GBTV - Where the Truth Lives

Election Season 2014

And it has brought us to this trainwreck called ObamaCare and we have bankrupted our kids and grandkids!

We are now headed into the 2014 Election Season and common sense and conservatism are on the rise. Please stand-up and be counted!

Reading Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election is a great place to start!

The Founding Father's Real Reason for the Second Amendment

And remember the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." See Video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s Congressional Testimony: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For, below (u-tube HERE).

The Leaders Are Here... Palin, Cruz, Lee, Paul, Chaffetz....

T'S A WONDERFUL LIFE

Can You Really Still Believe That None of These People Would Have Done a Better Job???

Bloggers' Rights at EFF

SIGN THE PETITION TODAY...

Showing posts with label States Stand up to Feds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label States Stand up to Feds. Show all posts

Monday, November 19, 2012

Republican governors decide against setting up ObamaCare insurance markets

Fox News  -  True Health Is True Wealth:

Video: Rick Perry on Neil Cavuto… Not Setting up ObamaCare Insurance Markets

Several Republican governors, in what could be their last symbolic stand against ObamaCare, announced Rick PerryFriday that they will not set up a state-based marketplace for selling health insurance.

A total of 20 states have now decided not to implement their own exchanges -- which could also mean increased costs for the federal government.

The governors of Wisconsin and Ohio joined Texas Gov. Rick Perry and others in confirming that they will not establish so-called "health insurance exchanges," which are set to launch in January 2014. Under the federal health care overhaul, these exchanges will act as virtual markets where people and small businesses can shop for private coverage in a regulated environment. Many will also be eligible for government subsidies.

The governors' move does not stop those exchanges from being implemented. Rather, it kicks the project back to the federal government to run with regard to those states. While a number of states, largely those run by Democrats, will establish their own exchanges, Republicans who declined argued that it wasn't worth the cost and resources to set up a marketplace that would be under the thumb of the federal government anyway.

"As long as the federal government has the ability to force unknown mandates and costs upon our citizens, while retaining the sole power in approving what an exchange looks like, the notion of a state exchange is merely an illusion," Perry wrote in a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. "It would not be fiscally responsible to put hard-working Texans on the financial hook for an unknown amount of money to operate a system under rules that have not even been written."

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said the same, writing in a letter to Sebelius Friday that "no matter which option is chosen, Wisconsin taxpayers will not have meaningful control over the health care policies and services sold to Wisconsin residents." With that in mind, he wrote, the state has decided not to build its own system. Ohio Gov. John Kasich echoed that point of view.

Republican governors have been largely opposed to the health care law anyway. But for months, they were effectively waiting to see if the Supreme Court would overturn it or whether Obama would lose re-election and potentially leave an opening to repeal it. Neither of those things happened.

Walker was among those who stopped implementation last year on the hopes the law would be overturned either by the U.S. Supreme Court or Republicans following the November election.

Thursday evening, the Obama administration responded to a request for more time from Republican governors on the exchange question by granting states a month's extension, until Dec. 14.

A few states have signaled they want to partner with the federal government, as opposed to running it themselves or handing the reins to Washington. Those states would handle consumer issues and oversight of health plans in the exchanges, while the feds do the heavy lifting by enrolling individuals for coverage and determining who's eligible for government assistance. Among these states are Arkansas and North Carolina.

The number of partnership states could grow significantly, since the Obama administration has given states until next February to decide on that option.

Obama's election victory virtually guaranteed the survival of his health care law, which is eventually expected to provide coverage to more than 30 million people through the exchanges and expanded Medicaid programs. It was the final hurdle, after the Supreme Court upheld a legal challenge from 26 states. In the aftermath of the election, some Republican state leaders say it's time to accept the law.

"I don't like it; I would not vote for it; I think it needs to be repealed. But it is the law," said Mississippi Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney, after announcing that his state wants to set up its own exchange. "If you default to the federal government, you forever give the keys to the state's health insurance market to the federal government."

Traditionally, states have regulated the private health insurance market.

