Study Finds Right To Work States Booming While Leftist, Forced Unionization States Busting

Study: Right To Work States Booming, Forced Unionization States Busting – Washington Free Beacon

Right to work laws have led to skyrocketing manufacturing growth in the auto industry, according to a new study.

.

.
The National Institute of Labors Relations Research, an employment policy think tank, found that the auto industry’s flight from coercive unionization has produced a boom in right to work states, such as Tennessee. The institute traced federal labor statistics from 2002 to 2010 and discovered a dramatic shift in where the nation’s cars are being built.

“Considering just the 22 states that had Right to Work laws from 2002 to 2012, the Right to Work share of nationwide automotive manufacturing output grew from 36% to 52% over the decade,” NILRR researcher Stan Greer wrote on the institute’s website. “Real manufacturing GDP in these 22 Right to Work states grew by 87% from 2002 to 2012, but fell by 2% in forced-unionism states.”

Foreign carmakers, such as Toyota, Honda, and Volkswagen have established factories in right to work states, as well as non-union shops in Kentucky. Additionally, Ford, GM, and Chrysler have shifted jobs and supplier contracts from forced unionization states to right to work states.

“As recently as 2002, just 21% of the total U.S. output in automotive manufacturing took place in Right to Work states,” Greer found.

That gap will likely widen when the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis release manufacturing data for 2013 later this year.

Michigan and Indiana, two of the largest automobile manufacturing hubs in the United States, became right to work states in 2012 and 2013, respectively. Those laws will allow autoworkers to opt out of the United Auto Workers when their current contracts expire, which could signal a steeper decline of the number of cars built by unionized workers.

Auto expert Ted Niedermeyer said that Big Labor’s dominance of the auto industry “is on its last legs.”

“The fact that the UAW has not responded well to competition explains why auto production in this country is only expanding in non-union states,” he said.

The UAW has been trying for many years to insinuate itself into a manufacturing facility in a right-to-work state in order to boost its sagging membership. The union had its best chance when it secured Volkswagen’s support to unionize a Chattanooga, Tenn., facility, Niedermeyer said. While management embraced unionization, workers soundly rejected the UAW in a February vote.

Patrick Semmens, a spokesman at the National Right to Work Committee, said that workers have witnessed the negative effects that come with union representation, as companies shift jobs out of traditional manufacturing sites. The fact that business is booming in union-free shops reminds workers of the potential downsides of unionization.

“The moral case for Right to Work as a means of protecting the individual rights and free choice of workers is strong enough all on its own. But time and time again we see that freedom for workers also benefits the economy of states that choose to protect worker choice and the booming auto industry in Right to Work states is just another example,” Semmens said.

Niedermeyer added that the rejection of the UAW in Tennessee is only the first sign of lagging support for unions among autoworkers.

“Beyond even the UAW’s rejection at the Chattanooga, Tenn., Volkswagen plant we are now seeing pro-union workers at the Mercedes plant in Vance, AL telling the UAW that their presence has been counterproductive,” he said. “The UAW-affiliated automakers have been shedding production capacity over the long term due to eroding market share, and are unlikely to add any significant amount of new production jobs in the US any time soon.”

These trends could play a central role as right to work laws are debated in Missouri and other states, according to NILRR’s Greer writes. Lawmakers should have to reconcile the impact that forced unionization could have on local economies.

“The overwhelming advantage Right to Work states have enjoyed over forced-unionism states in attracting automotive manufacturing investment ought to put the burden of proof on Big Labor legislators in forced-unionism states like Kentucky, Missouri and Ohio who claim it makes no difference to companies considering new plant construction or expansions whether unionism is voluntary or not,” he said.

.

.

Proposal To Split California Into Six Separate States Clears First Major Hurdle

Proposal To Split California Into Six States Clears Major Hurdle… Here Are The Proposed New States – The Blaze

A seemingly long-shot proposal to split California into six smaller U.S. states cleared a major hurdle this week, with the golden state’s secretary of state’s office saying that proponents “may begin collecting petition signatures.”

.

.
The initiative is sponsored by Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper, according to the AFP, and contends that ”political representation of California’s diverse population and economies has rendered the state nearly ungovernable.”

