NYT best-selling author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza spoke to a sold out crowd of conservative students at YAF’s High School Conference at the Reagan Ranch.
Carolina Journal – Legislation proposed by Forest could prevent further violations, says advocate for Millennials. North Carolina State University recently tossed out a rule that evangelical campus group Grace Christian Life said blocked its free-speech rights, a move that may set a precedent for statewide reform of controversial speech policies on University of North Carolina system campuses.
GCL on Tuesday abandoned a lawsuit against N.C. State following the school’s decision to dissolve a policy that required student groups to apply for a permit before they were allowed to distribute literature or solicit other students on campus. Anna Beavon Gravely, state director of Generation Opportunity, a free-market group representing Millennials, told Carolina Journal a legislative proposal from Lt. Gov. Dan Forest protecting free expression on campuses could prevent similar instances of free-speech violations at other North Carolina public universities.
The conflict at N.C. State began during April when university administrators prevented members of GCL from passing out flyers because the group had failed to secure a permit.
Group members, who had been issued 20 different permits prior to the incident, sought legal representation from Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal advocacy organization that defends the free-exercise rights of religious individuals and groups.
“The university only selectively enforced its permit policy and did so against Grace Christian Life,” ADF stated in a July 19 press release, following N.C. State’s decision to dissolve the rule in question.
Click here to read more.
Gun grabbers are often very clever in how they argue about the right to keep and bear arms. However, their rationalizations for gun control policies are often confusing. In reality, they either don’t quite fully realize, or don’t care to admit, the true reason they favor gun control laws regardless of the practical impacts.
When their contradictory theories about the Second Amendment fail, they sometimes reframe the discussion by appealing to presumed “gun sense.”
“Fine. People might have a right to own guns. But nobody needs an assault weapon!”
This argument is a head fake; they initially acknowledge gun rights, only to push for restricting people’s access to certain guns.They also presume the sale by phrasing the question as though everyone knows what an “assault weapon” is.
But what exactly do they mean when they refer to “assault weapons?”
No one really has a clear answer.
It’s why assault weapon bans can be so difficult to create and enforce. Lawmakers don’t have a working definition, just a general concept. Legislation requires specificity because ambiguity invites loopholes.
Yet the vagueness surrounding “assault weapons” doesn’t negate the intense emotions involved in the discussions. Nothing infuriates a gun control activist more than the sight of a civilian holding certain types of weapons. They can’t describe what an “assault weapons” is precisely, but they know it when they see it.
What you’ll find is that they’re not responding to the firearm’s caliber, capacity or features.
What was your initial reaction to them? Did you have the same reaction to both? Probably not.
Chances are, if you were to show those pictures to a gun control proponent and ask which one is an assault rifle, they would select the second rifle. Click here to read more.
Click here to read: The Next Time Someone Calls an AR-15 an Assault Rifle, Show Them This.
Click here to watch video.
The New American – Black Lives Matter. It is a hashtag and a mantra. It is a battle cry in the war on police. But is it more than that? Does it mean anything when the Black Lives Matter (BLM) crowd says, “black lives matter”? The actions of both the activists within the movement and the crowds agitated by their rhetoric do not indicate that black lives matter to BLM.
While the BLM crowd insists that the phrase “Black Lives Matter” includes the silent and implied “Too” as in “Black Lives Matter, Too,” the reality is that it actually includes the silent and implied “Some” as in “Some Black Lives Matter.” Because as one black police officer, Jay Stalien, pointed out, both his experience and his research — begun in an effort to make sense of his experience — convinced him that, because of the hateful narrative of the BLM crowd:
Black Lives do not matter to most black people. Only the lives that make the national news matter to them. Only the lives that are taken at the hands of cops or white people, matter. The other thousands of lives lost, the other black souls that I along with every cop, have seen taken at the hands of other blacks, do not matter. Their deaths are unnoticed, accepted as the “norm”, and swept underneath the rug by the very people who claim and post “black lives matter”.
BLM is employing a common tactic of subversives: divide and conquer. By drawing the battle lines along racial lines, the “leaders” (read “agitators”) of the movement have largely succeeded in blurring the fact that this issue is not about race; it is about culture.
Click here to read more.
Question for “Black Lives Matter”. Do you know that 17,760,554 black babies in the USA have been MURDERED by ABORTION between 1973 and 7/24/16? 17,760.554 black babies divided by 43 years = 413,036 black babies per year. Source: http://www.numberofabortions.com/
The common understanding of the famous Marbury v. Madison case is that it established the authority of the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution says. From there, it’s held that the Court gets to determine the limitations placed on the federal government as well as the states. In short, the rest of the federal government, and the states, are bound by what the Supreme Court decides.