But other Republican-led states say they don't have enough information to make a decision at this point and are clamoring for the Obama administration to release major regulations that have been bottled up for months.

"States are struggling with many unanswered questions and are not able to make comprehensive far-reaching decisions prudently," Govs. Bob McDonnell of Virginia and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana wrote Obama earlier this week. They asked for a meeting with the president, as well as a postponement of the original Nov. 16 deadline.

Some of their main concerns are hidden costs of operating the exchanges and the sheer bureaucratic complexity of the new system. The Obama administration has steadfastly maintained it will not postpone the Jan. 1, 2014, launch date for the law's coverage expansion. Open enrollment for exchange plans will begin even sooner, Oct. 1, 2013.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Related: 

Rick Perry: 'Another federal power grab'

Perry may not have last say on health care

Medical giant Stryker cuts 1,170 jobs, citing ObamaCare

Monday, October 29, 2012

Forum – Is DOMA Unconstitutional?

JoshuaPundit on Oct 29 2012 at 12:36 am - The Council Forum

Last week, the New York State Appeals Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.

The ruling itself was based on a very narrow criteria, since there was a plaintiff that obviously suffered financial damages because of a spousal deduction she would otherwise have received on the estate tax on her deceased partner’s estate as a result. But with the Supreme Court set to rule on the Constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, this week the Council addresses the question: Is DOMA unconstitutional? How will the recent ruling affect coming Supreme Court ruling on Same Sex Marriage?:

The Independent Sentinel: I don’t want the federal government involved in this at all. I prefer it be a states rights issue. I feel the same way about abortion. I am opposed to big government and I am against changing the constitution for social issues.

I think DOMA will be found unconstitutional but I think it should be found Constitutional on the basis of states rights and the right of people to choose.

I will become concerned about this issue if it begins to affect freedom of religion. Religions that only marry one man and one woman must be allowed to do so or I don’t think we can call ourselves free any longer.

I believe the only civil rights issue in this country is the abuse of African-Americans through slavery and decades of oppression. No other issue, not even an important social choice issue, should take away from that.

The Colossus of Rhodey: It seems the main problem the recent court ruling against DOMA has is with the law’s Section 3 which defines marriage *federally* as between a man and a woman. The ruling invoked “equal protection;” if the SCOTUS rules as the circuit court did, it will enshrine a right to collect benefits (from the feds) for legally married gay couples. BUT — it wouldn’t necessarily mean that the rest of DOMA would be stricken. The Act allows states to decide whether they want to recognize gay marriages (and those performed in other states), and a cursory reading of the Constitution’s Article IV shows that this part of the law *should be* constitutional re: the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Clause notes that “And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” In other words, those in favor of striking the entire law would have to demonstrate how Congress does *not* have the right to prescribe how its laws are enacted, or, in this case, why another state would *not* have the right to refuse to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state.

It will be difficult to guess what the SCOTUS will rule. If the states still get to decide the question of marriage, then could a gay couple still be able to collect federal benefits from a non-gay marriage state (if they were “married,” in a state which allowed such, but they didn’t actually *reside* in such a state)? If so, how and why? Or, can only those who were [gay] married in a state which allowed such unions be permitted to collect such benefits?

The Glittering Eye: There are two ways of answering that question. The answer in law is absolutely, positively not. But the practical answer is different. The practical answer is that whatever the currently sitting Supreme Court justices say is unconstitutional is unconstitutional.

I’m guessing that, considering that there’s a majority of sexual libertarians on the court,the present Court will strike down the DOMA.

The Noisy Room: Yes, DOMA is unconstitutional for the simple reason that its foundation premise, that government has any business moderating marriage, is fundamentally broken. DOMA falls into that broader fascist category of “good ideas enforced at gun point.” If a constitutional foundation can be found and established for the concept that government is somehow the appropriate arbiter of the act of marriage at all, then a case can be made for DOMA because to the degree that government brokers marriage, government must then define it. However, the constitution offers no support for what was at the time a cultural and religious construct which more modernly, has been annexed as one of the “proper functions” of government.