The proposal aims to divide California into ”six smaller state governments, while preserving the historical boundaries of the various counties, cities and towns,” the AFP reported.

States would reportedly include Silicon Valley, South California, West California, Central California, North California and Jefferson, if the proposal is ultimately approved.

The Tuesday move by the secretary of state’s office allows the movement to begin collecting the needed 807,615 signatures necessary for the initiative to arrive on the ballot.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Thanks Barack… Ten States Where Obamacare Wipes Out Existing Health Care Plans

Ten States Where Obamacare Wipes Out Existing Health Care Plans – Daily Caller

President Barack Obama famously promised, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” He later got even more specific.

“If you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have,” Obama said.

But as Obamacare’s rollout approaches, we have learned this is not true. Here are the ten states where consumers may like their health care plans, but they won’t be able to keep them.

.

1) California: 58,000 will lose their plans under Obamacare. The first bomb dropped in California with a mass exodus from the most populated state’s Obamacare exchange. Aetna, the country’s largest insurer, left first in July and was closely followed by UnitedHealth. Anthem Blue Cross pulled out of California’s Obamacare exchange for small businesses as well.

Fifty-four percent of Californians expect to lose their coverage, according to an August poll.

2) Missouri: Patients of the state’s largest hospital system – which spans 13 hospitals including the St. Louis Children’s Hospital – will not be covered by the largest insurer on Obamacare exchanges, Anthem BlueCross BlueShield. Anthem covers 79,000 patients in Missouri who may seek subsidies on Obamacare exchanges, but won’t be able to see any doctors in the BJC HealthCare system.

3) Connecticut: Aetna, the third largest insurer in the nation, won’t offer insurance on the Obamacare exchange in its own home state, where it was founded in 1850. The reason? “We believe the modification to the rates filed by Aetna will not allow us to collect enough premiums to cover the cost of the plans and meet the service expectations of our customers,” said Aetna spokesman Susan Millerick.

4) Maryland: 13,000 individuals covered by Aetna and its recently-purchased Coventry Health Care won’t be able to keep their insurance plans if they want Obamacare subsidies on the exchanges. Aetna and Coventry canceled plans to offer insurance in the exchange when state officials wouldn’t allow them to charge premiums high enough to cover costs.

5) South Carolina: 28,000 people were insured by Medical Mutual of Ohio, SC’s second-largest insurance company, until it decided to leave the state entirely in July due to Obamacare’s “vast and quite complex” new regulations. Company spokesman Ed Byers said Medical Mutual’s patients would be switched over to United Healthcare plans instead.

6) New York: Aetna pulled out of New York’s exchange in late August in an effort to keep their plans “financially viable,” said Aetna spokeswoman Cynthia Michener.

7) New Jersey: 1.1 million Aetna customers are at risk in New Jersey, where the leading insurer also won’t be a part of the exchange. Just 2,600 patients purchase individual plans with the company, but any looking to take advantage of subsidies on the exchange for unaffordable employer-based insurance won’t be able to do with Aetna.

8) Iowa: Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Iowa’s largest health insurer, decided not to offer plans in the Obamacare exchange. It sells 86 percent of Iowa’s individual health insurance plans.

9) Wisconsin: Two of the three largest insurers in the state won’t offer plans on the exchange. United Healthcare and Humana patients will have to get a new health insurer to buy insurance on Obamacare exchanges.

10) Georgia: Just five insurers are participating in Georgia’s Obamacare exchange. Medical Mutual of Ohio left Georgia and Indiana as well as South Carolina, due to Obamacare regulations. Aetna, along with Coventry, also decided against participating in the George health exchange.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Top 10 States For Business All Led By Republican Governors

Top 10 States For Business All Led By Republican Governors – Washington Examiner

Chief Executive magazine releases its ninth annual survey of CEO’s opinions about the best and worst states for business – and Republicans are governing in all of the top 10.

.

“In the minds of most leaders, a state’s friendliness is closely aligned with its tax and regulatory regime. Similarly, workforce quality also measures the perceived cooperativeness of workers with management, as well as the people’s general work ethic and education attainment,” the report write-up states.

Only three Republicans govern in the bottom 10 states – Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey (ranked 46th), Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan (ranked 44th), and Gov. Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania (ranked 42nd).