But is that the truth? A paper from Northwestern University School of Law Constitutional Theory Colloquium Series seeks to clear up the myths associated with the Marbury decision. In the first sentence of his 2004 paper, “The Irrepressible Myth of Marbury,” Michael Stokes Paulsen sets the mood for the rest: Nearly all of American constitutional law today rests on a myth.
“A long, long time ago — 1803, if the storyteller is trying to be precise — in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court of the United States created the doctrine of ‘judicial review.’ Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court to decide the meaning of the Constitution and to strike down laws that the Court finds unconstitutional.”
This myth, he continues, allows the Supreme Court to dictate what the Constitution means via “opinions,” i.e. ex cathedra pronouncements. Though those rulings are supposed to be binding and create a firm precedent, this doesn’t stop them from being overruled by future courts.
“Nearly every feature of the myth is wrong,” Paulsen writes. “For openers, Marbury v. Madison did not create the concept of judicial review, but (in this respect) applied well-established principles. The idea that courts possess an independent power and duty to interpret the law, and in the course of doing so must refuse to give effect to acts of the legislature that contravene the Constitution, was well accepted by the time Marbury rolled around, more than a dozen years after the Constitution was ratified.”
Alexander Hamilton addressed this in Federalist No. 78, writing that the Constitution itself was supreme over any law or ruling.
The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. . . .(emphasis added).
Click here to read more.
Click here to read: Supreme Court opinions are NOT LAW.
In France, the Socialist government imposed a “secularism charter” in every school, banning Christianity from the educational system. Municipalities have already changed the enrollment form for schoolchildren by eliminating the words “father” and “mother”, replacing them with “legal manager 1” and “legal manager 2”. It is George Orwell’s “Newspeak”.
After two major terror attacks in 2015, France, instead of promoting a cultural “jihad” based on Western values, responded to Islamic fundamentalism with a ridiculous “Day of Secularism” to be celebrated every 9th of December.
This narrow secularism has also prevented France from openly supporting Eastern Christians under Islamist oppression.
The empty 13th century Oude Kerk church in Amsterdam is now used for exhibitions and can be rented for gala dinners. In front of it there is “Sexyland”, offering “Live F*ck Shows”, a coffee shop for drugs and an “Erotic Supermarket” for dildos. For seven euros one can also visit the church.
Click here to read more.
Buncombe County Republican Women’s Club (BCRWC) Annual Picnic in the Mountains at the Governor’s Western Residence; NOON; Debbie Meadows, wife of Congressman Mark Meadows, will be the keynote speaker. Republican candidates will also be speaking. Come out and meet your Republican candidates and enjoy a BBQ lunch! Please bring a side dish or dessert, a $5 donation to offset expenses and a toiletry item for our Veterans in need. REQUIRED RSVP to Dorothea Alderfer at email@example.com or (828) 683-2567
Click here to read more.
“Hillary’s America” opens nationwide July 22! Get your tickets now: http://www.hillarysamericathemovie.com.
Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party
Showing July 24 – 27
Regal Biltmore Grande Stadium 15 & RPX
Carmike 10 – Asheville
Epic Theatres of Hendersonville
Governor.nc.gov – “The sports and entertainment elite, Attorney General Roy Cooper and the liberal media have for months misrepresented our laws and maligned the people of North Carolina simply because most people believe boys and girls should be able to use school bathrooms, locker rooms and showers without the opposite sex present. Twenty-one other states have joined North Carolina to challenge the federal overreach by the Obama administration mandating their bathroom policies in all businesses and schools instead of allowing accommodations for unique circumstances. Left-wing special interest groups have no moral authority to try and intimidate the large majority of American parents who agree in common-sense bathroom and shower privacy for our children. American families should be on notice that the selective corporate elite are imposing their political will on communities in which they do business, thus bypassing the democratic and legal process.”
The New American – Amid all of the fanfare and speechmaking at this year’s Republican National Convention in Cleveland, the party’s “Committee on Arrangements” (as the GOP’s platform committee is now called) unveiled the Republican Platform for 2016.
Following a preamble that summarized the party’s basic principles in language that does justice to the work of America’s founding fathers, the platform then goes on to advocate a remedy for several of today’s national problems that some strict constitutionalists will find troubling: the passage of amendments to our Constitution.