I don’t see any constitutional support for it and in fact, it plays into the concept that government can replace religion. And this is one of the greasier slopes on which one can embark. This goes further to a broader premise that government somehow owns “citizens,” or as the British prefer to call them, “subjects.” As the premise broadens, it encroaches on education (all your kids are belong to us) and “health and welfare.” We have to keep you healthy so you are productive, our revenue depends on it. This, then, “logically” flows into mandated morality, and while actual crime is a province of government, what you eat for breakfast, how you iron your shirts and with whom you spend your nights is not. See Atlas Shrugged.

So, although this is a blatant attempt to pander to the gay community by Obama, DOMA is not constitutional in my viewpoint. Marriage is a personal (or religious) act, not a government province.

Bookworm Room: Yes, I do believe that DOMA is unconstitutional. The Constitution does not contemplate marriage at a federal level. For that reason, it is a matter that, technically speaking, should be left to the states. Having said that, let’s get to the modern wrinkles. When the Constitution was ratified, the Founders could not have imagined same-sex marriage. It did not exist at the time. Had the notion existed, the Founders might have chosen to address marriage in the Constitution for one very specific reason: The full faith and credit clause, which obligates each state to recognize the duly passed laws of the other states. The problem with laws that provide fundamentally different definitions of marriage (such as those allowing polygamy or same sex marriage) is that, as people move from one state to another, they may be legally married in State A, but not in State B. Any subsequent property, child custody, or third party contract disputes become a nightmare.

With new definitions of marriage never imagined by the Founders, the correct way to deal with the issue is through a Constitutional amendment. If I could draft the amendment, I would remove “marriage” from government control and leave it solely to religious institutions to “marry” people. Government should have power over “civil unions,” and that power should be exercised in whatever way is most beneficial to advance state goals of economic stability, generational property transfers, and the overall best situation for children. Civil unions could certainly encompass same sex couples. I would be loath to extend civil unions to polygamy, though, because of the problems with economic stability and generational property transfers. (England, which legally recognizes polygamous marriages from Muslim countries, demonstrates that, in a Western culture, it’s hard for a single man to support multiple women. These polygamous families end up using welfare disproportionately.)

I’m deeply concerned that, if same sex “marriage” becomes a constitutional right, we’ll have a major constitutional clash between church and state, one that makes the current fight over funding abortion look like a kindergarten party. Think of it: In the Catholic faith, marriage is a sacrament. Can you imagine what will happen to the First Amendment freedom of religion if it crashes headlong into some new amendment mandating gay “marriage.” If, however, the state passes an amendment recognizing civil unions, churches can continue to marry whomever their doctrine recognizes.

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it. And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

Monday, November 14, 2011

Obama State Ballot Challenge 2012

Congress and the Department of Justice have failed us in allowing an un-Constitutionally qualified Barack Hussein Obama to be sworn in and remain in office. What’s even worse, is that Obama feels he is above the law – and he has been. Obama has committed many criminal and un-Constitutional activities.

The citizens of this country were not ready for our federal government to fail us regarding Obama’s usurpation of the White House. Ballot challenge deadlines were missed and state Secretaries of State used this as their excuse to not stop the confirmation of the 2008 election.

WE ARE READY NOW!!!!!!! This campaign against Obama and his handlers will prevail!

The OBAMA STATE BALLOT CHALLENGE 2012 is what is going to stop Obama from taking office again in 2012. Obama’s name on the ballot will be legally challenged in every state. The evidence of a forged birth certificate on whitehouse.gov and the evidence that he is using a Connecticut social security number that does not belong to him, will be submitted in each court. The problem from 2008 is that all of the state deadlines were missed because they are only typically a few days after the Party files their nominee’s name with the state. The deadlines will not be missed this time. Ballot challenge laws and procedures from each state will be posted here and a new website to come.

The Democrat party should try to save face and expose Obama and remove him from the 2012 ticket now and nominate someone else. Democrat party, the odds are not in your favor, remove Obama now to avoid further criminal implication in his identity fraud crimes. In addition to this, there is Obama’s involvement with Fast and Furious and pay to play bribery schemes from Solyndra and other “green” companies. This is just the short list.

