Ted Cruz criticizes DOJ for arguing international treaty can trump the Constitution

Leave a comment

This is from The Washington Examiner.

This is Damned Dangerous territory.

Nothing I repeat Nothing  trumps The Constitution.

We are headed into a Dictatorship.

“Wake Up America Before Liberty and Freedom are Lost .”

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

.Ronald Reagan

Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the government to invoke international treaties as a legal basis for policies such as gun control that conflict with the U.S. Constitution, according to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

Their argument is that a law implementing an international treaty signed by the U.S. allows the federal government to prosecute a criminal case that would normally be handled by state or local authorities.

That is a dangerous argument, according to Cruz.

“The Constitution created a limited federal government with only specific enumerated powers,” Cruz told the Washington Examiner prior to giving a speech on the issue today at the Heritage Foundation.

“The Supreme Court should not interpret the treaty power in a manner that undermines this bedrock protection of individual liberty,” Cruz said.

In his speech, Cruz said the Justice Department is arguing “an absurd proposition” that “could be used as a backdoor way to undermine” Second Amendment rights, among other things.

The underlying case, Bond v. United States, involves a woman charged with violating the international ban on chemical weapons because she used toxic chemicals to harass a former friend who had an affair with her husband.

Under the Constitution, such an offense would be handled at the state level. In Bond’s case, the federal government prosecuted her under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

That law implements the Chemical Weapons Convention, the international treaty Syrian dictator Bashar Assad is accused of violating in that country’s vicious civil war.

“The problem here is precisely that Congress, rather than implementing the treaty consistent with our constitutional system of federalism, enacted a statute that, if construed to apply to petitioner’s conduct, would violate basic structural guarantees and exceed Congress’s enumerated powers,” according to Bond’s lawyers.

The Judicial Crisis Network’s Carrie Severino said the Bond case could have ramifications for many other issues.

“If the administration is right, the treaty power could become a backdoor way for the federal government to do everything from abolishing the death penalty nationwide, to outlawing homeschooling, to dramatically curtailing the states’ rights to regulate abortion,” she told the Washington Examiner.

The Judicial Crisis Network is a conservative legal activist group.




Is a Gun Loaded If the Bullets Are Beside It?

1 Comment

This is from the Heritage Foundation.

The New Hampshire Supreme court stopped an out of  control

prosecutor and over zealous police officer.

How could anyone say a gun is loaded without bullets?

To borrow a quote from G.Gordon Liddy  “A unloaded gun is just an

expensive club.” 


For proof that prosecutors will apply laws in ways that are at odds with societal expectations, look no further than the case of Oriol Dor. Dor came within an interlocutory appeal of being convicted of “knowingly carrying a loaded pistol” even though his gun had no bullets or magazine inside of it.

Yes, you read that correctly. Only the common sense of the New Hampshire Supreme Court saved Dor from being convicted of carrying a loaded gun that most reasonable English speakers would not consider “loaded.”

In May 2012, in Manchester, New Hampshire, police searched Dor’s vehicle and found a .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol adjacent to a magazine in the vehicle’s glove compartment. The pistol did not have a cartridge in the chamber or a magazine in the magazine well.

The fact that the cartridge was not inside Dor’s weapon did not stop the state from arguing that Dor should be convicted of carrying a loaded pistol. The relevant law provided that a “loaded pistol or revolver shall include any pistol or revolver with a magazine, cylinder, chamber or clip in which there are loaded cartridges.” Armed with an ambiguous with, the state contended that Dor’s pistol, being “near a cartridge,” was in fact “loaded” for statutory purposes because it was “with” that pistol.

Thankfully, the New Hampshire Supreme Court was having none of it.

The court began by announcing the interpretive premise that one should, “if possible, construe that language according to its plain and ordinary meaning.” Cracking open a contemporary dictionary, Associate Justice Robert Lynn, writing for the court, recited the definition of loaded:

“Loaded” is…the past participle of the verb “load,” which means “to put a load on or in a carrier, device, machine, or container; [specifically] to insert the charge or cartridge in the chamber of a firearm.”