The platform starts off with lofty, unobjectionable language. Among its most praiseworthy statements are:
We affirm — as did the Declaration of Independence: that all are created equal, endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
We believe in the Constitution as our founding document.
We believe the Constitution was written not as a flexible document, but as our enduring covenant.
We believe our constitutional system — limited government, separation of powers, federalism, and the rights of the people — must be preserved uncompromised for future generations.
Unfortunately, the committee’s partisanship was also revealed in statements such as “For the past 8 years America has been led in the wrong direction.” As true as the latter part of that statement is, its timing is about 80 years off. During those eight decades, Republican, as well as Democratic, presidents have led America in the wrong direction — namely, toward bigger government, usurpation of states’ rights, and an interventionist foreign policy.
Click her to read more.
Here are the first two pages of a December 2015 study by the Center for Immigration Studies on Refugee Resettlement costs. Website for full report follows. This is extremely important, because many local communities are lead to believe by the sponsors and the State Department that most of the cost will be absorbed by the Federal Government. This is extremely misleading. First of all, Federal Government costs are paid by you in Federal taxes. Secondly, most of the burden actually falls on state and local government, and there are many costs that are not included. The study was based on past experience and current welfare burden rates for Middle Eastern refugees, whose average education in just 10.5 years.
Just to highlight a few: The cost for one refugees over the first five years is $64,370 or $12,874 per year. The dost per household is $257,481 for the first five years or $51,496 per household per year. The lifetime costs would be much higher as lower educated immigrants seldom pay more taxes of all kinds than benefits and services drawn. Senator Jeff Sessions (R,AL) just released some similar statistics. I assume CIS was a main source.
In addition, there are public health, public safety, and educational burdens that must be borne by the state and local communities.
Handling refugees in safe Middle Eastern zones costs only one twelfth what it cost in the U.S.!!!!!
Although many church sponsors believe refugees are a good mission field, State Department regulations forbid the use of the program for that purpose. The large sponsors of these programs are paid on a per capita basis, which is a built in conflict of interests.
The experience of many communities is that State Department and Federal Refugee organizations will roll right over citizens and local government unless they show strong resistance.
The Asheville area and 50 mile radius is one of ten top refugee targets in Federal and North Carolina Refugee Plans. Your County Commissioners, City governments, and State and Federal Legislators must actively oppose this or you’ll get run over by the Obama Fundamental Change of America. This is not just a matter of voting in November. You must work now to make sure your local elected officials strong oppose the Refugee Plans now in the planning stage.
By Mike Scruggs
The Tenth Amendment Center – LINCOLN, Neb. (July 20, 2016) – Today, civil asset forfeiture officially ends in Nebraska as reforms to asset forfeiture laws passed in the spring go into effect. Under the new law, the state can no longer take property without a criminal conviction. The legislation also takes on federal forfeiture programs by banning prosecutors from circumventing state laws by passing cases off to the feds in most situations.
Sen. Tommy Garrett (R-Bellevue) introduced Legislature Bill 1106 (LB1106) in January. The new law reforms Nebraska law by requiring a criminal conviction before prosecutors can proceed with asset forfeiture. Under the old statute, the state could seize assets even if a person was never found guilty of a crime, or even arrested.
The unicameral legislature passed LB1106 by a 38-8 vote.
“Civil forfeiture is one of the most serious assaults on due process and private property rights in America today. By passing LB 1106, lawmakers will ensure that only convicted criminals—and not innocent Nebraskans—lose their property to forfeiture,” Institute for Justice (IJ) Legislative Counsel Lee McGrath said.
ADDRESSES FEDERAL PROGRAMS
LB1106 also closes a loophole that allows prosecutors to bypass more stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government under its Equitable Sharing forfeiture program. The following language shuts the loophole in most cases:
No law enforcement agency or prosecuting authority of this state or its political subdivisions shall transfer or refer any money or property to a federal law enforcement authority or other federal agency by any means unless
(1) The money or property seized exceeds twenty-five thousand dollars in currency or value;
(2) The money or property is physically seized by a federal agent who is employed by the federal government; or
(3) The person from whom the money or property was seized is the subject of a federal prosecution or the facts and circumstances surrounding the money or property seized are the subject of a federal prosecution.
Click here to read more.
The Tenth Amendment Center – “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.”
America is a ticking time bomb.
All that remains to be seen is who—or what—will set fire to the fuse.
We are poised at what seems to be the pinnacle of a manufactured breakdown, with police shooting unarmed citizens, snipers shooting police, global and domestic violence rising, and a political showdown between two presidential candidates equally matched in unpopularity.