Many citizens have volunteered to file lawsuits in their state, but we would like at least 5 people from each state to help with the lawsuits and the funding. Typically filing fees are around $350 with another $200 in other fees per state.

You do NOT need to be an attorney to file. If you would like to donate time or money please reply to this post and I will not publish the comments. A Paypal account for funding will be set up for donations in the near future. If you would like to send a check reply to this post and I will send you a business address.

The purpose of this project is to gather in one place the information needed to challenge Obamas name being placed on the ballot in each of the states, so that voters in each state know the process of how to challenge a candidates name being placed on the ballot.

For each state, there is a link for the Secretary of States office. If there is no additional information, it means that there is no information on that page regarding the process ( if any ) to challenge a candidates name before or after it is placed on the ballot ( both for the primaries and general election ). This is where you come in. We need people to contact their states Secretary of State
and find what the rules are for challenging a candidate ( for example, the number of days before or after a name is placed on the ballot when one can legally challenge ).

Once you have that information, send it to me at the Contact link above and it will be posted ( once verified ) so that others will know the process. Remember, all it takes is one state to challenge the ballot !!!

Click on any state below to receive more information on the law in your state.

Alabama

Alabama Secretary of State Office

Contact Info : Beth.Chapman@sos.alabama.gov
Information

Alaska

State of Alaska Division of Elections

Contact Info: gail.fenumiai@alaska.gov

Arizona

Arizona Secretary of State Office

Contact Info : Website Email Form
Information

Arkansas

Arkansas Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: electionsemail@sos.arkansas.gov

California

California Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form
Information

Colorado

Colorado Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: sos.elections@sos.state.co.us

Connecticut

Connecticut Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: lead@ct.gov

Delaware

Commissioner of Elections

Contact Info: Office of the State Election Commissioner

Telephone: 302-739-4277

FAX: 302-739-6794

Florida

Florida Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: secretaryofstate@dos.state.fl.us

Georgia

Georgia Secretary of State Office

Contact Info : Website Email Form

Hawaii

Office of Elections
Contact Info: elections@hawaii.gov
Information

Idaho

Idaho Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: sosinfo@sos.idaho.gov

Illinois

Illinois Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

Indiana

Indiana Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: constituent@sos.IN.gov
Information

Iowa

Iowa Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: sos@sos.state.ia.us
Information

Kansas

Kansas Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: sos@sos.ks.gov
Information

Kentucky

Kentucky Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

Louisiana

No Information

Maine

Maine Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: cec.elections@maine.gov
Information

Maryland

Maryland Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: mdsos@sos.state.md.us

Massachusetts

Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth Office

Contact Info: cis@sec.state.ma.us

Michigan

Michigan Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

Minnesota

Minnesota Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: elections.dept@state.mn.us
Information

Mississippi

Mississippi Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

Missouri

Missouri Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: elections@sos.mo.gov
Information

Montana

Montana Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: secretary@mt.gov
Information

Nebraska

Nebraska Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: sos.elect@nebraska.gov
Information

Nevada

Nevada Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: sosmail@sos.nv.gov
Information

New Hampshire

New Hampshire Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Elections@sos.state.nh.us
Information

New Jersey

New Jersey Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Feedback@sos.state.nj.us
Information

New Mexico

New Mexico Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: diannaj.duran@state.nm.us

New York

New York Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

North Carolina

North Carolina Secretary of State Office

Contact Info : Elaine F. Marshall, Secretary of State

Phone:(919) 807-2005

Fax: 807-2020

North Dakota

North Dakota Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: sos@nd.gov

Ohio

Ohio Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

Oklahoma

Oklahoma Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

Oregon

Oregon Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: elections.sos@state.or.us
Information

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: RA-BCEL@pa.gov

Rhode Island

Rhode Island Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: elections@sos.ri.gov
Information

South Carolina

South Carolina Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

South Dakota

South Dakota Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: elections@state.sd.us

