to charges of forgery and falsely making a petition. The board’s former Democratic head of voter registration, Pam Brunette, pleaded guilty in April to felony forgery, official misconduct, and falsifying a petition.

The alleged scheme was hatched in January of 2008, according to affidavits from investigators who cite former Board of Registration worker Lucas Burkett, who told them he was in on the plan at first, but then became uneasy and quit. He waited three years before telling authorities about it, but if revelations about any forgeries were raised during the election, the petitions could have been challenged during the contest. Any candidate who did not qualify with enough legitimate signatures at the time could have been bounced from the ballot.

The Indiana trial has raised questions about whether in 2008, candidate Obama actually submitted enough legitimate signatures to have legally qualified.

Under state law, presidential candidates need to qualify for the primary ballots with 500 signatures from each of the state’s nine congressional districts. Indiana election officials say that in St. Joseph County, which is the 2nd Congressional District, the Obama campaign qualified with 534 signatures; Clinton’s camp had 704.

Prosecutors say that in Obama’s case, nine of the petition pages were apparently forged. Each petition contains up to 10 names, making a possible total of 90 names, which, if faked, could have brought the Obama total below the legal limit required to qualify. Prosecutors say 13 Clinton petitions were apparently forged, meaning up to 130 possibly fake signatures. Even if 130 signatures had been challenged, it would have still left Clinton with enough signatures to meet the 500-person threshold.

An Indiana State Police investigator said in court papers that the agency examined the suspect Obama petitions and “selected names at random from each of the petition pages and contacted those people directly. We found at least one person (and often multiple people) from each page who confirmed that they had not signed” petitions “or given consent for their name and/or signature to appear.” The case was charged citing 20 forgeries – not the total number of possible fake entries – because that was considered a sufficient amount to prosecute.

Numerous voters told Fox News that they never signed the petitions.

“That’s not my signature,” Charity Rorie, a mother of four, told Fox News when showed the Obama petition with her name and signature. She said it “absolutely” was a fake.

Charity told Fox News that her husband’s entry was also a forgery, and that they have not been contacted by investigators or any authorities looking into the scandal.

“It’s scary, it’s shocking. It definitely is illegal. A lot of people have already lost faith in politics and the whole realm of politics, so that just solidifies our worries and concerns.”

Robert Hunter, Jr. said his name was faked, too.

“I did not sign for Barack Obama,” he told us. As he examined the Obama petition in his hands, Hunter pointed out that “I always put ‘Junior’ after my name, every time… there’s no ‘Junior’ there.”

Even a former Democratic Governor of Indiana, Joe Kernan, told Fox News that his name was forged.

The allegations were first uncovered by Indiana native and Yale University senior Ryan Nees, who wrote about the revelations for the political newsletter, Howey Politics Indiana.

“What’s worrisome about this scheme is that it wasn’t a single bad actor going rogue. Rather, four people were charged as co-conspirators, and two of the four have already pleaded guilty,” Nees told Fox News.

Nees believes that had the petitions been challenged during the presidential election, “it’s unlikely either candidate would have qualified for the ballot.”

He said the fraud was clearly evident, “because page after page of signatures are all in the same handwriting.” He noted that no one raised any red flags “because election workers in charge of verifying their validity were the same people faking the signatures.”

Both Morgan and Blythe have pleaded not guilty, and when approached by Fox News in 2011, Blythe refused to talk about the case.

Morgan’s attorney declined our request for an interview, and Blythe’s attorney has not responded to our efforts for comment.

The petition process is vital to candidates’ campaigns.

In the 2012 presidential race, Republican candidate Newt Gingrich was tripped up by that process in Virginia. He failed to qualify for the GOP primary ballot in that state, because authorities said hundreds of signatures on his campaign’s petitions were faked. A Gingrich campaign worker has pleaded guilty, and another still faces charges.