Lacking any evidence that the legislature intended anything else by loaded, the court concluded that Dor’s weapon was not loaded.

In dismissing the state’s arguments, the court added that, if Dor’s gun were to be considered loaded, the law itself might be unconstitutionally vague. How “near” would a gun have to be to a loaded magazine in order to be considered “loaded”? Who knows? As the court said, criminal laws should not be written such that “men of ordinary intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.”

The court reached the correct outcome because it started from the right premise—that words in statutes should be presumed to be consistent with the plain, ordinary meaning reasonable citizens would attribute to them. Prosecutors should not attempt to twist the words of a criminal statute in order to fit the conduct of an individual they seek to convict.

For most citizens, the “loaded” question over which New Hampshire courts puzzled probably wouldn’t be a question at all. But it almost resulted in Dor’s conviction. Here’s hoping that more judges unload on the prosecutorial overreach that so nearly branded him a criminal for life.

The Heritage Foundation’s project USA vs. YOU spotlights the flood of criminal laws threatening our liberties. Explore more stories of overcriminalization and find out what you can do to reverse this trend.


Thanks to Obama, freedom-loving Canadians get the last laugh

Leave a comment

This is from Bizpac Review.

Thanks to Obama America is the laughing stock around

the world.

Ronald Reagan by speaking make our enemies around

the world wet their pants in fear of America’s might.

Yet when Obama speaks people around the world wet their

pants due to laughter.

Not so many years ago, Americans could be heard snickering at our Canadian friends. “Socialists” was an epithet I heard muttered about Canadians and their political system.

That’s changed. Something electrifying has happened, a new dawn for Canadians. Nowadays, “wrong-way” Canada is beating the pants off the United States in the pursuit of economic freedom.

How did this happen? When did it start? Here’s the remarkable story about a turnaround that now has Canadians snickering at Americans.

Each year, the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal do the free world a huge service, compiling and publishing the global Index of Economic Freedom. This tells us which countries are truly free and provide their citizens the freedom to “work, produce, consume and invest” in whatever way they choose. The index uses 10 benchmarks to reveal which nations revere economic freedom, and by how much.

In the last five years, America has lost ground compared to Canada. Not only that, America has dropped in the worldwide rankings from fifth to 10th. So what happened about five years ago to push the United States in the wrong direction? What’s behind our drop from “Free” to “Mostly Free”?

Look for the answer in the rise of Barack Obama, who became president five years ago. Skeptical? Try these facts on for size:

  • Over-regulation has foisted more than 400 new, top-down federal regulations on American businesses in the last four years, with dire consequences and higher costs.
  • Increased bureaucratic federal spending rose to over 25 percent of gross domestic product, public debt has eclipsed 100 percent of that benchmark, and deficits have surpassed $1 trillion every year since 2009.
  • This bloated government and huge deficit spending — we borrow 40 cents for every dollar we spend — have led to the slowest economic recovery in 70 years.
  • There has been a lack of U.S. leadership in world affairs, as this president’s administration has denounced “American exceptionalism” and reduced military might.
  • America’s economy has stagnated while the engine of world growth — trade flows — has sputtered.
  • Ignoring the rule of law too many times, and selectively enforcing laws, Obama routinely suspends enforcement of laws he dislikes.
  • Destructive, arbitrary financial regulations like the Dodd-Frank Wall Street “reform” act have increased uncertainty, put businesses in a holding pattern and stymied new investment.
  • Obamacare has spawned steep costs, higher taxes, regulations and legal liabilities.
  • Obama’s populist doctrines have misused government power to redistribute wealth, ever-expand entitlements and control whole industries.
  • Obama has used executive orders to create Obamalaws outside the legislative process.

You need look no further than Obama’s Washington, D.C., to account for the steady loss of America’s economic freedom five years in a row. The drop means America is moving away from being free, and moving toward the outskirts of economic freedom.

Freedom is not just another word; it’s a living thing that can die. Too many of us may not think about its value until it slips away. Freedom’s opposite is strangling regulation. Freedom’s antithesis is Big Brother government “protecting” people from the distresses caused by their own decisions.