The preparations for the Republican and Democratic national conventions taking place in Cleveland and Philadelphia—augmented by a $50 million federal security grant for each city—provide a foretaste of how the government plans to deal with any individual or group that steps out of line: they will be censored, silenced, spied on, caged, intimidated, interrogated, investigated, recorded, tracked, labeled, held at gunpoint, detained, restrained, arrested, tried and found guilty.
For instance, anticipating civil unrest and mass demonstrations in connection with the Republican Party convention, Cleveland officials set up makeshift prisons, extra courtrooms to handle protesters, and shut down a local university in order to house 1,700 riot police and their weapons. The city’s courts are preparing to process up to 1,000 people a day. Additionally, the FBI has also been conducting “interviews” with activists in advance of the conventions to discourage them from engaging in protests.
Make no mistake, the government is ready for a civil uprising.
Indeed, the government has been preparing for this moment for years.
Click here to read more.
Carolina Journal – In 2009, the General Assembly passed a law prohibiting online bullying of juveniles. The rarely-used law recently was struck down as unconstitutional, with the N.C. Supreme Court holding that the poorly worded law violates First Amendment free-speech rights.
During the 2011-12 school year, Dillion Price was a sophomore at Southern Alamance High School. Soon after the term began, several of Price’s classmates began posting derogatory pictures and comments on his Facebook page. Price’s mother eventually discovered the posts and contacted local law enforcement.
Robert Bishop was arrested in February 2012 and charged with one count of cyberbullying for comments he made online toward Price, including, “Anyone who would be so defensive over Dillion can’t be too intelligent;” “I never got to slap him down before Christmas Break,” followed by a “sad face” emoticon; and “I heard that his anus was permanently stressed from having awkwardly shaped penises in it.”
A jury convicted Bishop, who received a sentence of 30 days in jail, which was suspended, and four years of supervised probation.
Click here to read more.
The New American – Under the guise of fighting “violence against children,” the Obama administration has joined forces with socalist foreign regimes and various United Nations agencies in a “global partnership” to wage war on parental rights. The controversial worldwide initiative, which aims to criminalize spanking and smacking as disciplinary tools, among other things, is part of the UN’s Agenda 2030, also known as the “Sustainable Development Goals.”
Essentially, the UN is betting that framing the assault on families as a bid to end “violence against children” — something nobody in their right mind would oppose — will make it easier to pursue the sidelining of parents. The plan also calls for vast new data-gathering capabilities to ensure children are being raised in accordance with extreme UN standards that were unthinkable even a few years ago. But opponents of the UN agenda argue that the global organization itself is among the lead violators of children’s rights — and parents, by contrast, are the primary protectors of children.
Click here to read more.
The Henderson County, NC County Commission unanimously passed a resolution rejecting Federal Refugee Settlement programs. They further called upon Governor McCrory to reject Federal Refugee programs for the entire state and on North Carolina’s Federal and State Legislators to do the same. Congressman Mark Meadows of NC District 11 has already taken a strong position against refugee settlements in the 11th District.
Click here to read: Refugee Resettlement Resolution.
Check out the stats by clicking here of the deaths due to murder by abortion.
Note: in the U.S. that the number of deaths due to gun violence for 2016 so far is 7,584. Source: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/.
So, Abortion in the U.S. by far kills more people than guns, 596,233 more so far this year.
Gatestoneinstitute.org – “All the bullying happens in Arabic… The hierarchy of the Arab boys creates a very violent environment. … I have filmed the http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7648/denmark-shariaparticularly vile bullying of a Somali boy. You can see the tears in his eyes. They are destroying him; it is very violent. ” — From a dissertation by Jalal El Derbas, Ph.D.
Danish teachers are the least respected and are spoken of in denigrating and humiliating terms.
“I am not saying that all the Arab children did ugly things, but we witnessed on a regular basis… using derogatory Arabic language towards Somalis and girls.” — Lise Egholm, former head of the Rådmandsgade school in Copenhagen.
Whether Danish parliamentarians wish to acknowledge this problem or not, they are up against far wider issues than that of religious incitement in mosques by radical preachers.
After the television documentary, “Sharia in Denmark”, embarrassed Danish authorities by revealing how widespread the preaching of sharia is in mosques in Denmark, the Danish government, in May, concluded a political agreement about “initiatives directed against religious preachers who seek to undermine Danish laws and values and who support parallel legal systems”.
Click here to read more.
To read Sharia in Denmark Part I click here.