Petition fraud also cost Michigan Republican Rep. Thaddeus McCotter his public office. McCotter, who also ran for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, has accused former campaign workers of intentionally faking his congressional primary race petition signatures. The result was that McCotter did not submit the legal number of signatures needed to qualify for the ballot, and that failure forced him to resign his congressional seat last July. While McCotter was not implicated in any wrongdoing, two former campaign aides pleaded no contest to criminal charges, and one pleaded guilty.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Another Democrat Election Official Pleads Guilty To Multiple Felonies In Obama Nomination Petition Scandal

Another St. Joseph County Election Official Pleads Guilty In Obama Petition-Forging Scandal – Advance Indiana

It’s the big story that the media outside of South Bend, Indiana don’t want to report. It’s the story of how Democratic election officials in the St. Joseph Co. Board of Registration Office conspired to forge signatures on the nominating petitions of Barack Obama in 2008 so that he would have enough signatures to make the 2008 Indiana Democratic primary ballot. Without those forged signatures, Barack Obama’s name would not have appeared on the 2008 Indiana primary ballot, and in all likelihood, that blunder would have cost him the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

The South Bend Tribune, which broke the original story, reports on yet a second official charged in the petition-forging scandal pleading guilty to her role. This time it is Pam Brunette, the former head of voter registration in St. Joseph County.

Pam Brunette pleaded guilty Tuesday to one count of Class C felony forgery, one count of Class D felony official misconduct and one count of Class D felony falsifying a petition.

.
……….

Three additional counts were dismissed. The former head of Democratic Voter Registration faces between two and eight years for the Class C felony and six months to three years for each Class D felony.

A sentencing hearing has been set for 10 a.m. May 9 before Superior Court Judge John Marnocha.

Brunette is the second person in the past two weeks to admit guilt in the case, which also involves former longtime county Democratic Party Chair Butch Morgan and former party member Dustin Blythe.

Bev Shelton pleaded guilty to one count of forgery and one count of falsifying a petition on March 28 as part of a plea agreement under which she has agreed to testify in the upcoming case against Morgan and Blythe.

Shelton, who worked under Brunette in Voter Registration, will be sentenced at the same time as her former boss.

According to the Tribune, Brunette didn’t actually forge the signatures but knew the petitions contained forged signatures that had been forged by party officials and certified the petitions knowing they contained forgeries.

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Shocker of the day! Useless race pimp Toure still obsessed with skin color

Race Pimping Toure is back, and he has found more RAAAAACISM!! Of course this tool could find RAAAAACISM anywhere, because he figures he can emulate Al Sharpton and Je$$e Jack$on and make a living out of screaming RAAAAACISM!

Via Mediaite:

. . . “The slew of secession petitions out of the south really interests me,” Touré said. “This idea that there are a lot of Southern people who want to have nothing to do with Obama’s America. And I don’t think you can say that there’s any policy that has changed America so much that…”

“Obamacare,” Cupp suggested.

“That has not been enacted yet,” Touré replied. “I think they’re talking about, ‘we don’t want to be in a country run by a black man.’

The fact is that these petitions came from almost every state, but of course, Toure spins this like just us backwards hicks in the South signed the petitions. The South is, of course, always the favorite punching bag for any Leftist that wants to cry racism, and Toure is just going back to that Well of BS the Left has almost run dry. My only question is where will the Toure Tour of RAAAAACISM go next? Where can he find RAAAAACISM next? It really could be anywhere, but, if Toure REALLY wanted to find genuine bigotry and hatred, he could just look in the mirror, or at almost any MSNBS host.

 

Petition: British Don’t Want Piers Morgan Back

Petition: British Don’t Want Piers Morgan Back – Daily Caller

Piers Morgan is a man without a country… sort of.

In the wake of a petition on Whitehouse.gov calling for the CNN host’s deportation back to the United Kingdom, a response petition has cropped up on Change.org from British citizens urging the UK government not to take Morgan back.

“We got rid of him once and why should we have to suffer again. The Americans wanted him so they should put up with him. We washed our hands of him a long time ago,” the introduction to the Change.org petition explains.