Independence Day has reminded us that we are what we believe in. If you truly believe in freedom, add it to your bucket list to confront its destroyers.

Treasonous President Obama to Charge 14 Governors with Treason?

1 Comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

Obama wants people unarmed and subservient.

So he would try to destroy any one that opposes him.

Obama is going to keep going and start a revolution.


t has been repeatedly reported on some of our websites that President Barack Hussein Obama is guilty of multiple accounts of treason against the people and Constitution of the United States.  He has not been charged with any of his many crimes because he controls the US Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice (Holder is just as guilty of treason as is Obama).  The rest of Congress seems too spineless or fearful to say or do anything about it.

But let someone else try to stand up against Obama’s crime syndicate and he’s the first one to start hollering treason.

It seems that a growing number of state governors are re-establishing State Defense Forces, also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves and State Militias.  These forces are under the direct authority of the governor of the state and are not subject to federal control.  They can be readily deployed in the case of any natural or man-made disasters.

As of 2010, 23 states and territories have organized State Defense Forces (SDFs) with approximately 14,000 people serving in them.  SDFs were established by federal and state law at the very beginning of our country’s history.  They have played important roles over the years in helping to defend our nation, however, due to many state budget deficits, SDFs are becoming a thing of the past.

The Heritage Foundation did a report on State Defense Forces back in 2010 and if you want to read more about their history, please click here.


According to a recent report, 14 governors have been working to reinstate SDFs in their states.  Governors Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and Rick Perry of Texas have been fronting the drive to get more states to re-establish their STFs.

The report goes on to say that each of the 14 governors have now supposedly received National Security Letters from the Obama administration demanding that they halt the formation of their SDFs or face possible charges of treason.  It seems that since Obama has drastically reduced the size of the military and their forces are stretched thin with troops still in Afghanistan and Iraq, that he is fearing rebellion from the states.  Further evidence of his fear of a rebellion or revolution is the fact that he has nationalized all of the state National Guard units.

Perhaps this is the reason that he has had the Department of Homeland Security purchase over 2 billion rounds of ammunition and thousands of fully automatic assault rifles.

It is typical of Obama to bully everyone who stands up to him and does not bow down and kiss their bottoms goodbye for him.  He’s tried this with many states when they passed voter ID laws.  He bullied and harassed Sheriff Joe Arpaio because he dared to defy Obama and investigate Obama’s birth certificate.

President Obama is the most corrupt and despicable president our country has ever had.  He considers himself to be above the law, above Congress and above the Constitution.  He is still actively engaged in giving aide and support to our enemies (Egypt for one) which are the definable terms for the charge of treason according to the US Constitution.  He is not acting as our president but rather our dictator.  He’s not any different than Fidel Castro or any other dictator in history.

If the report on the governors receiving National Security Letters is true, then America could well be on verge of a national showdown between state governors and the federal government.  What better way is it for Obama to rid himself of some of his most ardent state opposition leaders than to start charging them with treason, the very crime that he is guilty of several times over?

Read more:


Immigration Reform Illegals Will Receive $592,000 More In Benefits Than They’ll Pay in Taxes

1 Comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

This is the best argument I have heard for rounding

up and deporting  all  eleven million.

Please do not tell me that can not be done.

Look up Operation Wet Back or use the link I have provided.

The Left would really raise Hell but it can be done.


The Heritage Foundation, headed by former Sen. Jim DeMint, recently concluded an analysis of the Immigration Reform bill being pushed by the Gang of 8 and the results are economically devastating.  The legalization of 11 million illegal aliens will suck the very life out of many of our benefit and welfare programs.

They looked at four categories of benefits:

1)  Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance and worker’s compensation, all of which are direct benefits they would receive.

2)  Welfare benefits where they found over 80 different programs that would cost nearly $900 billion dollars a year.

3)  Next they looked at the cost of public education which they calculated to run $12,300 per student per year.  This cost is generally free or subsidized for lower income families.