Tennessee

Tennessee Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: tennessee.elections@tn.gov
Information

Texas

Texas Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: elections@sos.state.tx.us
Information

Utah

Utah Elections

Contact Info: Website Email Form

Vermont

Vermont Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: kscheele@sec.state.vt.us
Information

Virginia

Secretary of Commonwealth Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form
Information

Washington

Washington Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: elections@sos.wa.gov
Information

West Virginia

West Virginia Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

Wisconsin

Government Accountability Board

Contact Info:gab@wi.gov
Information

Wyoming

Wyoming Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: elections@state.wy.us

Note: When contacting the Secretary of State, you may get a response that he is a citizen of the United States ( as provided by the 14th Amendment ). We have seen that response before from various congressmen. Now, there is a difference between a natural born citizen and a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment. It is very easy to illustrate by looking at the 14th Amendment itself.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.

If you believe that this means these citizens of the United States are Article II natural-born US citizens then you could substitute the term citizens in the 14th Amendment with the term natural born citizens. Doing so gives this :

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are natural born citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

So, if the two terms citizens and natural born citizens are interchangeable then that would imply that naturalized citizens – those born overseas and later granted US citizenship – are eligible to become President of the United States. Even elementary school children know that is not possible and was never the intent of the Founding Fathers. Thus it is very clear that 14th Amendment citizens ARE NOT the same as natural born citizens. ( A natural born citizen is a 14th Amendment citizen, but a 14th Amendment citizen is not necessarily a natural born citizen )

In addition, you have John Bingham – the author of the 14th Amendment- stating on the floor of the House in 1866:

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen

He is clearly indicating here what a natural born citizen is. A child born of two parents (plural) not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty , i.e both parents have to be U S citizens ( not necessarily natural born citizens )

Source:  UnlawfulPresident.com  - h/t to Jean Stoner

Related:

Soros Eyes Secretaries

Eligibility Rulings Vanish From Net

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Elections and Standing up in 2010

States Should Define Limits of Fed Governments Powers

Your U.S. House & Senate have voted themselves $4,700 ‘and’ $5,300 raises.

clip_image001

1. They voted to not give you a S.S. cost of living raise in 2010 and 2011.

2. Your Medicare premiums will go up $285.60 for the 2-years and you will not get the 3% COLA or $660/yr. Your total 2-yr loss and cost is
$1,600 or $3,200 for husband and wife. Plain enough??????

3. Every member of Congress will get an added$10,000 which is putting them very close to $ 200,000 per year. Sounds like an elite class to us. clip_image002(But not quite enough to go above the mark to pay the upcoming higher taxes… and don’t forget the ‘free’ gas pump in Congress’s garage to fill up their vehicles)

4. Do you feel SCREWED? They vote themselves a raise and better benefits. They only care about WE THE PEOPLE on election day, right? You never did anything about it in the past. The time for action is near!!!!
5. Do you really think that Nancy, Harry, Chris, Charlie, Barney, et al, care about you? SEND THE MESSAGE-- clip_image003You're FIRED.


*** THIS IS NOT ABOUT POLITICAL PARTIES! IN 2010 YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO GET RID OF VIRTUALLY THE ENTIRE SITTING CONGRESS; Up to 1/3 OF THE SENATE, AND 100% OF THE HOUSE, WHICH WOULD MEAN SPEAKER PELOSI, AS WELL.***

The election in 2010 will be a sea-change to the mindset of any member of Congress who may survive.


MAKE SURE YOU'RE STILL MAD IN NOVEMBER 2010 AND REMIND THE REPLACEMENTS NOT TO SCREW UP LIKE THE GUYS THEY ARE REPLACING; OR THEY AND EVERYONE ELSE CAN GO IN 2012.

(IN THE MEANTIME… PAY ATTENTION TO THE BILLS THEY ARE PASSING!)

It really is ok to forward this to your sphere of influence if you ARE finally tired of this abuse… you would forward on a joke or junk!

Glenn On Phone Says 'History in the Making for 2010.'

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power – Cross-Posted: Daily Thought Pad