The petition, addressed to the British Home Secretary Theresa May simply states: “Stop Piers Morgan from being deported back to the UK from America.”

The request to keep Morgan out includes a nine-minute YouTube video of Morgan, former News of the World editor, testifying before the before the 2011 Leveson inquiry into British press ethics following the mobile phone hacking scandal at News of the World.

The handle “hackergate” posted the petition.

“Hackergate” profile links to a website maintained by Steven Nott of South Wales, about whom Morgan speaks ill in the YouTube video posted on the petition.

Nott confirmed to The Daily Caller in an email that he is the author of the petition.

He told TheDC that be believes Morgan had a lot more to do with the hacking scandal than he let on.

“All of my friends and family used to think Morgan was ok until they realised how arrogant and rude he was when he insulted me at the Leveson Inquiry.” Nott wrote in an email. “They all now despise him and can’t bear to watch him on British TV. He always called Hugh Grant a ‘tedious little man’ and I honestly believe Piers Morgan is the tedious little man in all of this and is way out of his depth.”

According to news reports, Nott was a “whistleblower” in the phone hacking scandal that rocked News of the World – giving information to the Daily Mirror about how easy it was to hack into celebrities phones in the hope of a news article about it, only to see that article remain unpublished.

“It didn’t take me long to realise what I had done. I couldn’t believe I was so stupid to tell a national newspaper how to get hot news for free just by hacking into someone’s phone,” Nott told the BBC in August 2011.

Nott has been promoting the petition on Twitter. His Twitter handle proclaims, “I don’t trust @PiersMorgan.”

“Dear America, you deport Piers Morgan and he’ll be straight back into LA before you know it. We’re sending him back,” Nott tweeted on Wednesday.

The petition currently boasts over 200 signatures (and growing) at the time of publication and is in response to a Whitehouse.gov petition calling for Morgan to be deported for his vocal anti-gun positions. That petition currently has over 71,000 signatures.

“British Citizen and CNN television host Piers Morgan is engaged in a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment,” the Whitehouse.gov petition reads. “We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.”

Nott referenced the gun issues currently at play in America to TheDC, noting Morgan’s arrogance, and expressing hope that he does not inspire future gun violence.

“He got himself into real trouble recently, spouting off about the gun laws in America and I honesty think he’s making things worse,” Nott wrote. “He’s been winding gun owners up for a while now… let’s hope no more go on the rampage because if there is a next time, it could be because of Piers Morgan’s ranting on Twitter and stirring up trouble which he seems to be pretty good at. Remember, he was once the youngest UK national newspaper editor and was famous for saying to people ‘Don’t you know who I am ?’”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Your Marxist Morons of the Day are………….

All the folks offended by LEGO toys for girls!

A pile of Lego blocks, of assorted colours and...

Image via Wikipedia


Let the Lego wars begin. You wouldn’t think a collection of brightly coloured plastic building blocks could spark a fight over gender identity, sexism and commercialism vs. social values, but of course you would be wrong. The Danish company has set off a fierce debate with a new line of Lego Friends targeted specifically at young girls. Unlike boy-themed Lego sets that play up Star Wars, warriors and aliens, Lego Friends are all about a place called Heartlake City, a hair salon and ponies. Inevitably, there’s a lot of pink.

The result: a flood of angry comments, mostly from women appalled that their daughters are being shunted into something as stereotypical as a pink-and-pastel Lego ghetto. An online protest petition at change.org has 35,000 signatures and counting.

THIS is what angers the Left now? This is where the Feminuts have taken us. To a place where little girls liking things that little girls have always liked is a threat to man, or should I say womankind! See, rather than just buying the regular old LEGO toys, they want to take what they do not like off the market. How tolerant and accepting!

*VIDEO* For The Record: Personhood – Molotov Mitchell Discusses The Crime Of Abortion

Click HERE to sign the Personhood USA petition.

.