California is ranked at 50, the worst state for business in America.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

59 Firearms Companies That Refuse To Sell Their Products To Law Enforcement Agencies In States That Restrict 2nd Amendment Rights

The Nice List – Police Loophole

What is the police loophole?

There are some states, counties, cities, and municipalities in our great nation that fail to allow their citizens to fully exercise their right to keep and bear arms with restrictions such as magazine capacity or types of firearms that are widely available to citizens of other states, counties, cities, and municipalities. However, these government entities do not place these restrictions upon their own employees, such as police officers. It is important to note that we are against gun control; we are not against any particular government agency or individuals.

What is this list?

This is a list of companies that have taken the step to publicly announce that they will not sell items to states, counties, cities, and municipalities that restrict their citizens rights to own them; therefore closing the “police loophole” themselves.

Don’t see one that has given notice on here or represent a company that you would like on the list? Send me an email at admin@thepoliceloophole.com with “Loophole” in the subject. Please also include a link to the written policy either on Facebook or your website. I cannot host policies on this site.

Nice List

AmmoClip

Extreme Firepower Inc, LLC

Cheaper Than Dirt

MidwayUS

Barrett

Dead Bang Guns

Old Grouch’s Military Surplus

Predator Intelligence

LaRue Tactical

Olympic Arms Currently applies to New York State only

Templar Custom Currently applies to New York State only

York Arms Currently applies to New York State only

Southern Appalachian Arms

Bullwater Enterprises LLC dba A & T Firearms

West Fork Armory Currently applies to New York State only

Iron Goat Guns

Trident Armory

Smith Enterprise, Inc Currently applies to New York State only

Alex Arms

OFA Tactical

Spike’s Tactical

Quality Arms Idaho

Liberty Suppressors Currently applies to New York State only

J&T Family of Companies J&T Distributing, Ace Limited, DoubleStar Corp., DoubleStar Training Academy

American Spirit Arms

Primary Weapons Systems

Tactical Solutions Currently applies to New York State only

Head Down Products, LLC Currently applies to New York State only

Exile Machine

J&G Sales, Ltd

Bravo Company USA

ACE LTD.

Kiss Tactical

NEMO Arms, Inc Currently applies to New York State only

Top Gun Supply

Red Jacket Firearms

Rock River Arms Currently applies to New York State only

Badger Peak

Controlled Chaos Arms

Big Horn Armory

One Source Tactical

CMMG

SRT Arms

Norton Firearms

Umlaut Industries LLC

Warbirds Custom Guns

JABTAC

Stoner Arms

3 Rivers Precision LLC

2A Firearms

Lanco Tactical LLC

Thunder Beast Arms Corp

Predator Tactical

Rhino Arms LLC

Delmarva Shooting Supply

OJ’s Gun Shop

OCS Guns

Progressive Micro Devices

Citizen Arms

Total Companies: 59

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Here It Comes… States Will Under-Employ Workers To Avoid Cost Of ObamaCare

Here It Comes… States Will Under-Employ Workers To Avoid Cost Of ObamaCare – Clash Daily

The costs of Obamacare are not just hitting businesses this year – they are also hitting the government, and public employees as well. Virginia, for example, is about to limit part-time employees to 29 hours per week in order to avoid triggering Obamacare’s requirement that employers provide health insurance to those working 30 hours per week or more. The state cannot afford the $110 million annual cost of insurance.

……..

Elsewhere, public institutions are taking similar steps to limit part-time work. In Ohio, Youngstown State University recently announced a 29-hour-per-week part-time limit, and placed employees on notice that they would be fired if they worked more than the maximum. Other public universities are doing the same across the nation, just as their private-sector counterparts are limiting part-time hours to avoid the Obamacare rule.

In addition to limiting part-time hours, many institutions–public and private–are moving employees from full-time to part-time status to avoid Obamacare requirements. Doing so means facing the ire of left-wing institutions such as John Podesta’s Think Progress, which recently castigated a Wendy’s franchise for cutting employees’ hours. Yet there is little most businesses can do – they are merely responding to incentives written into law.

As the economic reality of Obamacare begins to bite, Democrats are uneasy with the legislation they forced through Congress in 2010, and which survived at the Supreme Court only because Chief Justice John Roberts saw fit to rewrite it. At a recent retreat for House Democrats, former President Bill Clinton advised his party to lead the way in pushing for changes to Obamacare, so they could “[p]rove that we were right to do it.”

Read more: Breitbart.com

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Bob Belvedere on the vital role of state sovereignty

Read what Bob has to say, then I have some comments

It lies in state and county and local officials taking their oaths to The Constitution seriously.

It lies in people like Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County Oregon.

From CNN, Ed Payne and Ric Ward reporting [tip of the fedora to Wombat-Socho's Live At Five]:

An Oregon sheriff says he will not enforce any federal regulation that President Barack Obama lays out in his package of gun control proposals Wednesday. Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller joins several other public officials across the nation who have decided to square off with the White House even before it outlines what its plans are for expanded measures.

Mueller sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden this week saying he won’t enforce any federal regulation “offending the constitutional rights of my citizens.” He won’t permit federal officers to come to his county to enforce such laws either, he said.

Mueller’s defiant stand exploded into a groundswell of support. His letter — posted on the department’s Facebook page — earned more than 59,000 likes and shares — and was growing by the minute.

Bravo, sir.

It lies in thinking like this:

In Texas, a lawmaker said this week that he will introduce legislation that would make it illegal to enforce a federal gun ban.

“At some point there needs to be a showdown between the states and the federal government over the Supremacy Clause,” Republican Rep. Steve Toth told WOAI 1200-AM. “It is our responsibility to push back when those laws are infringed by King Obama.”

Indeed, it is time for a showdown between the forces that want to aggregate to the national government more powers than those that are enumerated in The Constitution and those of us who believe that it should be followed to the letter.

I could not agree more, it is all our duty to honor the Constitution. The federal government has, over the history of this nation grown far past the intent of the Founders. The Constitution constrained not the people, but the federal government. It enumerated certain rights, natural rights as Franklin called them that neither come from government, or can be restricted by government. That IS the most critical founding principle of this nation. And that principle has been under attack since the very birth of the United States. Alexander Hamilton fought against it, Madison and Jefferson battled for it.

The idea that States have a right to ignore, or even nullify certain federal laws originated after President John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, which, in part criminalized speech critical of the government. It was, again, Madison and Jefferson who fought against these laws, writing the Virginia Resolution, which Madison wrote, and the Kentucky Resolution, which Jefferson wrote. Anyone who questions the patriotism of those who still think the States are and ought to be sovereign should read these two pieces of our history

From The Kentucky Resolution

1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

2. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes, whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled “An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,” as also the act passed by them on the — day of June, 1798, intituled “An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States,” (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory.

3. Resolved, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitutions, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, our prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”: thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, arid that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, the act of Congress of the United States, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,” which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.

4. Resolved, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.

5. Resolved. That in addition to the general principle, as well as the express declaration, that powers not delegated are reserved, another and more special provision, inserted in the Constitution from abundant caution, has declared that “the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808” that this commonwealth does admit the migration of alien friends, described as the subject of the said act concerning aliens: that a provision against prohibiting their migration, is a provision against all acts equivalent thereto, or it would be nugatory: that to remove them when migrated, is equivalent to a prohibition of their migration, and is, therefore, contrary to the said provision of the Constitution, and void.

6. Resolved, That the imprisonment of a person under the protection of the laws of this commonwealth, on his failure to obey the simple order of the President to depart out of the United States, as is undertaken by said act intituled “An Act concerning aliens” is contrary to the Constitution, one amendment to which has provided that “no person shalt be deprived of liberty without due progress of law”; and that another having provided that “in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense;” the same act, undertaking to authorize the President to remove a person out of the United States, who is under the protection of the law, on his own suspicion, without accusation, without jury, without public trial, without confrontation of the witnesses against him, without heating witnesses in his favor, without defense, without counsel, is contrary to the provision also of the Constitution, is therefore not law, but utterly void, and of no force: that transferring the power of judging any person, who is under the protection of the laws from the courts, to the President of the United States, as is undertaken by the same act concerning aliens, is against the article of the Constitution which provides that “the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in courts, the judges of which shall hold their offices during good behavior”; and that the said act is void for that reason also. And it is further to be noted, that this transfer of judiciary power is to that magistrate of the general government who already possesses all the Executive, and a negative on all Legislative powers.