4) They looked at the costs of population based services.  These services include things like police and fire departments, highways and roads, parks and recreation, and other local and state provided services.

Believe it or not, the average cost per household in America for all of these different government benefits and services added up to $31,584 in 2010 for just the four categories listed above.

The study goes on to break down costs in many areas and then it also calculates the approximate taxes that the 11 million illegals will pay over their lifetimes once they become legal.  You can read the rest of the details here.  The bottom line is that the 11 million illegals to legals will receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services.  They will pay an estimated $3.1 trillion in taxes.  That leaves a net cost of $6.3 trillion.

Are we willing to add $6.3 million to the national debt just to give legal amnesty to 11 million people who violated federal law by entering the United States illegally?  If you answered yes, then please explain where the government is going to get the $6.3 trillion to cover to this debt?

Honestly, I believe the situation is worse than what the Heritage Foundation reported.  The legalization of 11 million illegal PLUS an approval to allow another 1 million immigrants to come to the US to take jobs from American citizens will further weaken our economy and make the job market worse than it is now.  More Americans will lose their jobs to these illegals.  Then they’ll lost their homes and families.  The repercussions will be utterly devastating to the overall US economy making the net cost of the immigration reform bill to be significantly more than the $6.3 trillion predicted by the Heritage Foundation.

Read more:


DeMint rejects immigration bill authored by Gang of Eight

1 Comment

This is from The Washington Examiner.

Has the Bloods and Crips taken over Washington,D.C?

It sure sounds like it with all of these gangs of 6,8 or 14.

Why not trying to listening to the will of the people?

Look At the traitors in the gang of eight.



Gang of Eight 2013 CA MARCH


Former U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, now head of the conservative Heritage Foundation, is rejecting the “Gang of Eight” immigration legislation released on Wednesday, saying it would be too costly and would reward those who came to the United States illegally with amnesty.

Before leaving Congress earlier this year, DeMint was among the most conservative lawmakers in the Senate and he helped establish its growing Tea Party coalition. Among the Tea Party proteges he left behind is Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who is a key member of the Gang of Eight and the top spokesman for the immigration compromise.

DeMint, however, called the plan championed by Rubio, “incomprehensible.”

He makes his case on the Heritage Foundation website.

“The Gang of Eight bill introduced in the U.S. Senate violates the very rule of law principle that creates opportunity for immigrants and makes America a beacon of hope for the world,” DeMint writes. “Giving legal residency to the 11 million people who came here illegally has one definition: amnesty. Amnesty rewards unlawful behavior and diminishes opportunity and prosperity for lawful immigrants and all Americans.”

DeMint also points to the “significant cost to taxpayers,” the compromise would impose, at a time when the nation is grappling with a $17 trillion debt, by opening up entitlement programs to millions of people.

The Gang of Eight bill, is more than 800 pages and proponents want to vote on it in the coming weeks.

DeMint recommends shelving the bill and instead passing reform “in a transparent, step-by-step process” rather than in one massive piece of legislation.

“This will build trust with the American people and unite the country rather than divide it,” DeMint writes.


EPA’s Tier 3 Tyranny

Leave a comment

This is from Joe For America.

How much will the cost of gasoline soar?

How many companies fail due to the regulations?

How many people will be unemployed?

The EPA needs to be abolished.

High cost, no benefit does nothing to forestall agency’s quest for ecological utopia…

President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has already promulgated a tsunami of 1,920 regulations, many of which will bring few health or environmental benefits, but will impose high economic and unemployment costs, often to advance the Administration’s decidedly anti-hydrocarbon agenda. The Heritage Foundation has calculated that his EPA’s twenty “major” rulemaking decisions (costing $100 million or more annually) alone could cost the United States over $36 billion per year.

The latest example involves a third layer (or tier) of rules that the agency says will clean the nation’s air and save lives, by forcing refineries to remove more sulfur and other impurities from gasoline. EPA and refiners call the proposal Tier 3 rulemaking. Tier 3 tyranny is more accurate – as the rules would cost billions of dollars but bring infinitesimal benefits, and will likely be imposed regardless.

Since 1970, America’s cars have eliminated some 99% of pollutants that once came out of tailpipes. “Today’s cars are essentially zero-emission vehicles, compared to 1970 models,” says air pollution expert Joel Schwartz, co-author of Air Quality in America.

In addition, he notes, more recent models start out cleaner and stay cleaner throughout their lives. “As a result, fleet turnover has been reducing on-road emissions by an average of about 8 to10 percent per year.” Over time, that has brought tremendously improved air quality, and continues to do so.

Moreover, since 2004, under Tier 1 and 2 rules, refiners have reduced sulfur in gasoline from an average of 300 ppm to 30 ppm – a 90% drop, on top of previous reductions. Those benefits are likewise ongoing. Using EPA’s own computer models and standards, a recent ENVIRON International study concluded that “large benefits in ground-level ozone concentrations will have accrued by 2022 as a direct result” of Tier 1 and Tier 2 emission standards and lower gasoline sulfur levels” that are already required by regulation.

By 2022, those existing emission reduction requirements will slash volatile organic pollutants by a further 62%, carbon monoxide by another 51% and nitrous oxides 80% more – beyond reductions achieved between 1970 and 2004.

But even this is not enough for EPA, which now wants sulfur levels slashed to 10 ppm – even though the agency’s models demonstrate that Tier 3 rules, on top of these earlier and ongoing reductions, would bring essentially zero air quality or health benefits.

Viewed another way, further Tier 3 improvements would amount to reduced monthly ozone levels of only 1.2 parts per billion (peak levels) to 0.5 ppb (average levels). These minuscule improvements (equivalent to 5-12 cents out of $100 million) could not even have been measured by equipment existing a couple decades ago. Their contribution to improved human health would be essentially zero

assumepositionTo achieve those zero benefits, the new Tier 3 standards would cost $10 billion in upfront capital expenditures and an additional $2.4 billion in annual compliance expenses, the American Petroleum Institute says. The sulfur rules will raise the price of gasoline by 6-9 cents a gallon, on top of new fuel tax hikes and gasoline prices that have rocketed from $1.79 to $3.68 per gallon of regular unleaded over the past four years. These and other hikes will ripple throughout the economy, affecting commuting and shipping, the cost of goods and services, the price of travel and vacations. (White House and EPA officials claim the Tier 3 rules would only add only a penny per gallon to gasoline costs, but that is highly dubious.)

EPA believes the additional sulfur reductions are technologically possible. Its attitude seems to be, if it can be done, we will require it, no matter how high the cost, or how minimal the benefits.

Citizens need to tell EPA: “The huge improvements to date are enough for now. We have other crucial health, environmental, employment and economic problems to solve – which also affect human health and welfare. We don’t have the financial, human or technological resources to do it all – especially to waste billions on something where the quantifiable health benefits payback is minimal, or even zero.”

Moreover, there are better ways to reduce traffic-related urban air pollution. Improve traffic light sequencing, to speed traffic flow, save fuel, and reduce idling, emissions, driver stress and accidents, for example. That’s where our efforts should be concentrated.

Another basic problem is that EPA always assumes there is no safe threshold level for pollutants – and pollution must always and constantly be ratcheted downward, eventually to zero, regardless of cost.

This flies in the face of what any competent epidemiologist knows: the dose makes the poison. There is a point below which a chemical is not harmful. There are even chemicals which at low or trace quantities are essential to proper operation of our muscular, brain and other bodily functions – but at higher doses can be poisonous. There are also low-level chemical, radiation and pathogen exposures that actually safeguard our bodies from cancer, illness and other damage, in a process known as hormesis.

Even worse, this Tier 3 tyranny is on top of other highly suspect EPA actions. The agency has conducted illegal experiments on humans, used secret email accounts to hide collaborations with radical environmentalist groups, and implemented 54.5 mpg vehicle mileage standards that will maim and kill thousands more people every year, by forcing them into smaller, lighter, less safe cars.