7. Resolved, That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution, the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their powers by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction, at a time of greater tranquillity, while those specified in the preceding resolutions call for immediate redress.

8th. Resolved, That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, who shall have in charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States: to assure them that this commonwealth continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their late federal compact, to be friendly, to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this commonwealth, from motives of regard and respect for its co States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that the general government may place any act they think proper on the list of crimes and punish it themselves whether enumerated or not enumerated by the constitution as cognizable by them: that they may transfer its cognizance to the President, or any other person, who may himself be the accuser, counsel, judge and jury, whose suspicions may be the evidence, his order the sentence, his officer the executioner, and his breast the sole record of the transaction: that a very numerous and valuable description of the inhabitants of these States being, by this precedent, reduced, as outlaws, to the absolute dominion of one man, and the barrier of the Constitution thus swept away from us all, no ramparts now remains against the passions and the powers of a majority in Congress to protect from a like exportation, or other more grievous punishment, the minority of the same body, the legislatures, judges, governors and counsellors of the States, nor their other peaceable inhabitants, who may venture to reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties of the States and people, or who for other causes, good or bad, may be obnoxious to the views, or marked by the suspicions of the President, or be thought dangerous to his or their election, or other interests, public or personal; that the friendless alien has indeed been selected as the safest subject of a first experiment; but the citizen will soon follow, or rather, has already followed, for already has a sedition act marked him as its prey: that these and successive acts of the same character, unless arrested at the threshold, necessarily drive these States into revolution and blood and will furnish new calumnies against republican government, and new pretexts for those who wish it to be believed that man cannot be governed but by a rod of iron: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism — free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go; and let the honest advocate of confidence read the Alien and Sedition acts, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in fixing limits to the government it created, and whether we should be wise in destroying those limits, Let him say what the government is, if it be not a tyranny, which the men of our choice have con erred on our President, and the President of our choice has assented to, and accepted over the friendly stranger to whom the mild spirit of our country and its law have pledged hospitality and protection: that the men of our choice have more respected the bare suspicion of the President, than the solid right of innocence, the claims of justification, the sacred force of truth, and the forms and substance of law and justice. In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this commonwealth does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on the acts concerning aliens and for the punishment of certain crimes herein before specified, plainly declaring whether these acts are or are not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, weather general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this commonwealth in considering the said acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States (not merely as the cases made federal, casus fœderis but), in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised within their respective territories.

9th. Resolved, That the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing or personal conference, at any times or places whatever, with any person or persons who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them; and that they lay their proceedings before the next session of Assembly.

From the Virginia Resolutions

RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocably express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic, and that they will support the government of the United States in all measures warranted by the former.

That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the States, to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the only basis of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it’s existence and the public happiness.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy.

That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the “Alien and Sedition Acts” passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government; as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution; and the other of which acts, exercises in like manner, a power not delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto; a power, which more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every other right.

That this state having by its Convention, which ratified the federal Constitution, expressly declared, that among other essential rights, “the Liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States,” and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry or ambition, having with other states, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution; it would mark a reproachable inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shewn, to the most palpable violation of one of the Rights, thus declared and secured; and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other.

That the good people of this commonwealth, having ever felt, and continuing to feel, the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other states; the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all; and the most scrupulous fidelity to that constitution, which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness; the General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people.

That the Governor be desired, to transmit a copy of the foregoing Resolutions to the executive authority of each of the other states, with a request that the same may be communicated to the Legislature thereof; and that a copy be furnished to each of the Senators and Representatives representing this state in the Congress of the United States.

These two wise men are, to me the best possible sources from which to draw on in this debate. The man who penned our Declaration of Independence, and the man who is known as the Father of our Constitution. Two men who were far different from the reactionary politicos we have too many of today. Two men who held the Constitution dear, two men who understood that a federal government, left unchecked, would soon rage out of control, and would subjugate both the States, and the people.

 

What Would the Father of the Constitution say to gun grabbers?

Gun control you say? The Left is pushing hard to negate much of the second amendment, and part of that is to call anyone who defends that amendment as a lunatic. Well are these people who say the Constitution MEANS what it says loony? Let us consult THE expert on the Constitution, James Madison. Via Steve

James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper #46:

But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke;and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other. The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part. The attempt was unjust and unwise; but it was not in speculation absolutely chimerical. But what would be the contest in the case we are supposing? Who would be the parties? A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves; or rather one set of representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of representatives, with the whole body of their common constituents on the side of the latter.

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

Go read the rest. As a side note, it is amazing that more and more liberals are openly saying we need to scrap, or at least IGNORE the Constitution. I have long-held that destroying the Constitution is the end goal of the Left. For years, Liberals would scoff at such a suggestion. But, as the Left becomes more sure that they can render the Constitution, in this case the second amendment mute, they begin to be more honest about their disdain for our founders and their principles. The truth is the Left is as far removed from our Founders as the East is from the West. And their masks are slipping.

American States To Obama Administration: Drop Dead!

American States To Obama Administration: Drop Dead! – WorldNetDaily

While millions of outraged Americans protest what they see as a lawless and power-mad Obama administration, many wonder how much clout individuals can really have in reining in a wildly out-of-control government.

But suppose, in addition to citizens with little power beyond their vote, those standing up to the federal government were named Virginia, Texas, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Montana, Maine, South Dakota – and many more?

Incredibly, though under-reported by the establishment press, that’s exactly what is happening right now, as the April issue of Whistleblower documents in-depth, in “STATES OF REBELLION: How legislators and governors nationwide are openly challenging a rogue president.”

A wide-ranging rebellion is indeed under way – by a large majority of states – against what they claim are intolerable and blatantly unconstitutional encroachments by the federal government. And they are seriously intent on declaring such unconstitutional laws null and void in their state.

Here’s how Thomas E. Woods Jr., author of the bestselling book, “Nullification: How to resist federal tyranny in the 21st century,” succinctly lays out the issue in the April Whistleblower:

Nullification begins with the axiomatic point that a federal law that violates the Constitution is no law at all. It is void and of no effect. Nullification simply pushes this uncontroversial point a step further: If a law is unconstitutional and therefore void and of no effect, it is up to the states, the parties to the federal compact, to declare it so and thus refuse to enforce it. It would be foolish and vain to wait for the federal government or a branch thereof to condemn its own law. Nullification provides a shield between the people of a state and an unconstitutional law from the federal government.

Take Obamacare: Most people know the GOP-led House of Representatives repealed it (though the Democrat-controlled Senate almost certainly will not, nor will Obama ever sign it). And many also know 27 states are challenging Obamacare in court. But what few understand is that at least 11 states are attempting to legislatively nullify Obamacare within their borders. So far, an act to nullify the entire federal health-care law has become state law in Montana and Idaho, has been approved by one house in North Dakota, and introduced in eight other states – New Hampshire, Maine, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas, Wyoming, South Dakota and Oklahoma.

What about the federal government’s labyrinthine gun laws? Eight states have already passed laws – signed by their governors – telling Washington its firearms regulations are not valid in those states for weapons manufactured and purchased in-state. Many other states are on the same legislative track.

There’s much more: Utah last month became the first state to make gold and silver legal tender in that state. Twenty-four states are defying Obama by copying Arizona’s immigration law – the one the Obama Justice Department sued Arizona over. Lawmakers in 40 states are working to halt the epidemic of “anchor babies” establishing “birthright citizenship.” And 13 states are considering laws that would require every presidential candidate – including Barack Obama – to prove he is a natural-born citizen before his name can be placed on that state’s ballot in presidential elections.

Highlights of “STATES OF REBELLION” include:

* “States to Washington: Follow the Constitution or else” by Bob Unruh, on how power grabs by the federal government increasingly are being met with big opposition from states

* “Unfunded mandates? Obama’s the biggest” by Joseph Farah, on the incomprehensible cost America is incurring for having Barack Obama as president

* “The return of a forbidden idea” by Thomas E. Woods, Jr., an exclusive excerpt from his bestselling book, “Nullification: How to resist federal tyranny in the 21st century”

* “3 states looking to set up nullification commissions”

* “Texas and New Hampshire: Stop feeling up fliers!”

* “11 states act to nullify Obamacare within their borders” by Bob Unruh, not to mention the 27 states that are fighting against “socialized medicine” in court

* “State lawmakers declare war on ‘birthright citizenship’” by Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., documenting how legislators from 40 states are teaming up to stop the spike in “anchor babies”

* “24 states defy Obama by copying Arizona immigration law”

* “Utah lawmakers recognize gold and silver as legal tender” – on how Utah is leading a growing movement to restore sound money to America

* “The buck stops here? Virginia eyes switching off dollar” by Kelly O’Meara, on legislators who cite the “inevitable destruction of the Federal Reserve System’s currency”

* “State legislators attempt to stop Shariah” by Drew Zahn, on legislative efforts to prevent the U.S. from emulating Britain with its 85 Islamic courts

* “Did Jefferson foresee Obama’s deficit – and the solution?” by Fergus Hodgson, who notes the third president wanted an anti-debt constitutional amendment – and may yet get his wish

* “Ohio poised to challenge Supreme Court with ‘heartbeat bill’”

* “13 states considering eligibility-proof legislation” by Bob Unruh, on legislators who say: “If the federal government is not going to vet these people, we’ll do it in our state”

* “Epic ‘gunfight’ between states and feds” – on how a battle over a Montana firearms law may dramatically limit Congress’s power

* “A Virginia plan to cancel Congress’s ‘authority’” – explaining a radical legislative proposal that would exempt “all goods” from oversight by feds

* “Utah to Washington: This land is my land!” by Bob Unruh, on the almost unanimous resolution asking the federal government to cede 35,000 square miles back to the state

* “A warning to states about a Con-Con” by Phyllis Schlafly, on the serious and hidden dangers of convening a constitutional convention in today’s near-lawless America

* “Barack Hussein Alinsky” by Patrick J. Buchanan, who says the big battle shaping up is between the “organizer in chief” and the governors of the 50 states – with America hanging in the balance

* “Leadership requires actual leadership” by Herman Cain, who shows that America’s governors, not Obama, are showing the nation how to “win the future”

“There’s so much bad news these days,” said Whistleblower Editor David Kupelian, “that it’s great to be able to report this crucial and encouraging trend. America is made up of 50 sovereign states – something largely forgotten in this age of seemingly all-powerful federal government. And what a great thing it is to see state after state actually standing up to the Obama administration and saying, in effect, ‘Don’t tread on me!‘”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

GOP: 5,000 Non-Citizens Voting In Colorado A ‘Wake-Up Call’ For States

GOP: 5,000 Non-Citizens Voting In Colorado A ‘Wake-Up Call’ For States – The Hill

Republicans on the House Administration Committee want to shore up voter registration rules in the wake of a Colorado study that found as many as 5,000 non-citizens in the state took part in last year’s election.

Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Miss.), the panel’s chairman, called the study “a disturbing wake-up call” that should cause every state to review its safeguards to prevent illegal voting.

“We simply cannot have an electoral system that allows thousands of non-citizens to violate the law and vote in our elections. We must do more to protect the integrity of our electoral processes,” Harper added.

Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler, a Republican, told the panel that his department’s study identified nearly 12,000 people who were not citizens but were still registered to vote in Colorado.

Of those non-citizen registered voters, nearly 5,000 took part in the 2010 general election in which Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet narrowly defeated Republican Ken Buck.

Colorado conducted the study by comparing the state’s voter registration database with driver’s license records.

“We know we have a problem here. We don’t know the size of it,” Gessler said in testimony to Administration’s Elections subcommittee.

He told Harper that Colorado would look to create a registration system that would allow his department to ask that some people provide proof of their citizenship in writing.

If individuals did not respond to the request, their registration as voters would be suspended.

Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas) raised doubts about the reporting, noting that the study itself said it was based on inconclusive data and that it was “impossible to provide precise numbers” on how many people who were registered to vote in the state were not citizens.

Gonzalez asked Gessler, a former prosecutor, if he would have pursued a court case on such evidence.

Gessler responded that the goal of the study was to expose voter registration issues and pursue administrative avenues to resolve them.

“We don’t have a screen for citizenship on the front end when people register to vote,” he said.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story