EPA also expanded the ethanol mandate to promote corn-based E15 fuels (15% ethanol in gasoline). That means we must turn even more food into fuel, to replace hydrocarbons that we again have in abundance (thanks to fracking and other new technologies) but our government won’t allow us to develop, and to substitute for cellulosic ethanol that doesn’t exist (but EPA tells refiners they must use anyway). So corn farmers get rich, while consumers pay more for gasoline, meat, fish, eggs, poultry and other products.

The agency is also waging war on coal, automobiles and the Keystone XL pipeline – based on assertions that carbon dioxide emissions are causing “dangerous manmade global warming.” Even the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, NASA, British Meteorological Office, and many once alarmist scientists now acknowledge that average planetary temperatures have not budged in 16 years, and hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts and sea level rise have shown no statistically significant variation from century-long averages – even as CO2 levels have “soared” to 395 ppm (0.0395% of Earth’s atmosphere). True scientists increasingly recognize solar and other complex, interconnected natural forces as the primary drivers of Earth’s ever changing and unpredictable weather and climate.

These inconvenient truths have apparently had no effect on Administration thinking. Perhaps rising indoor CO2 emissions from larger EPA and White House staffs have “weirded” their thinking. The EPA’s yellow brick road to Eco-Utopia is not one our nation should travel. It will not take us to an economic recovery, more jobs, a cleaner environment, or improved human safety, health and welfare.

Nothing in the Clean Air Act says EPA needs to promulgate these rules. But nothing says it can’t do so. It’s largely discretionary, and this Administration is determined to “interpret” the science and use its executive authority to restrict and penalize hydrocarbon use – and “fundamentally transform” America.

EPA administrator nominee Gina McCarthy says EPA will “consider” industry and other suggestions that it revise greenhouse gas and other proposed rules. However, neither she nor the President has said they will modify or moderate any policies or proposals, or retreat from their climate change agenda.

We are desperately in need of science-based legislative standards, commonsense regulatory actions, and adult supervision by Congress and the courts. Unfortunately, that is not likely to be forthcoming anytime soon, and neither Republican Senators nor the House of Representatives seem to have the power, attention span or spine to do what is necessary. Where this all will end is therefore anyone’s guess.

Obamacare May Hike Your Pet’s Health Care Bills


This is from the Heritage Foundation‘s The Foundry.

Obamacare is going to screw us over in ways never imagined.

We are going to see jobs lost and doctor’s offices closing.

Once more time I will say elections have consequences.



American health care consumers aren’t the only ones who will be hit by slated Obamacare tax hikes. Medical bills for their pets may go up as well.

According to a rule published Friday by the Internal Revenue Service, some medical devices used in veterinary practices will be hit by Obamacare’s 2.3 percent device tax. Many of their manufacturers are expected to hike prices, meaning higher veterinary costs for the nation’s pet owners.

The tax will not hit devices that are used exclusively for veterinary purposes. But a host of such devices are manufactured for use in both human health care and veterinary practices. Those devices’ manufacturers will have to pay the tax.

The IRS rule states:

Section 4191 [of the Internal Revenue Code] limits the definition of a taxable medical device to devices described in section 201(h) of the [Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act] that are intended for humans, but does not provide that the device must be intended exclusively for humans. Under existing [Food and Drug Administration] regulations, a device intended for use exclusively in veterinary medicine is not required to be listed as a device with the FDA, whereas a device intended for use in human medicine is required to be listed as a device with the FDA even if the device may also be used in veterinary medicine.

According to the FDA, common “dual use” medical devices are “examination gloves, sterile catheters, infusion pumps, etc.”

The device tax is expected to raise costs for consumers. A recent survey of 181 manufacturers found that a 52.5 percent majority plan to “pass along some or all of the increased cost [of the tax] to our consumers.” Among North American manufacturers, the portion who said they would raise prices was an even higher 58 percent.

“Across the board there is bigger inclination among firms to raise prices and pass on costs to customers as a way to deal with the US tax,” the survey found.

Pet owners already spend more than $12 billion on veterinary care annually. Obamacare may make it even more expensive to care for your pet.


Newer Entries

%d bloggers like this: